"God loves everyone" - false
- Thread starter DBurrage
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Lot of animosity going on around here. Sure there is two sides to the story. I don't want to get into it.
By the way, Have you been here before? Alot of what you say sounds familiar.. just asking Not assuming or judging.[/QUOTE]
Nope, neither been here till few days ago. You saying there's another 'jerk' that sounds as bad as me. I pity the guy.
By the way, Have you been here before? Alot of what you say sounds familiar.. just asking Not assuming or judging.[/QUOTE]
Nope, neither been here till few days ago. You saying there's another 'jerk' that sounds as bad as me. I pity the guy.
-
1
- Show all
I also was pre-trib. Now, I just throw up my hands and say, "Whatever". If I was forced to take a side I would defend pre-tribulation; but I prefer to watch from the sidelines. I was also heavy on the "dispensational" side. Now I am on the fence with maybe one foot on the "dispensational" side. I don't see much 'significant' (where significant is subjective) difference between covenant and dispensational theory in regards to practical application.
I have not been exposed to arguments proposing tongues is in use today. Seems to me that if people are speaking the word of God then it should be added to scripture. I think the canon is closed. Such would be opening a can of worms to add to it. Also, most who speak in tongues do so and no one knows what they are saying .... Again the caveat: I know very little of it ... afraid, uninterested and too lazy to investigate.
Oh, and I still believe scripture show's God support for the Dallas Cowboys. (I hope God likes a sense of humor ... probably get another demerit point)
I have not been exposed to arguments proposing tongues is in use today. Seems to me that if people are speaking the word of God then it should be added to scripture. I think the canon is closed. Such would be opening a can of worms to add to it. Also, most who speak in tongues do so and no one knows what they are saying .... Again the caveat: I know very little of it ... afraid, uninterested and too lazy to investigate.
Oh, and I still believe scripture show's God support for the Dallas Cowboys. (I hope God likes a sense of humor ... probably get another demerit point)
-
1
- Show all
Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them.[1 John 2:15]
Here John is telling believers to not love the world. So, by using your logic, if believers love the whole human race(as you try to insert that meaning into every place the word 'world' is written), then God's love is not in them.
World means several different things, and here it is referring to the world system.
Here John is telling believers to not love the world. So, by using your logic, if believers love the whole human race(as you try to insert that meaning into every place the word 'world' is written), then God's love is not in them.
World means several different things, and here it is referring to the world system.
-
1
- Show all
E
I am strongly dispensational, I just see no evidence of the covenant view have not discussed that in along time, it is another heated topic, many have gotten banned over, which is sad
as for tongues, I speak more of God needing to speak to someone in their own language the gospel. not what we see is many churches today,
as for tongues, I speak more of God needing to speak to someone in their own language the gospel. not what we see is many churches today,
-
1
- Show all
E
But they don't cast their children into a fire, either. Not all mankind are His children. The whole human race and all we see is His creation, but only His elect ppl are His children.
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were notwilling!
It is not that God did not desire to gather them, it is that they were unwilling
while agree, he does not send his true children to hell, he still desires them, but they were unwilling. They chose their eternal state
-
1
- Show all
This is what man's responsibility is. It does not say that God must do it. It is ridiculous to think God prays to God for the sons of Satan.
It is your responsibility to prove your point or disprove mine. Don't ask me to prove your point.
Aside: God's love is holy. Therefore, he cannot love that which is the polar opposite of his holiness.
Habakkuk 1:13 Your eyes are too pure to approve evil, And You cannot look favorably on wickedness. To love the wicked would contradict this verse.
It is your responsibility to prove your point or disprove mine. Don't ask me to prove your point.
Aside: God's love is holy. Therefore, he cannot love that which is the polar opposite of his holiness.
Habakkuk 1:13 Your eyes are too pure to approve evil, And You cannot look favorably on wickedness. To love the wicked would contradict this verse.
E
Since you have obviously spent time studying this dogma. Please answer this from your understanding.
You have claimed that only the human side of Jesus fulfilled the second commandment.
Which means that the Divine side still maintained His hate towards unsaved men.
In your view then is "Jesus the man" disconnected from His Divine side on this?
I really want to know how this problem is resolved in the dogma.
You have claimed that only the human side of Jesus fulfilled the second commandment.
Which means that the Divine side still maintained His hate towards unsaved men.
In your view then is "Jesus the man" disconnected from His Divine side on this?
I really want to know how this problem is resolved in the dogma.
So??? God is love. I agree. He is Holy, Holy, Holy.
Just as His grace reigns not at the expense of His holiness, but “through righteousness” (Romans 5:21), so His love never conflicts with His holiness. God’s love is holy which is different, separate, transcendent from the love of man. His love is pure, without blemish or evil or shadow of sin. Thus, God can only love those with the love of complacency that are “in Christ”.
“A love of holiness cannot be without a hatred of everything that is contrary to it. As God necessarily loves himself, so he must necessarily hate everything that is against himself: and as he loves himself for his own excellency and holiness, he must necessarily detest whatsoever is repugnant to his holiness, because of the evil of it. Since he is infinitely good, he cannot but love goodness Psalm 11:7 “The righteous Lord loveth righteousness,” as it is a resemblance to himself, and cannot but abhor unrighteousness Psalm 11:6A Upon the wicked (godless) He will rain coals of fire, as being most distant from him, and contrary to him. If he have any esteem for his own perfections, he must needs have an implacable aversion to all that is so repugnant to him, that would, if it were possible, destroy him, and is a point directed, not only against his glory, but against his life. If he did not hate it, he would hate himself: for since righteousness is his image, and sin would deface his image; if he did not love his image, and loathe what is against his image, he would loathe himself, he would be an enemy to his own nature. Nay, if it were possible for him to love it, it were possible for him not to be holy, it were possible then for him to deny himself, and will that he were no God, which is a palpable contradiction. Yet this necessity in God of hating sin, is not a brutish necessity, such as is in mere animals, that avoid, by a natural instinct, not of choice, what is prejudicial to them; but most free, as well as necessary, arising from an infinite knowledge of his own nature, and of the evil nature of sin, and the contrariety of it to his own excellency, and the order of his works.
He can no more cease to hate impurity than he can cease to love holiness: if he should in the least instant approve of anything that is filthy, in that moment he would disapprove of his own nature and being; there would be an interruption in his love of himself, which is as eternal as it is infinite. How can he love any sin which is contrary to his nature, but for one moment, without hating his own nature, which is essentially contrary to sin? Two contraries cannot be loved at the same time; God must first begin to hate himself before he can approve of any evil which is directly opposite to himself. God is always the same without any shadow of change, and “is angry with the wicked every day” (Psalm 7:11), that is, uninterruptedly in the nature of his anger, though not in the effects of it.“
Just as His grace reigns not at the expense of His holiness, but “through righteousness” (Romans 5:21), so His love never conflicts with His holiness. God’s love is holy which is different, separate, transcendent from the love of man. His love is pure, without blemish or evil or shadow of sin. Thus, God can only love those with the love of complacency that are “in Christ”.
“A love of holiness cannot be without a hatred of everything that is contrary to it. As God necessarily loves himself, so he must necessarily hate everything that is against himself: and as he loves himself for his own excellency and holiness, he must necessarily detest whatsoever is repugnant to his holiness, because of the evil of it. Since he is infinitely good, he cannot but love goodness Psalm 11:7 “The righteous Lord loveth righteousness,” as it is a resemblance to himself, and cannot but abhor unrighteousness Psalm 11:6A Upon the wicked (godless) He will rain coals of fire, as being most distant from him, and contrary to him. If he have any esteem for his own perfections, he must needs have an implacable aversion to all that is so repugnant to him, that would, if it were possible, destroy him, and is a point directed, not only against his glory, but against his life. If he did not hate it, he would hate himself: for since righteousness is his image, and sin would deface his image; if he did not love his image, and loathe what is against his image, he would loathe himself, he would be an enemy to his own nature. Nay, if it were possible for him to love it, it were possible for him not to be holy, it were possible then for him to deny himself, and will that he were no God, which is a palpable contradiction. Yet this necessity in God of hating sin, is not a brutish necessity, such as is in mere animals, that avoid, by a natural instinct, not of choice, what is prejudicial to them; but most free, as well as necessary, arising from an infinite knowledge of his own nature, and of the evil nature of sin, and the contrariety of it to his own excellency, and the order of his works.
He can no more cease to hate impurity than he can cease to love holiness: if he should in the least instant approve of anything that is filthy, in that moment he would disapprove of his own nature and being; there would be an interruption in his love of himself, which is as eternal as it is infinite. How can he love any sin which is contrary to his nature, but for one moment, without hating his own nature, which is essentially contrary to sin? Two contraries cannot be loved at the same time; God must first begin to hate himself before he can approve of any evil which is directly opposite to himself. God is always the same without any shadow of change, and “is angry with the wicked every day” (Psalm 7:11), that is, uninterruptedly in the nature of his anger, though not in the effects of it.“