Biblical Universalist Discussion Forum
Welcome to my forum. Feel free to post a message.
|
||
| Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Forum |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 17) |
| Author | Comment |
|
Zach
Aug 13, 07 - 4:49 PM |
Does God love all people?
I have no trouble with the Arminian explanation for endless punishment. It does not convince me at all. It's the Calvinist explanation that troubles me. To this end, I'm interested in hearing any arguments against the Calvinist position that God does not love every person (or does not love every person enough to save them). I'm familiar with Talbott's argument from the proclamation that "God is love," as well as various "all" texts, which are, of course, controversial. Are there any other strong arguments against the Calvinist position? |
pam
Aug 13th, 2007 - 6:08 PM |
Re: Does God love all people?
From talking to Calvinists, I have come away thinking that they have reached a partial understanding of God's Sovereignty being that they understand election but not the purpose of that election. I very much enjoy Calvinist preaching that I have heard and the honor that is given to God and the emphasis on what God can do rather than on what man must do. I know in my own walk with Christ, I started out thinking as an Armenian, that Jesus was a good choice I made. I later saw that my Salvation had been predestined from the foundation of the world and that God had given me to Jesus. Sometime later, I saw the purpose of my election. I guess I tend now to see theological stance as a stage of growth because that is my experience. That may be in error but truly, I think our theology says more about who we are than Who God is. Biblically, Calvinists focus very intently upon Paul's writing in Romans and vessels of honor and dishonor. I find some fault in this in their not holding the chapters wherein they find this within the greater context of the book of Romans and of course, the even larger context of the entire Bible. Context takes some time and serious study to develop. Pam |
Mike Burke
 Aug 13th, 2007 - 7:49 PM |
Re: Does God love all people?
[Quote] I have no trouble with the Arminian explanation for endless punishment. It does not convince me at all. It's the Calvinist explanation that troubles me. To this end, I'm interested in hearing any arguments against the Calvinist position that God does not love every person (or does not love every person enough to save them). I'm familiar with Talbott's argument from the proclamation that "God is love," as well as various "all" texts, which are, of course, controversial. Are there any other strong arguments against the Calvinist position? [unquote] And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2.) Believers are contrasted with unbelievers here, and it says that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of both. For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. (1 Tim. 4:10.) Here again, believers (who are especially saved) are contrasted with unbelievers, and God is said to be the Savior of all. for as ye also once did not believe in God, and now did find kindness by the unbelief of these: so also these now did not believe, that in your kindness they also may find kindness; for God did shut up together the whole to unbelief, that to the whole He might do kindness. (Romans 11:30-32, Young's Literal Translation.) Here the former unbelief of Gentiles, and the present hardening of unbelieving Jews is spoken of as the prelude to God's mercy on both. The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. (Psalm 145:9.) Here, God's mercy is said to extend to all His creation. G-d Bless. |
|
Zach
Aug 13th, 2007 - 11:23 PM |
Re: Does God love all people?
Thanks. I think the Psalms passage is revealing; it seems to clash with the Calvinist understanding, though it's not quite conclusive. I'm familiar with 1 Tim. 4:10, but I'm not sure I've really looked at 1 John 2:2 before. It does seem to be more clear than the Timothy passage; I'm sure there have been explanations proposed to make that fit with limited atonement, but limited atonement in the strict sense isn't necessary to a Calvinist understanding of Hell. I must admit, however, I find it reassuring that 1 Timothy 4:10 seems to set a precedent for "all men" being used to mean "all without exception" as opposed to "all without distinction" in Pauline claims regarding the extent of Christ's saving work. And after looking around a bit, I've found one Calvinist explanation for 1 John 2:2. The explanation is that the epistle was written to a Jewish audience, and that John was saying that Christ died for the Gentiles (or, more accurately, some of the Gentiles) as well. According to this interpretation, "us" refers to Jews, not to all Christians. That interpretation comes from this site: http://thekingdomcome.com/the_end_of_preterist_universalism ("Context for Universalistic Proof-texts"; "Universalism?" is also worth looking at as an assertion of the position that God does not love all people). I'll need to look at the arguments presented on that site more closely. Any way, I do appreciate any help people can give. |
|
Mike Burke
Aug 14th, 2007 - 10:23 AM |
Re: Does God love all people?
[Quote] And after looking around a bit, I've found one Calvinist explanation for 1 John 2:2. The explanation is that the epistle was written to a Jewish audience, and that John was saying that Christ died for the Gentiles (or, more accurately, some of the Gentiles) as well. According to this interpretation, "us" refers to Jews, not to all Christians. [unquote] It seems to have been written well after John's Gospel, as it assumes that the readers are acquainted with the facts of Christ's life, His speeches, and the special aspect of the incarnate Word as God manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16.) In addition, the author's style of addressing his readers as a father addressing his "little children" (the continually recurring term, 1 John 2:1,12,13,18,28; 3:7,18; 4:4; 5:21) would indicate that this Epistle was written in John's old age, perhaps about A.D. 90. (See introduction by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown: http://www.studylight.org/com/jfb/view.cgi?book=1jo&chapter=000) It's unlikely that John would be writing to an entirely Jewish Church at at such a late date: [People's New Testament] The opinion of the early church was that his residence was in Palestine until the time approached for the overthrow of the Jewish state, and probably until he had been released from the sacred charge of the mother of Jesus by her death; that he then removed to Asia Minor to make his home at Ephesus among the great body of Gentile churches which had been robbed of the care of their founder, the great apostle to the Gentiles, by his martyrdom, and that in Ephesus he wrote the Epistles which are ascribed to him in the New Testament. http://www.studylight.org/com/pnt/view.cgi?book=1jo&chapter=000 G-d Bless. |
|
Mike Burke
Aug 14th, 2007 - 10:36 AM |
Re: Does God love all people?
P.S. Even John's Gospel appears to have been written after the split between the Church and the Synagogue, as it refers to the Mosaic feasts as feasts "of the Jews." |
|
Zach
Aug 14th, 2007 - 9:14 PM |
Re: Does God love all people?
Thanks. It seems that the meaning is still open to question, so I'll leave 1 John 2:2 aside for now. (1 Tim. 4:10, obviously, is uncontested, though it's not necessarily true that Christ must save all simply because He is the Savior of all.) One passage I'd like to know about is John 10:26 -- "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep." It is possible to say that the Pharisees were not yet sheep, but would be in the future; but Christ speaks of other sheep who do not yet believe as already His in verse 16: "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd." When He says "this fold," it appears that He means the Jews. I'm not sure how this could be resolved. |
|
Mike Burke
Aug 15th, 2007 - 12:10 AM |
Re: Does God love all people?
[Quote] One passage I'd like to know about is John 10:26 -- "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep." It is possible to say that the Pharisees were not yet sheep, but would be in the future [unquote] Or you could say that they were goats: `And whenever the Son of Man may come in his glory, and all the holy messengers with him, then he shall sit upon a throne of his glory; and gathered together before him shall be all the nations, and he shall separate them from one another, as the shepherd doth separate the sheep from the goats, and he shall set the sheep indeed on his right hand, and the goats on the left... Then shall he say also to those on the left hand, Go ye from me, the cursed, to the fire, the age-during, that hath been prepared for the Devil and his messengers...And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.' (Matt. 25:31-33, 41, 46, Young's Literal Translation.) That would not change Colossians 1:16-20. because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created, and himself is before all, and the all things in him have consisted. And himself is the head of the body -- the assembly -- who is a beginning, a first-born out of the dead, that he might become in all [things] -- himself -- first, because in him it did please all the fulness to tabernacle, and through him to reconcile the all things to himself -- having made peace through the blood of his cross -- through him, whether the things upon the earth, whether the things in the heavens. (Young's Literal Translation.) I don't see how you can limit the meaning of "all" in verse 20, without limiting the meaning of "all" in verse 16 (and every Christian believes that verse 16 is all inclusive--i.e. that "without him nothing was made that has been made.") Also, if the Pharisees were included in Paul's discussion of hardened Israel, would they not be included in the following passage? for as ye also once did not believe in God, and now did find kindness by the unbelief of these: so also these now did not believe, that in your kindness they also may find kindness; for God did shut up together the whole to unbelief, that to the whole He might do kindness. (Romans 11:30-32, Young's Literal Translation.) And let's not forget what Jesus said to these Pharisees: `Verily I say to you, that the tax-gatherers and the harlots do go before you into the reign of God (Matt. 21:31, Young's Literal Translation.) I don't believe the Pharisees will be among the sheep, because they don't belong to "the company and assembly of the first-born in heaven enrolled" (Heb. 12:23, Young's Literal Translation)--but I do believe that "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ will all be made alive, but each in his own order: Christ, the firstfruits," and I would point out that Christ was not the first to be raised to physical life: Some time later the son of the woman who owned the house became ill. He grew worse and worse, and finally stopped breathing. She said to Elijah, "What do you have against me, man of God? Did you come to remind me of my sin and kill my son?" "Give me your son," Elijah replied. He took him from her arms, carried him to the upper room where he was staying, and laid him on his bed. Then he cried out to the LORD, "O LORD my God, have you brought tragedy also upon this widow I am staying with, by causing her son to die?" Then he stretched himself out on the boy three times and cried to the LORD, "O LORD my God, let this boy's life return to him!" The LORD heard Elijah's cry, and the boy's life returned to him, and he lived. (1 Kings 17:17-22.) Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man's body into Elisha's tomb. When the body touched Elisha's bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet. (2 Kings 13:21.) As he approached the town gate, a dead person was being carried out - the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. And a large crowd from the town was with her. When the Lord saw her, his heart went out to her and he said, "Don't cry." Then he went up and touched the coffin, and those carrying it stood still. He said, "Young man, I say to you, get up!" The dead man sat up and began to talk, and Jesus gave him back to his mother. (Luke 7:12-15.) While Jesus was still speaking, someone came from the house of Jairus, the synagogue ruler. "Your daughter is dead," he said. "Don't bother the teacher any more." Hearing this, Jesus said to Jairus, "Don't be afraid; just believe, and she will be healed." When he arrived at the house of Jairus, he did not let anyone go in with him except Peter, John and James, and the child's father and mother. Meanwhile, all the people were wailing and mourning for her. "Stop wailing," Jesus said. "She is not dead but asleep." They laughed at him, knowing that she was dead. But he took her by the hand and said, "My child, get up!" Her spirit returned, and at once she stood up. Then Jesus told them to give her something to eat. (Luke 8:49-55.) ...Jesus called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face. Jesus said to them, "Take off the grave clothes and let him go." (John 11:43-44.) As used in 1 Cor. 15 "the first-fruits of those who sleep" must refer to more than a temporary return to physical life (otherwise Jesus would not be first), and it is in this context that Paul says "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ will all be made alive, but each in his own order." Returning to the parable of the sheep and the goats for a moment, I don't think Augustine's old argument carries any weight at all, because we're told that in the end death will be "swallowed up in victory." So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. (1 Cor. 15:54-55.) The word translated "immortality" means "undying." It simply isn't true to say (as Augustine did) that believers have no promise of unending life unless it's found in the term aionian (as used in the 25th chapter of Matthew.) [Quote] "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd." When He says "this fold," it appears that He means the Jews. I'm not sure how this could be resolved. [unquote] I'm not sure it needs to be resolved, because I don't see a problem. Whether He was speaking of Gentiles, or the lost tribes among the diaspora, they were still the elect of this age (His sheep, "us," as opposed to "the world.") And John still said: ...He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2.) G-d Bless. |
|
Mike Burke
Aug 15th, 2007 - 6:43 AM |
Re: Does God love all people?
P.S. Even if Christ were speaking of Jew and Gentile in John 10:16, would they not have been "one flock" at the time John wrote 1 John 2:2? |
|
Ric
Aug 16th, 2007 - 10:16 AM |
Re: Does God love all people?
If ever there was a problematic verse, it is this: Hebrews 12:5-8, "And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons." Since some are not rebuked, and all who are loved are, then there must be those who are not loved. 
|
|
Mike Burke
Aug 16th, 2007 - 12:07 PM |
Re: Does God love all people?
[Quote] If ever there was a problematic verse, it is...Hebrews 12:5-8 [unquote] Not really. All the verb tenses are in the present active indicative. Anyone familiar with Greek would take this to mean that God is presently treating some of us (the elect) as sons, which only brings us back to 1 Tim. 4:10. for for this we both labour and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Saviour of all men -- especially of those believing. (Young's Literal Translation.) Do I know you Rick? |
|
Ed Smith
Aug 16th, 2007 - 1:20 PM |
Re: Does God love all people?
If ever there was a problematic verse, it is this: Hebrews 12:5-8, "And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons." Since some are not rebuked, and all who are loved are, then there must be those who are not loved. Read carefully: this scripture never said there are some without chastening. It does say that the Lord chastens all whom He loves. In fact, it is not hard to see that all suffer in this life; in the sovereignty of God, this is therapeutic discipline. Actually, the scripture makes a point of telling us all are chastened: "But if ye be without chastisement, *whereof all are partakers*, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Even if the phrase "whereof all are partakers" were not included, this sentence would not imply the existence of any who are without chastisement. It is making the point that chastisement is a good sign by using an illustration from the point of view of a child. If a man does not chastise you, that is because he is not your father. Ed |
|
Mike Burke
Aug 16th, 2007 - 1:32 PM |
Re: Does God love all people?
Thank you Ed. And even if verses 5-8 imply that some are not being treated as sons now, the same author (in this same chapter) also wrote: For ye came not near to the mount touched and scorched with fire...ye came to Mount Zion, and to a city of the living God, to the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of messengers, to the company and assembly of the first-born in heaven enrolled, and to God the judge of all, and to spirits of righteous men made perfect, and to a mediator of a new covenant -- Jesus, and to blood of sprinkling, speaking better things than that of Abel! (Heb. 12:18, 22-24, Young's Literal Translation.) Those who responded to the Gospel, who now believe, and who are now being treated as sons, are here called "the company and assembly of the first-born in heaven enrolled." G-d Bless. |
|
pam
Aug 16th, 2007 - 3:34 PM |
Re: Does God love all people?
I think what causes many of us to stumble is "all" doesn't mean 'all at once'. God's plan for the restoration of all stretches out over a very long period of time. |
|
Mike Burke
Aug 16th, 2007 - 4:00 PM |
Re: Does God love all people?
[Quote] I think what causes many of us to stumble is "all" doesn't mean 'all at once'. God's plan for the restoration of all stretches out over a very long period of time. [unquote] I think that's a very good observation. Thank you Pam (and G-d Bless.) |
|
Zach
Aug 18th, 2007 - 1:45 PM |
Re: Does God love all people?
One more question. How do you all take the various "God hates" verses (e.g. Psalm 5:5, 11:5; Lev. 20:23; Prov. 6:16-19; Hos. 9:15)? I would probably cite 1 Cor. 6:9-11 and Psalm 30:5, to show that although God hates people, He will not necessarily hate them forever. Nor should we necessarily take God's hatred (which is surely more righteous and controlled than man's hatred) to mean that God does not care for that person's well-being; but although such an interpretation seems plausible to me, I feel I should be cautious not to explain away these verses simply because they make me uncomfortable. |
|
Mike Burke
Aug 19th, 2007 - 2:21 PM |
Re: Does God love all people?
And how do you take Luke 14:26? `If any one doth come unto me, and doth not hate his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, and yet even his own life, he is not able to be my disciple (Young's Literal Translation.) Here's what Adam Clarke had to say on this verse: [The Adam Clarke Commentary] Matthew, Matthew 10:37, expresses the true meaning of this word, when he says, He who loveth his father and mother MORE than me. In Matthew 6:24, he uses the word hate in the same sense. When we read, Romans 9:13, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated, the meaning is simply, I have loved Jacob-the Israelites, more than Esau-the Edomites; and that this is no arbitrary interpretation of the word hate, but one agreeable to the Hebrew idiom, appears from what is said on Genesis 29:30,31, where Leah's being hated is explained by Rachel's being loved more than Leah. Even New Testament Greek is effected by Hebrew idioms, and Hebrew idiom uses words like "love," "hate," and "know" to represent actions. "I never knew you" does not mean "I was never aware of your existence," it means "I was never actively present in your life." There is an obvious distinction between the elect and the non-elect, and a Biblical Universalist doesn't deny this. It's recognized in many of the very texts we quote: for for this we both labour and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Saviour of all men -- especially of those believing. (1 Tim. 4:10.) He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created. (James 1:18.) ye came to Mount Zion, and to a city of the living God, to the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of messengers, to the company and assembly of the first-born in heaven enrolled, and to God the judge of all, and to spirits of righteous men made perfect (Heb. 12:22-23, Young's Literal Translation.) BTW: In the last passage, the term "firstborn" is plural, and cannot refer to Christ alone. The meaning is not "the Church belonging to the firstborn Son," but "the Church of the firstborn sons (children, or heirs)." G-d Bless. |
| First |
Prev |
Reply |
Forum |
Next |
Last |
powered by
bravenet.com