Does Jesus Love Everyone?

[Oscar]

Does Jesus Love Everyone?

I don't think so, at least not in the same way and to the same extent. For example, look at what He said in Matthew 25:31-34, 41:

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: ... Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: ..."

These verses give me the distinct impression that the Lord Jesus Christ loves the people in the first group (His sheep) and doesn't particularly love the people in the second group (the goats). For additional examples, see my posts on the "What do the Scriptures teach about the extent of the atonement?" thread on the Bible forum.

Welcome back H,  

Just a couple of observations.

1. Your comment, "Does Jesus Love Everyone?

I don't think so, at least not in the same way and to the same extent. For example, look at what He said in Matthew 25:31-34, 41:"

Now the part about "not in the same way and to the same extent" is very useful in trying to understand the verses that speak of the universality of his love or work.  That key could unlock some difficult verses.

2. You sure work hard at proving your point.  The trouble with your method is that even if you prove that a whole lot of verses do not teach that God loves all men or that Christ died for all men...that's all you have proved.  Those verses don't teach it.

But if just one single verse does teach it, like John 3:16 or John 1:9, all your hard work goes for nothing.

The argument that "since the preponderance of scripture teaches x, all of scripture teaches x is a flawed argument.

You are slipping in a hidden premise: If most of the verses in the Bible mean x, they all mean x.

You need to state that right up front and provide supporting arguments for it...and that is not easy to do.  Even Calvinists have difficulty in defining the parameters of the Analogy of Faith, which is what you seem to be appealing to here.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux
Virulant Dog, etc. etc.

[Oscar]

Verne,

You wrote, "Is it possible that the persons the Scripture describes as being foreknown are the persons that God foreknew as eternally glorified in Christ? That is, God already sees the finished product! Just food for thought, but rife with possibilities...I  am out on a limb here and I usually reserve this kind of exploration for more personal exchanges as the waters here run fast and deep!
Verne "not- quite- ready- to- spike it" Carty"

Very interesting idea.  But it seems to me that if you argue that the foreknown persons are only the elect, then if would follow that God does not foreknow the lost.

Is that what you think?

Thomas Maddux
Virulant Dog, etc. etc.

[Oscar]

     The arguments are enticing, persuasive, compelling, but still inconclusive, which is to say that they are conclusive only to those whose minds are made up.  We will know when we know, and until then opinions shall abound, but it is strongly recommended that we treat them with respect & not wield them as weapons against one another.

     The following was just e-mailed to me:

      Lyman Beecher, the father of Uncle Tom's Cabin) author Harriet Beecher Stowe, was a New England minister who had a hard time with predestination, even though it was a tenet of his creed.  Once, as was often done in that day, arrangements were made so that he and another pastor would swap congregations on a Sunday-- each would travel to the other's church to preach.
The other pastor, upon conclusion of the arrangements, declared "It is preordained."  
     Beecher's reply was, "Well, in that case, I'm not coming."

     I can hardly wait to see what y'all do with that one!

al

Al,

Here is one of the Course Objectives written by one of my professors at BIOLA.

"By the end of this course, students will:

2. Have learned to value the privilege of thinking about the rational content of the Christain faith, and an understanding of how this aspect of our life with God is related to the emotional, experiential, and behavioral aspects."

We are "thinking about the rational content of the Christian faith" in this discussion...and it is OK to do so.

It is also OK not to do so.  This type of discussion is not everyone's cup of tea.  But in some sense, all Christians must do this if they wish to mature.

God bless,

THomas Maddux

[Arthur]

The argument that "since the preponderance of scripture teaches x, all of scripture teaches x is a flawed argument.

You are slipping in a hidden premise: If most of the verses in the Bible mean x, they all mean x.

You need to state that right up front and provide supporting arguments for it...and that is not easy to do.

In drawing conclusions from the Bible, is there room for inductive reasoning?

It is pointed out that counter-examples exist.  Some then say the counter-examples aren't saying what people think they are saying and so are not counter-exampels .  That is then refuted as not true.  So we're back where we started.

[matthew r. sciaini]

Tom:

I believe that you should call yourself "VIRULENT dog", not "VIRULANT dog"-- in short, "e" not "a".

Matt Sciaini

[Mark C.]

  Beloved of the Lord
  I have generally avoided this discussion, though I do see how it could be important for former Assembly members to understand.
  What piqued my interest this time was the contrast between logically reading the principles found in scripture and does this by itself lead to a complete knowledge of God. (I expect to be asked what that might mean )
   The question, "does Jesus love Everyone?" sounds like a simple question on it's face, but it is as Verne stated,"deep waters."  If it were true, that God loves everyone, would not all, no matter how fallen, eventually find salvation?  Not necessarily, because God has given us free will, and because He does love His creatures, He will not force His love upon us.
  God loved Adam and Eve (and I believe Lucifer as well) and created these creatures with free wills.  "God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to salvation" so, as Tom has shared, it would take considerable verse twisting to limit this verse to a select group.
   Does the above paragraph corrupt the correct view of God's sovereign grace?  After all, if the difference between me being saved, and somebody else being lost, is found in the human will does this not mean some kind of merit theology?
  No wonder so many don't want to try to figure it out and just adopt the view that, "well God loves me and I know that I'm saved."
  The clearest revelation of who God is was accomplished when "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."  The written message was to point to God's incarnation in the Son, the crucifixtion, and ress.  In Jesus we have "seen the Father", and so it seems to me, that we need to develop our theology from reflection on His Passion (this is not a plug for the movie), the central purpose of His incarnation.
  The Cross was God's passion (love) and Jesus even prayed for those crying,"crucify him", that they might be forgiven for,"they know not what they do."  Mercy for the ignorance of those involved in the monstrous evil of rejecting God Himself?!  Was Jesus just praying for the Jews who were elected to salvation, or for all those crying out against him?
   When I consider what God did in Christ I am convinced it was because he loved all mankind and wanted them to have his salvation and that they might love Him back.  God in His sovereignty gave us free will and somehow our choice must be involved.
   Does this make me better than the unsaved and worthy of God's gift to me?  Better in one sense: I, like the Publican, was aware that I am very sinful.  Jesus said that those who remain in sin are there because "they will not come to the light", or "they say that they see, therefore their sins remain."  Neither the Publican or the Phairsee deserved salvation, but the Publican was aware of his need and the Phairsee was not.  The choice of the unsaved that leads to salvation is not one of "works of righteousness that I have done" rather an awareness that I am very poor of spirit.
  It is indeed "better" to be honest about our sins, but it is because it is the proper choice, not because I am essentially better in my person (in other words, the term "choice" does not describe a superior ontological description of an individual believer).  Judas, Satan, many of the Pharisees refused to admit to the truth and allow the words of Jesus to convict them of their sins.  Jesus said it was because of pride(a condition of the human will) that they rejected Him and remained in their sins.  In Jesus love he came to bring them to repentance and salvation; without the change of mind necessary they never would come to the correct choice of admitting their need.
  Why do you attend a Reformed church then Mark?  I'll have to answer that in another post.
                              God Bless,  Mark C.
 

[al Hartman]

     In talking with those who reject Christ, I have found an interesting variety of simpler, better plans than the gospel.  Many an agnostic, atheist, humanist or adherent to one of  numerous other disciplines or non-disciplines has come up with a plan that is more fair, more inclusive, more attractive.  But in whose judgment?

     I have considered some of these arguments, contemplating what my own concoction for eternal life would consist of, and why, and how it would be implemented.  I highly recommend such thinking as an utterly humbling experience.  In view of the variables to be taken into account, which outnumber even the lives involved, my conclusion is that to arrive at a plan that is truly equitable from every standpoint, one would have to be... well... God!

     The advantage I have over unbelievers is that the Holy Spirit enables me to accept unquestioningly the truth that any plan of God's is right, whether or not I can explain why.  I have, in a state of unbelief, insisted that God's ideas were wrong, unreasonable, prejudicial, and in some respects I have not, to this day, clearly seen why my ideas were wrong.  But I have seen that they were wrong, and because of God's grace that knowledge is sufficient for me.

     I have been absolutely thrilled to learn of the grace through which I am redeemed, and I am soundly persuaded that man has free will.  While I recognize through the words of others that these concepts can seem to be mutually exclusive, I am not compelled to seek the final word on the matter.  It is enough to know that God has a design that suffices for all His creation, that has excluded no one from His consideration, that leaves nothing and nobody to chance or an arbitrary fate.

     Would I discourage others from exploring the scriptures in quest of knowledge concerning these things?  No.  The truth is that I think on these things whenever I read the Bible or anyone's opinions regarding them.  I eagerly look forward to understanding the mysteries of God.  I am not even distressed when others obsess over such points-- I am only careful that I do not.
     We are blessed in that the discussions on this and other threads are sincere, knowledgeable and reasonable, decidedly not obsessive, and presented with the intention of glorifying God.
     I would be unreasonable to not consider every thought about my Lord, new or old, that comes my way.  Prayerfully.  And I will declare all that I see to be essential to the faith.  But I mean to keep my affection and my trust fixed on the Person of Jesus Christ, so that whatever He may reveal to me of Himself will enhance my appreciation for, worship of, and service to Him.  Whatever He may choose to withhold, short-term or long, I will trust Him for and await the time of His choosing in which to learn.
 
     I do not sit the fence regarding the questions of free will and grace.  But I walk it, comfortable trusting Christ to be with me and keep me from falling to either side.  My cautioning others is not that they avoid the issues, but that they approach them with an open heart and a singleness of mind that Jesus Christ be exalted and pleased in all they believe and do.  Amen.

al

[Oscar]

The argument that "since the preponderance of scripture teaches x, all of scripture teaches x is a flawed argument.

You are slipping in a hidden premise: If most of the verses in the Bible mean x, they all mean x.

You need to state that right up front and provide supporting arguments for it...and that is not easy to do.

In drawing conclusions from the Bible, is there room for inductive reasoning?

It is pointed out that counter-examples exist.  Some then say the counter-examples aren't saying what people think they are saying and so are not counter-exampels .  That is then refuted as not true.  So we're back where we started.

For the benefit of those who haven't read a book on logic lately, there are two types of arguments:

1. A deductive argument is one in which if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

2. An inductive argument is one in which if the premises are true, the conclusion is probably true.  (this is why there is no such thing as "scientific proof".  Science can only produce higher or lower degrees of probability, since all scientific conclusions are inductive.)

There is an excellent example of deductive logic in Matt 8:1-10 where the Centurion reasons to a belief that Jesus can heal his servant without going all the way to where he was.  Jesus called this, "great faith".

I think that you are asking a very valid question, Arthur.

Reformed theologian Wayne Grudem would tend to agree with you here, I think.  In discussing the limited atonement teaching he says,

" In conclusion, it seems to me that the Reformed position of "particular redemption" is most consistent with the overall teaching of scripture."

That sounds like an inductive conlcusion to me.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux
Vir-u-lent Dog, etc. etc.  

[Arthur]

" In conclusion, it seems to me that the Reformed position of "particular redemption" is most consistent with the overall teaching of scripture."

That sounds like an inductive conlcusion to me.

Yes, that's it.  It seems to say it more one way than the other, we get an overall feel for it, so we lean that way.  And hey, the reformed stance is very restful.  Man, can you imagine believing the other extreme in which your eternal soul is always at stake based on your every deed--better not blow it!  Oh wait, I forgot for a moment that I'm talking to recovering assemblites   jk
 
I'd say that most of the conclusions I make in life come from prior experiences.  Some of it is from what others have told me.  It seems the older I become, the more I trust my own experiences and the less I base my decisions and judgements upon what others tell me.

When it comes to personal theology, I base it upon all that I've gathered from the Bible and from life experiences.  A question arises and I try to answer it to the best of my knowledge.  To some questions the answers are readily available and most people are in agreement.  Yet there are other questions for which no one has come up with an irrefutable answer. For these, I just go by the gist of it, something like: The Bible says here, here, here and here that God has chosen the elect from the foundations of the world, etc. Yet it says here and here that he loves the whole world.  Well, it makes more sense that God does the choosing, so I'd say it's predetermined.  Ok, that's one way of ariving at a conclusion, but the more weighty reason why I choose to look at it one way or the other is based on my experiences.

I'd say the number one reason why my view of predestination vs free-will has switched is my recent experience that I had in the assembly.  In other words, I had never encountered men like that in such a manner--to hear their foul cry, see them bare their fangs as they feed on people, smell the dead carcasses they leave behind.  I remember not knowing what the Bible was talking about when it mentioned wolves, false prophets, the evils of the Pharisees etc.  I just knew that they were "bad".  But now I've seen first hand just what evil it is.  And now all the verses about these men make sense.  I can point to verse after verse and say, wow that fits. So now I believe some men are bad and that's how it will always be.

Also, since my experience in the assembly, which was legalistic, I now view that man's efforts are, for the most part, fruitless.  It seems all so clear now that the choice and action is up to God.

So there you have it, some men are bad, always bad and God does the choosing. Hence, sign me up for Calvin College (about one-fifth of my high school graduating class went there, I chose the heathen public school and ended up in the assembly, go figure.  While they were going to parties and being worldy Christians, I was going to prayer meetings and being an assembly Christian.  Heheh, life is funny    Another fifth went to Dordt and a sixth or so went to Trinity.  The rest of us took advantage of tax-payer dollars.)  

This is how my theology develops, mostly by experiences.  I'll bet it's similar for everyone else.

Arthur

[Arthur]

Ah, yes.

I had to jump in. When ARTHUR, Dan and i lived together...Arthur and i stayed up talking about stuff Arthur brings up. (Dan was smarter than me -- he went to bed)  

Arthur kept me up late many times, but in the end our discussions were always pretty sweet because we both came away pretty encouraged. (What a neat concept!) Arthur always did ask the good questions about scripture.

I admit, it's FAAAAAAAR easier talking with Arthur than writing. I would write my fingers to the bone to the equivalency of our past conversations.   hee hee

Hey Gordon,

Yeah, I think I have carpal tunnel, lol.  Anyways, did you realize at the time that those 9 months were probably my happiest in the assembly.  I should have stayed instead of going down to Gehenna...I mean Rod's house..er...I mean Fullerton

I do remember those late night talks.  I also remember some video game sessions  Still carrying on that tradition.  

Arthur

[H]

Joe,

I believed the same as you do, that God loves everybody, for the first 10-15 years after I accepted Christ.  But the more I studied the Bible, the more difficult it became to reconcile that idea with some of the things that the Bible says.

If God loves all men equally, why did He choose Abraham and not Nahor? Why did He choose Isaac and not Ishmael? Why did He choose Jacob and not Esau? Why did He say that He loved Jacob but hated Esau? Why did He harden Pharaoh's heart? Why did He kill the firstborn of the Egyptians but not the firstborn of the Israelites? Why did He deliver Moses and the Israelites but drown Pharaoh and the Egyptian army? Why did He tell the Israelites to utterly destroy the inhabitants of the Promised Land ("the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite", Deut. 20:16-17)? Why does it say that the sons of Eli "did not heed the voice of their father, because the Lord desired to kill them." (I. Sam. 2:25)? Why did He tell Saul to utterly destroy Amalek (1 Sam. 15:4)? Why did He kill 185,000 Assyrians in 2 Kings 19:35?

It seems pretty obvious to me that God loved Abraham more than Nahor; Isaac more than Ishmael; Jacob more than Esau; Moses more than Pharaoh; the Israelites more than the Egyptians, Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, Amalekites or Assyrians; and Samuel more than the sons of Eli. Besides, Psalm 11:5 clearly states that "The Lord tests the righteous, But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates."

Furthermore, in the New Testament, the Lord Jesus Christ said "I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight." (Luke 10:21). If God really loves all men equally, why did He hide the truth from "the wise and prudent" and reveal it to "babes"?

The Lord Jesus Christ also said "it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given." (Matt.13:11)? If God really loves loves all men equally, why didn't He give "them" "to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" like He did to the disciples?  

In John 17:9, the Lord Jesus Christ said "I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me". If He loved everybody equally, why did He only pray for those whom the Father had given Him (and NOT for the world)?  

In Romans 9:18, Paul said "Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens." If God loves all men equally, why does He have mercy on some but "harden" others?

In 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, Paul said "And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." If God loves all men equally, why will He send some of them "strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned "?

[moonflower2]

" In conclusion, it seems to me that the Reformed position of "particular redemption" is most consistent with the overall teaching of scripture."

That sounds like an inductive conlcusion to me.

Yes, that's it.  It seems to say it more one way than the other, we get an overall feel for it, so we lean that way.  And hey, the reformed stance is very restful.  Man, can you imagine believing the other extreme in which your eternal soul is always at stake based on your every deed--better not blow it!  Oh wait, I forgot for a moment that I'm talking to recovering assemblites   jk
 
I'd say that most of the conclusions I make in life come from prior experiences.  Some of it is from what others have told me.  It seems the older I become, the more I trust my own experiences and the less I base my decisions and judgements upon what others tell me.

When it comes to personal theology, I base it upon all that I've gathered from the Bible and from life experiences.  A question arises and I try to answer it to the best of my knowledge.  To some questions the answers are readily available and most people are in agreement.  Yet there are other questions for which no one has come up with an irrefutable answer. For these, I just go by the gist of it, something like: The Bible says here, here, here and here that God has chosen the elect from the foundations of the world, etc. Yet it says here and here that he loves the whole world.  Well, it makes more sense that God does the choosing, so I'd say it's predetermined.  Ok, that's one way of ariving at a conclusion, but the more weighty reason why I choose to look at it one way or the other is based on my experiences.

I'd say the number one reason why my view of predestination vs free-will has switched is my recent experience that I had in the assembly.  In other words, I had never encountered men like that in such a manner--to hear their foul cry, see them bare their fangs as they feed on people, smell the dead carcasses they leave behind.  I remember not knowing what the Bible was talking about when it mentioned wolves, false prophets, the evils of the Pharisees etc.  I just knew that they were "bad".  But now I've seen first hand just what evil it is.  And now all the verses about these men make sense.  I can point to verse after verse and say, wow that fits. So now I believe some men are bad and that's how it will always be.

Also, since my experience in the assembly, which was legalistic, I now view that man's efforts are, for the most part, fruitless.  It seems all so clear now that the choice and action is up to God.

So there you have it, some men are bad, always bad and God does the choosing. Hence, sign me up for Calvin College (about one-fifth of my high school graduating class went there, I chose the heathen public school and ended up in the assembly, go figure.  While they were going to parties and being worldy Christians, I was going to prayer meetings and being an assembly Christian.  Heheh, life is funny    Another fifth went to Dordt and a sixth or so went to Trinity.  The rest of us took advantage of tax-payer dollars.)  

This is how my theology develops, mostly by experiences.  I'll bet it's similar for everyone else.

Arthur

This IS interesting.
The environment in my Calvinistic upbringing was extremely legalistic. We  couldn't ride bikes, play catch or wear pants on Sundays.  
I went to Calvin College for one year, to watch us smoke cigarettes out of our dorm windows, where the dorm wardens could see us from their windows  ; sat in our dorms while they had a floor by floor search for liquor, which they of course found, heard about the marijuana busts in another dorm; heard about my friends' week-ends away at a cabin with their boyfriends; listened to discussions about how certain "sin" in the Bible wasn't really "sin", lived with parents who argued and drank and thought the saying 'do as I say, not as I do' was funny.  Of course, everyone was saved because they were "baptized" as infants. What I learned from that experience was that Christians indeed can do what unbelievers do.
What this group of Calvinists believe, is that they are working to bring Christ's kingdom to earth, i.e., we are living in the millenium now, if there is one. Most of Revelation cannot be literally translated, in their minds, at least at the time I was growing up.
Somehow, I still grew up with the idea that I could lose my salvation, that maybe I wasn't one of the "chosen to be saved" group, even tho I was with the "God's Chosen Calvinists" group. I loved to hear the gospel preached at special events where they hoped to reach the "underpriviledged" non-Calvinists, and wondered why they couldn't preach it to us like that. But we were supposed to "know better". I'm glad I'm out of that environment. I still blame infant baptism and what goes along with it for many of the problems there.
What I say is "wake up". No Christian can live like the world/unsaved and expect a pat-on-the-back when he dies. Whatever happens then, it isn't going to be pretty.

[Gordon]

Hi Arthur:

It was fun during then...living together. I DO REMEMBER, the time I had food poisoning and throwing up and running back and forth to the bathroom. You know what you asked, "Are you ok?"

I wanted to sock you in the stomach. OF COURSE I wasn't. (heee heee).

Anyways, my video game days are few these days. Besides, I heard you play a mad game of AGES.

[Joe Sperling]

Moonflower----

I really enjoyed your post. It's very interesting that the Assembly often spoke of "Carnal Churches" and "Carnal Christians" and I would think of things such as you mentioned: cigarette smoking, marijuana, drinking and sexual sins, etc.  Though the Assembly was basically free from this stuff(although who knows went on privately) there was a different type of carnality very present there: Carnal Pride.

The sense of being "Elite", of "being different than other churches who don't have the vision", and being critical of other christians and christian groups was a strong type of carnality and a sin of the spirit rather than the flesh. "When you say I am of Cephas, or I am of Appollos, or I am of Paul, or I am of Christ(the Assembly fits in here well) are ye not carnal?"  "WE are the true flock of God, the little flock, though small in numbers, we are following the true pattern of God. We need to all be of the same mind--the mind of George, oops, I mean of Christ, and take up our cross and follow "him", oops,  I mean "HIM"."  


--Joe

[al Hartman]

Moonflower,

     Don't throw out the baby with the baptismal water ...  All my Christian life I had been taught that baptism is for believers & therefore not for infants.  At the reformed church I now attend, I was surprised to see the ceremonial "baptism" of infants in an entirely different light:
     These children may not be baptized until the parents have sat through and agreed with a series of instruction on what their responsibilities are to Christ, as regards their home and children.  The service itself is very similar to (waterless) "dedication" practices in other churches, connoting no transference of status to the child, but signifying the public commitment of the parents to rear the child in all the ways of the Lord.  I find the practice exciting, encouraging, and was thrilled to find living examples of its fruits attending the church as children and as adults.


H,

     The nature of the many questions you present as evidence of the correctness of your position is troubling.  The whole "If God means thus-and-so, why would He do such-and-such?" concept seems too similar to the "If God is Love, why does He allow suffering?" arguments of the heathen (who rage & imagine a vain thing! ).  These they pose as questions, not really seeking answers, but in hopes of stymieing believers and thus shutting down their witness.
     I hope I'm wrong, but I get the impression that your questions are not asked in search of greater understanding, but to persuade others of your viewpoint.  Let me be clear:  I do not believe the desire of your heart is less than to honor Christ!  It is only the method of your presentation that I question.  Is it honest?

     I ask you in all sincerity:  What is the urgency of your point of view?  How has believing what you now do, as opposed to what you once did (and please define the two clearly) affect your relationship to Christ, and your daily life?

I promise you, I want to know...

al