"God loves everyone" - false

[EleventhHour]

Okay, I will attempt to answer this in a God honoring way.

First, it should be noted, that this conversation between Jesus and the rich young man, is recorded by three of the Gospel writers. It is not recorded in the book of John. Therefore, we need to compare this verse in all three Gospel accounts:

Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
Mark 10:21 And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
Luke 18:22 And when Jesus heard it, he said unto him, One thing thou lackest yet: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

We know two very distinct things about this young rich man:

1) He was foolish and arrogant. Foolish, because he thought he could gain Salvation by works of the Law. We know that Salvation is not of works and that God's highest standard cannot be kept by fallen men.
2) Arrogant, because this young man believed he had kept all 10 of these commandments: Luke 18:21 And he said, All these things have I observed from my youth up. This statement, not only shows his spiritual ignorance but he proves himself to be self-righteous and arrogant.

Only in Mark's account is there a mention of Jesus "looking upon him, loved him". Therefore, we must ask, why the other two did not record this action by our lord. One thing that can be ascertained, is the Holy Spirit did not inspire the other two to write it down. This could possibly indicate, that it is not a vital piece of information to the point of the conversation. We know, that the point of this conversation, was to prove the young rich man's inability to give up his material possessions, which were great. Thus, he served the god of materialism and not the True God.

In Mark 10:21, Jesus looked upon the young man and loved him, after the young man had declared his foolishness and arrogance. This is a clue, as to how we should understand the statement: "loved him".

Let's look at the Greek word used here and see if we can ascertain how it is used. The Greek word is: ηγαπησεν and comes from the root of the word: ηγαπαω. Mark uses this word: ηγαπησεν, only here in verse 21 and no where else in his Gospel writings. It carries the meaning of a physical or emotional gesture. According to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, he describes it in this way: to love (as to hug or kiss), to wish well, to show pity towards and to have compassion for. These are all things, that we as Christians, should show towards everyone. In as much as lies in us to do. Therefore, this "love" carries the same idea as: Love thy neighbor as you would have them love you.

The type of love herein, recorded by Mark, should be understood as, Jesus looked upon this young man with compassion and sincere pity, knowing that this young man could not do what Jesus was about to say. For Jesus Christ knows what is in the heart of every one.
The young man had an emotional response to what Jesus said: Mar 10:22, "But his countenance fell at the saying, and he went away sorrowful: for he was one that had great possessions". Therefore, Jesus had comforted this young man before he announced, what He knew the young man could not do.

The Greek word used here by Mark, could not in this instance, carry the meaning of "enduring and intimate love" because that kind of "LOVE" is only expressed between the Father and The Son, the angels and God (not including the fallen ones), as well as, between God and His chosen people. To put that kind of meaning onto the Greek word in Mark 10:21, would have to mean: That the young rich man is one of the sheep but had not yet been "born from above" and was not yet able to hear and understand what the Lord was saying.

Contemplate this without traditional prejudices.

I have contemplated it and what you have basically stated is the rich young ruler was one of the chosen, he just did not know it yet and therefore Jesus was able to love him

Now can you show this using scripture, that he was a "Sheep/Chosen?"

 

[Duskey]

If a man can choose Christ, of his own will, then he can boast. Ex... "I am so glad I chose life through Jesus Christ, unlike the other poor fools, who are still in their sins.

I never met anyone who chose Christ and boasted about their decision to do so. In fact it’s quite the opposite. People rejoice on bended knee, thanking God for His grace.

 

[awelight]

But bwhat that does to the verse is this :1cor1.21 21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
I read that as . The world's own wisdom is the opposite to God's. In God's wisdom He chose the foolishness of the preaching to save those that believe, and that pleases Him .
Calvinism twists this to .: The worlds own wisdom , which was determined by God , is the opposite to God's wisdom . In God's wisdom He chose the foolishness of the preaching to cause believe in those he saves . And this pleases him .

There are good points in both views expressed here.

1Cor 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

First let's examine what your interpretation is:

You said, I read that as . The world's own wisdom is the opposite to God's. I will agree to this view in part. There is no doubt that the "world" often thinks in ways that are opposite of God's ways. One of the tragic consequences of the "fall". We know that Scripture says, that our ways are not God's ways and our thoughts are not God's thoughts. The primary reason for this, is our depraved minds subsequent to the fall. We lost our original "uprightness" and thus, our "fellowship" with God, just as Adam could no longer walk with Him in the same way as he had enjoyed. Our thoughts are no longer upright. God is the thrice Holy God, (Isa 6:3), His chief attribute is Holiness, are if you will, absolute purity. Everything God does are does not do, must conform to His Holiness. If we look at God's attributes as the Scriptures reveal them, then it is possible to ascertain the proper order of those attributes. Here are the first four, in the proper priority.: 1) Holiness, 2) Justice 3) Wrath 4) Love.

For God is Holy and therefore His Holy Justice must be satisfied in order that any can be saved. His Holy Justice demands payment for the fall of His creation into sin. That payment is "death". His Holy Justice therefore requires the outpouring of Holy Wrath. So God devised the plan, before He ever created anything, wherein His own Son would become flesh, The God-Man, even Jesus Christ our Lord and would stand in the place of many sinners. He would experience God's full Holy Wrath and would experience death. Only by these things being accomplished, could God then allow His Holy Love to flow. Therefore, we can conclude, that God's Love can only flow to those whom are under the blood. If this were not true, then we would have God's love flowing to those who have NOT been JUSTIFIED before Him. His love then would be flowing to the world system, to the unsaved and unjust people. What a mess, just think it through. God's Holiness will not permit this. Everyone else benefits by His love for the redeemed. (The rain falls on the JUST and the UNJUST, Mat. 5:45)

Man cannot think in the way of God are perform in His way. We really have no true concept of what this kind of purity is like, as believers we can only see a mere shadow of it.

As to your next point, you said: In God's wisdom He chose the foolishness of the preaching to save those that believe, and that pleases Him . Again, I would partially agree with this interpretation. However my answer, would be similar to the one I gave previously. In God's wisdom, He determined to give a role to His redeemed people. The believer was made apart of God's plan for Salvation. An important role indeed. Believers are commanded to preach the Gospel, if you are a man, called of God, to preach. Believers are commanded to go forth and witness. God has never been without a witness. The world (unregenerate) sees the Gospel as foolishness. Primarily, because their depraved minds cannot perceive the danger they are in. These believe "science" is the answer to everything.

Again, I need to point out in this verse, you must consider the verb tenses, in order to clearly see the proper interpretation: ... it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. It pleased God, wherein "pleased" is in the past tense. (Aorist active indicative verb). The emphasis here, is the same as earlier in the verse, where the writer wrote, In God's wisdom He chose the foolishness of preaching. Then we, should be asking: "When did God choose?" Obviously, sometime in the past. I believe, this points us back to when God decreed His plan of Salvation from eternity. The emphasis then, is sometime in the past, it "pleased God" and it probably is still pleasing God at this time.

Also, the portion that says, ... to save them that believe. The word "save" should have been translated, "saved" because it is a past tense verb (aorist active imperative verb). This verb, is being used in the "imperative" sense. This means it is being used as a command. Therefore, it is referring to the "general" call of the Gospel that all should repent and believe. The next verb translated "believe", should have been translated: "believing", because it is a (present active participle verb), therefore "them that are believing"

If we put all this information together, then the proper interpretation should be like this: Preaching is used to proclaim the need for salvation and points one to the only acceptable savior, Jesus Christ. It is received and understood by those who are in a state of believing. Those whom God has made alive, hear the warnings and commands to seek safety in their Savior. The rest of the world sees this as foolishness. Therefore, preaching is an instrument of instruction, to those who are in a state of believing but preaching, in and of itself, cannot save. There is no such teaching in Scripture, that preaching, apart from Grace, can accomplish anything towards salvation are justification before God.

As to the "calvinistic" view, as you stated here, He chose the foolishness of the preaching to cause believe in those he saves . The way you stated this, would lead one to believe that preaching causes belief. In theological terms this would be called, "Gospel Regeneration" and I firmly denounce this idea. Regeneration, is the sole work of the Holy Spirit, (John 3). As to the other part, The worlds own wisdom , which was determined by God , is the opposite to God's wisdom, I am not sure, that I am comfortable, going that far with this thought. Many of the worlds errors and foolishness are of their own making but with that said, we must leave room for God and the working of His providential government. As shown in these verses, as an example of many more, just like them.

1Cor 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
2Th 2:11-12 And for this cause God is sending them a working of error (KJV says, "strong delusion"), that they should believe a lie: that they all might be judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

[awelight]

I have contemplated it and what you have basically stated is the rich young ruler was one of the chosen, he just did not know it yet and therefore Jesus was able to love him

Now can you show this using scripture, that he was a "Sheep/Chosen?"

Sorry, but that was not my conclusion. You need to read the post again. I did not place that kind of meaning on the word "love"

 

[EleventhHour]

Sorry, but that was not my conclusion. You need to read the post again.

I am trying to understand that lengthy post ..

So clarify is this what you think is scriptural?

That the young rich man is one of the sheep but had not yet been "born from above" and was not yet able to hear and understand what the Lord was saying.

 

[awelight]

I am trying to understand that lengthy post ..

So clarify is this what you think is scriptural?

That the young rich man is one of the sheep but had not yet been "born from above" and was not yet able to hear and understand what the Lord was saying.

As I previously stated, I do not think that the word love, in this case, means the intimate and loving relationship like the Father has with his Son. I do not believe that, the young rich man was one of the sheep.

Take time to reread the post, I am making many points here that have to be looked at as a whole. There are no parts of Scripture that can be handled correctly from just one or two sentences.

 

[Lion222]

He hates sin, yes..

But the sinner?

True love hates.
I know people want to explain it away, mostly because they fear a sovereign God who will have mercy on who He pleases to have mercy.

But it is written God hated Esau.
Not the works of his sin, but the man himself before he was even born.
Now is God unjust for that?
Or is God, God and you and I are not?

Just because I love my creation does not mean I will not destroy most of it in order to save from it something I am pleased to save from it, it is mine after all to do with as I please.

That is not to say we do not know what pleases God.
That we do not have choices to make that have results for us in relation to God.
But He is not a tame lion.

 

[EleventhHour]

the young rich man was one of the sheep.

Meaning he was one of the elect .. correct?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

True love hates.
I know people want to explain it away, mostly because they fear a sovereign God who will have mercy on who He pleases to have mercy.

But it is written God hated Esau.
Not the works of his sin, but the man himself before he was even born.
Now is God unjust for that?
Or is God, God and you and I are not?

Just because I love my creation does not mean I will not destroy most of it in order to save from it something I am pleased to save from it, it is mine after all to do with as I please.

That is not to say we do not know what pleases God.
That we do not have choices to make that have results for us in relation to God.
But He is not a tame lion.

1. God did not hate esau The person in Malachi
2 in that passage esau represented the nation which bore his name ie edom
3. The word hate should be taken in a sense. God told us if we dis
Not hate our parents spouse and children we could have no part of him. Yet he told ya to love and honor them. So the word hate needs to be taken in context

 

[Lion222]

Romans 9:13 says that God hated Esau before Esau was even born, because Esau had inherited Adam’s hatred of God.

Psalm 5:5 says “The arrogant cannot stand in Your presence; You hate all who do wrong.” Notice that is it not some abstract “sin” or “wickedness” that God hates in this verse; it is people whom He hates.

Psalm 139:21-22 tells us that we should join God in His holy hatred of these people: “Do I not hate those who hate You, O Lord? I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies.”

The fear is that people because of there sin fear God might hate them.
But it is different for ones children, you can both love them and hate them for what they are doing.
It is because of love for them that you do hate them for the evil they do.

If there was no love, it would be indifference.
That is why his rod and staff comfort us.
His disciplining direction, His hatred of us in our sin is a comfort that we actually are loved.
That is why if you don't discipline you children you hate them and they are not comforted in your loving hatred of the evil in their lives.
True love hates.

"The love of God is this, to hate evil"

But then it is a hard thing to understand.
Sin does not exist apart from the sinner.
Sin and evil is a matter of the person and the heart they have.

Something not well understood, just like the command to be angry and how anger works and how it is Good and how it is Bad.
Hatred and Anger are both things of God. Things that God and Jesus operated in and in man there are expressions of that that are ungodly but there are expressions of that which are Godly and our throwing those out in the trash with the rest has causes us to be less the God intended.

But such goes against what many have been trained to believe and unlearning things we think are right is one of the hardest things to do.

 

[Duskey]

But it is written God hated Esau. Not the works of his sin, but the man himself before he was even born. Now is God unjust for that?

It’d be funny if God hates you.

 

[Lion222]

1. God did not hate esau The person in Malachi
2 in that passage esau represented the nation which bore his name ie edom
3. The word hate should be taken in a sense. God told us if we dis
Not hate our parents spouse and children we could have no part of him. Yet he told ya to love and honor them. So the word hate needs to be taken in context

That is the standard explanation in order to make the words go away.
But Hate is hate, not love less.
Hate is an action and position against someone.
Taking up a position against them in favor of another.
Hate is a function of love, so you could say love them more by standing with Christ Jesus against them all.
So yes hate you parents and spouse and children, take up your actions and position with Christ against them and everyone who is opposed to Christ.

Just because you name happens to be Esau does not mean God hated everyone with that name, or God hated the nation of people associated with that name. or Gods hatred of a man with that name was because he hated a nation of people associated with that name. That would be unjust to hate a man for no reason at all.
i would say God hated Esau the man because who and what the man was.

Poem from a friend.

"I hate you
So I will kill you
in order to save you
because I love you"

 

[EleventhHour]

That sir, is the weirdest and most twisted answer I have ever seen in my 33+ years as a believer. I am not a "calvinist". I only proclaim the Truth of Scripture, which the world hates because it takes away mans glory and places it back to where it belongs, with GOD!

Any interpretation of Scripture, That either glorifies man, are places man's will above God's will, are gives man something to boast about, is serious error. If a man can choose Christ, of his own will, then he can boast. Ex... "I am so glad I chose life through Jesus Christ, unlike the other poor fools, who are still in their sins. I prefer to boast in Christ, my Lord and my God. For He and He alone saved me. Why? I do not know. For if I used human judgement, God should have let me burn in the lake of fire. That is where I truly belonged.

In response to this post above I am considering this comment by Duskey...

I never met anyone who chose Christ and boasted about their decision to do so. In fact it’s quite the opposite. People rejoice on bended knee, thanking God for His grace.

Consider that coming to God in all humility, reckoning there is not any amount of good works or righteous living that can be done to merit salvation and having to lay down ones pride completely............... surely there is nothing to boast about here ... when contrasted to God chose me and left others to burn? Correct?

 

[Lion222]

It’d be funny if God hates you.

Actually find humor in the tragedy of others is something God hates.

 

[Magenta]

Meaning he was one of the elect .. correct?

No, the other person is saying the rich young man was not one of the sheep. The original post this came from was saying, IF we were to look at it a certain way that conclusion could be drawn, but it is not the conclusion the other person has come to due to the unique usage of the word used for "love" in that passage, where Jesus looked on him and loved him, before telling him what he must do, knowing he could not.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

That is the standard explanation in order to make the words go away.
But Hate is hate, not love less.
Hate is an action and position against someone.
Taking up a position against them in favor of another.
Hate is a function of love, so you could say love them more by standing with Christ Jesus against them all.
So yes hate you parents and spouse and children, take up your actions and position with Christ against them and everyone who is opposed to Christ.

Just because you name happens to be Esau does not mean God hated everyone with that name, or God hated the nation of people associated with that name. or Gods hatred of a man with that name was because he hated a nation of people associated with that name. That would be unjust to hate a man for no reason at all.
i would say God hated Esau the man because who and what the man was.

Poem from a friend.

"I hate you
So I will kill you
in order to save you
because I love you"

I think this is taking things out of context

God told us to love our parents. But if we love them More then god we are in trouble So when he says we must hate them. He means love them less than himself

As far as esau goes. The passage in malichi is about Jacob (isreal) and esau (edom)

It is not about two kids it is about 2 nations.

 

[Duskey]

Actually find humor in the tragedy of others is something God hates.

Actually what God really hates is when idiots spend time ad nauseam talking about Him hating rather than loving.

 

[Lion222]

It’d be funny if God hates you.

Job said "though He slay me, yet i will trust in Him"
Because their is no other place for our hope.
It is in hope we are saved.

 

[throughfaith]

There are good points in both views expressed here.

1Cor 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

First let's examine what your interpretation is:

You said, I read that as . The world's own wisdom is the opposite to God's. I will agree to this view in part. There is no doubt that the "world" often thinks in ways that are opposite of God's ways. One of the tragic consequences of the "fall". We know that Scripture says, that our ways are not God's ways and our thoughts are not God's thoughts. The primary reason for this, is our depraved minds subsequent to the fall. We lost our original "uprightness" and thus, our "fellowship" with God, just as Adam could no longer walk with Him in the same way as he had enjoyed. Our thoughts are no longer upright. God is the thrice Holy God, (Isa 6:3), His chief attribute is Holiness, are if you will, absolute purity. Everything God does are does not do, must conform to His Holiness. If we look at God's attributes as the Scriptures reveal them, then it is possible to ascertain the proper order of those attributes. Here are the first four, in the proper priority.: 1) Holiness, 2) Justice 3) Wrath 4) Love.

For God is Holy and therefore His Holy Justice must be satisfied in order that any can be saved. His Holy Justice demands payment for the fall of His creation into sin. That payment is "death". His Holy Justice therefore requires the outpouring of Holy Wrath. So God devised the plan, before He ever created anything, wherein His own Son would become flesh, The God-Man, even Jesus Christ our Lord and would stand in the place of many sinners. He would experience God's full Holy Wrath and would experience death. Only by these things being accomplished, could God then allow His Holy Love to flow. Therefore, we can conclude, that God's Love can only flow to those whom are under the blood. If this were not true, then we would have God's love flowing to those who have NOT been JUSTIFIED before Him. His love then would be flowing to the world system, to the unsaved and unjust people. What a mess, just think it through. God's Holiness will not permit this. Everyone else benefits by His love for the redeemed. (The rain falls on the JUST and the UNJUST, Mat. 5:45)

Man cannot think in the way of God are perform in His way. We really have no true concept of what this kind of purity is like, as believers we can only see a mere shadow of it.

As to your next point, you said: In God's wisdom He chose the foolishness of the preaching to save those that believe, and that pleases Him . Again, I would partially agree with this interpretation. However my answer, would be similar to the one I gave previously. In God's wisdom, He determined to give a role to His redeemed people. The believer was made apart of God's plan for Salvation. An important role indeed. Believers are commanded to preach the Gospel, if you are a man, called of God, to preach. Believers are commanded to go forth and witness. God has never been without a witness. The world (unregenerate) sees the Gospel as foolishness. Primarily, because their depraved minds cannot perceive the danger they are in. These believe "science" is the answer to everything.

Again, I need to point out in this verse, you must consider the verb tenses, in order to clearly see the proper interpretation: ... it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. It pleased God, wherein "pleased" is in the past tense. (Aorist active indicative verb). The emphasis here, is the same as earlier in the verse, where the writer wrote, In God's wisdom He chose the foolishness of preaching. Then we, should be asking: "When did God choose?" Obviously, sometime in the past. I believe, this points us back to when God decreed His plan of Salvation from eternity. The emphasis then, is sometime in the past, it "pleased God" and it probably is still pleasing God at this time.

Also, the portion that says, ... to save them that believe. The word "save" should have been translated, "saved" because it is a past tense verb (aorist active imperative verb). This verb, is being used in the "imperative" sense. This means it is being used as a command. Therefore, it is referring to the "general" call of the Gospel that all should repent and believe. The next verb translated "believe", should have been translated: "believing", because it is a (present active participle verb), therefore "them that are believing"

If we put all this information together, then the proper interpretation should be like this: Preaching is used to proclaim the need for salvation and points one to the only acceptable savior, Jesus Christ. It is received and understood by those who are in a state of believing. Those whom God has made alive, hear the warnings and commands to seek safety in their Savior. The rest of the world sees this as foolishness. Therefore, preaching is an instrument of instruction, to those who are in a state of believing but preaching, in and of itself, cannot save. There is no such teaching in Scripture, that preaching, apart from Grace, can accomplish anything towards salvation are justification before God.

As to the "calvinistic" view, as you stated here, He chose the foolishness of the preaching to cause believe in those he saves . The way you stated this, would lead one to believe that preaching causes belief. In theological terms this would be called, "Gospel Regeneration" and I firmly denounce this idea. Regeneration, is the sole work of the Holy Spirit, (John 3). As to the other part, The worlds own wisdom , which was determined by God , is the opposite to God's wisdom, I am not sure, that I am comfortable, going that far with this thought. Many of the worlds errors and foolishness are of their own making but with that said, we must leave room for God and the working of His providential government. As shown in these verses, as an example of many more, just like them.

1Cor 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
2Th 2:11-12 And for this cause God is sending them a working of error (KJV says, "strong delusion"), that they should believe a lie: that they all might be judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

I'm not the one who is making the claim that we cannot believe without an ' enabling ' grace ( irresistible or previenient) that's your burden of proof which the bible does not say this . This is imposed onto the text because of a faulty view of the T in TULIP ..Which comes from Augustine.

 

[EleventhHour]

Okay, I will attempt to answer this in a God honoring way.

First, it should be noted, that this conversation between Jesus and the rich young man, is recorded by three of the Gospel writers. It is not recorded in the book of John. Therefore, we need to compare this verse in all three Gospel accounts:

Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
Mark 10:21 And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
Luke 18:22 And when Jesus heard it, he said unto him, One thing thou lackest yet: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

We know two very distinct things about this young rich man:

1) He was foolish and arrogant. Foolish, because he thought he could gain Salvation by works of the Law. We know that Salvation is not of works and that God's highest standard cannot be kept by fallen men.
2) Arrogant, because this young man believed he had kept all 10 of these commandments: Luke 18:21 And he said, All these things have I observed from my youth up. This statement, not only shows his spiritual ignorance but he proves himself to be self-righteous and arrogant.

Only in Mark's account is there a mention of Jesus "looking upon him, loved him". Therefore, we must ask, why the other two did not record this action by our lord. One thing that can be ascertained, is the Holy Spirit did not inspire the other two to write it down. This could possibly indicate, that it is not a vital piece of information to the point of the conversation. We know, that the point of this conversation, was to prove the young rich man's inability to give up his material possessions, which were great. Thus, he served the god of materialism and not the True God.

In Mark 10:21, Jesus looked upon the young man and loved him, after the young man had declared his foolishness and arrogance. This is a clue, as to how we should understand the statement: "loved him".

Let's look at the Greek word used here and see if we can ascertain how it is used. The Greek word is: ηγαπησεν and comes from the root of the word: ηγαπαω. Mark uses this word: ηγαπησεν, only here in verse 21 and no where else in his Gospel writings. It carries the meaning of a physical or emotional gesture. According to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, he describes it in this way: to love (as to hug or kiss), to wish well, to show pity towards and to have compassion for. These are all things, that we as Christians, should show towards everyone. In as much as lies in us to do. Therefore, this "love" carries the same idea as: Love thy neighbor as you would have them love you.

The type of love herein, recorded by Mark, should be understood as, Jesus looked upon this young man with compassion and sincere pity, knowing that this young man could not do what Jesus was about to say. For Jesus Christ knows what is in the heart of every one.
The young man had an emotional response to what Jesus said: Mar 10:22, "But his countenance fell at the saying, and he went away sorrowful: for he was one that had great possessions". Therefore, Jesus had comforted this young man before he announced, what He knew the young man could not do.

The Greek word used here by Mark, could not in this instance, carry the meaning of "enduring and intimate love" because that kind of "LOVE" is only expressed between the Father and The Son, the angels and God (not including the fallen ones), as well as, between God and His chosen people. To put that kind of meaning onto the Greek word in Mark 10:21, would have to mean: That the young rich man is one of the sheep but had not yet been "born from above" and was not yet able to hear and understand what the Lord was saying.

Contemplate this without traditional prejudices.

I simply take what God said at face value.

Yes let us do this.

This is the same "love" used elsewhere in scripture

ηγαπαω is the imperfect tense of ἀγαπάω, which is agape love.

Verb[edit]
ἠγάπων • (ēgápōn)
first-person singular/third-person plural imperfect active indicative contracted of ἀγαπάω (agapáō)
Source

Agape is love and so the face value is correct. And the Calvinist method of trying to divide up love is left wanting once again.
Same verb used in John 3:16.. the love for the elect that Calvinism likes to state.

Maybe you could try the rich young ruler being an elect as many Calvinists like to make the case for... which I thought you were stating ... might be a better argument... although complete eisegesis.