Does God Love Everyone?

Kurt..........to respond to your 1st thought, may I say Many Christians are shocked when they read Romans 9:13.............. “Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’”

But this as is the case in most situations just needs a little more intense study than just what is stated.

A more careful reading of this passage indicates that the subject is not individual salvation, but Israel’s national role in redemptive history. Paul is actually quoting from Mal. 1:2-3 and when we read those verses in the context of Malachi’s book clearly indicates that Malachi is using the word “Jacob” to refer to the nation of Israel and the word “Esau” to refer to the nation of Edom.

It is also important to explain that the word used for “hate” in Malachi 1 is a Hebrew idiom which actually means to “love less.” Dr. Oliver B. Green explains..............................
“This is evident from Gen. 29:30: The phrase ‘loved Rachel more than Leah’ is used as the equivalent of ‘Leah was hated’ (cf. also Matt. 10:37).
God does not hate anyone, but he does bless some nations more than others.

Now having understood that we can see that makes perfect sense because Romans 9, 10, and 11 are all about national Israel and her role in redemptive history. Romans 9 refers to Israel’s past, Romans 10 refers to her present, and Romans 11 refers to her future. It is a serious exegetical mistake to interpret Romans 9 to be referring to individuals’ salvation.

Major, thanks again for your reply.

I'm going to have to do some more research into what you're saying about "loved less," etc. Respectfully, I'm not ready to buy into that right away. Just looking at my Strong's concordance, the word "hate" from Romans 9:13 is transliterated "miseo" and means "to hate, pursue with hatred, detest."

Even so, your point the passage referring to national salvation instead of individual salvation is noted, but I'm not sure what difference that really makes. Unless God just "loves them less" (which I'm not ready to accept yet) He just hates national Edom instead of just Esau, right? I guess I'm failing to see how your expansion from individual to nation strengthens your argument.
I understand "ALL & ANY" to mean the salvation of ALL and ANY who will trust in Christ.

Kurt, please note that the word ....."any" = Greek word tis = someone, certain one & in the plural here = "certain ones" which is the so-called "individualizing plural" which speaks of God's desire for men individually to not perish, and is not a generalization about certain groups or classes of people which would include the "Elect".

All (3956) (pas, plural = pantas) means all with no exceptions.

So then my brother, the plain thrust of Peter's teaching in this section that you have posted is that after the second coming, ushering in the judgment of fire/war, there will be no further opportunity for repentance. You must also note what is clearly NOT being taught in passages like this -- There is absolutely no indication of a "secret decree" by God
which predestinates certain souls to eternal damnation
That thought, I must agree, having deceptive attraction, and having a false look of truth, argument is not substantiated in the current text nor anywhere else in the Scriptures. We must look deeper at the Word and ask the Holy Spirit for guidence so as to grasp these things of higher thought.

Well, I wasn't really using this verse to support my argument. Rather, I was dissecting it to show that it doesn't support the opposing side. But yes, I'm aware that not every verse in the Bible is going to support predestination. I'd like to talk about that too, but that's probably a topic for another thread entirely.
 
No, sir. It's not clear. If God wanted everyone in heaven, then everyone would be in heaven right now. God gets what he wants. He is sovereign. Nothing on Earth happens outside the will of God. He will accomplish all his purpose (Isaiah 46:9-10). You're telling me that God will be in a state of eternal mourning as he pours out his wrath on the unbelievers whom he "loves?" Did God love all the people on the Earth that He drowned to death when He flooded it? Did God love the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah when He launched the greatest airstrike of all time? Did He also love Pharaoh whose heart He hardened which resulted in angel of death killing his child? What about Sihon? Did God love Sihon whose heart He hardened so that the Israelites could kill him and all the people of Heshbon? What about the men, women, young, and old of Jericho? Did God love them too when He facilitated the slaughter of men, women, elderly, and children by the sword? I can give probably 20 more examples.
Kurt I am going to have to leave the discussion with you before I get too upset...its not like this subject has not already been killed in recent threads. If you cannot read the reasoning for God's actions and judge Him properly you are no better then any atheist or the devil in twisting scripture. You really cannot grasp that a partial God is evil? That is perhaps the most naive / insulting suggestion one can make of the cross :mad:. It sounds like something I expect to hear at a satanist meeting.

Sometimes I wonder what the real agenda is of people who believe as you do. I believe Jesus would say to you...'you quoted 8 scriptures but the bible flies over your head'.
 
Last edited:
This has not produced laziness or carelessness or led me to witness with less fever. Witnessing to people has actually become more exciting because I'm looking to see what God will do in this person's life.

Thanks for the gracious reply, Kurt,

The first time I encountered Calvinism was when I read James Hogg's The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner, which is about a man who becomes a serial killer because he believes in predestination, and concludes that whatever he does, he is guaranteed salvation anyway, so he can do anything. Murder is further justified, because all he is doing is hastening souls to their inevitable destination. So, I knew a few Calvinists, and at the time, I was pretty horrified that my friends would believe something like this, so I did some digging and found out, pretty quickly, that this is not at all what Calvinists believe.

When I investigated, what saw was this: Christians who believe in predestination and Christians who don't have about 0% difference in the way they do ministry. I feel like you and I are from pretty similar backgrounds, in that I also used to witness in the rational/argumentative/apologetics style, and got absolutely nowhere with anyone at all. A lot of people "rejected the Gospel" as I presented it back in that day.

But just to throw a thought out there, since I've changed my attitude toward ministry, I can't say that I've met anyone who is unwilling to engage with me about spiritual things. I've reached the same conclusion as you, that salvation is 100% the work of the Spirit, but I have also found, through personal experience, that my attitude toward the message I'm giving and the the people who are receiving it seems to make a massive difference in how it is received. Speaking the message of the gospel to people is, of course, important and necessary, but committing to people's lives and living the gospel to them will melt a lot of ice, tear down a lot of strongholds. I absolutely know Calvinists can also be passionate about that type of ministry. But what I mean to say is: when I think about the people I've done ministry with, the people I've really committed to being part of their life, I have never met a single person who hates God, has fully rejected Him and is incapable of understanding the gospel. I know, no apologetics or Biblical quotation there: just personal experience, I'm not saying "this is conclusive evidence." I just find it significant that since I've changed my attitude about ministry, these totally depraved people who reject the gospel and have no interest in seeking God seem to have completely disappeared for me.

I am happy to concede that the theology of "God loves everyone" does not adequately explain everything in the Bible, in particular, the verses you mentioned about God hardening pharaoh's heart, etc. That, to me, is Calvinism's strongest argument, and I will be perfectly frank, I'd rather just turn the page at those verses, because I can't explain them in any fully satisfying way. Calvinism's other traditional arguments aren't quite so strong for me, but that is one that I wrestle with.

I wouldn't say that we are owed or are deserving of God's love... and I've rarely met anyone who teaches that (I have met a few). I might say, though, that's God's love is available to anyone and offered to everyone, undeserving though we are. In the end, though, like I said, it seems like Calvinists, believing in predestination, are passionate about getting out there, giving the gospel, living the gospel, and doing God's work just like Christians who don't believe in predestination. I'd be perfectly happy to do ministry alongside my Calvinist brothers and sisters. I could very well be missing something, but maybe this isn't really a very monumentally significant issue? Believing one way or the other does not seem, in my observations, to make any difference at all in how we believe we are called to live our lives as Christians.

Thanks for your input Kurt.
 
Last edited:
This would really frustrate me because it wasn't an outright rejection of God for some of these people, it was an inability to believe it. This reminds me of John 10:26 where Jesus says "you do not believe because you are not my sheep." How much different would the meaning be had Jesus said "you are not my sheep because you do not believe?"

At that moment, I would agree, yes.

.....although i think no living person can say that with finality: another person have none or “will not havethe ability.

there is high probability that Paul/Saul was there in Stephen "Speech to Sanhedrin".... and Paul seems was not convinced at that moment.
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit confused here. I am hearing a lot of people supporting what is claimed as a Calvinist position that God loves everyone and that God wants everyone to be saved. In at least a general way, I can support that but it seems to be contrary to the idea of Election and Predestination which are pretty central to Calvinism. Not being an expert or adherent to Calvinism, could someone explain how that works? If God WANTS everyone to be saved, then why would he predestine some to be condemned? From my perspective, a God that pre-decides to condemn some people without giving them the ability to choose because the Cross was ONLY for those that are predestined (Limited Atonement) and only the predestined elect CAN choose, isn't a God that loves everyone. or is all of this just one of those hyper-calvinist things? How are these issues dealt with by card-carrying Calvinists?
 
Kurt I am going to have to leave the discussion with you before I get too upset...its not like this subject has not already been killed in recent threads. If you cannot read the reasoning for God's actions and judge Him properly you are no better then any atheist or the devil in twisting scripture. You really cannot grasp that a partial God is evil? That is perhaps the most naive / insulting suggestion one can make of the cross :mad:. It sounds like something I expect to hear at a satanist meeting.

Sometimes I wonder what the real agenda is of people who believe as you do. I believe Jesus would say to you...'you quoted 8 scriptures but the bible flies over your head'.

KingJ, I'm sorry that this is upsetting you and I don't mean to make you angry. You're free to leave the discussion at anytime, in which case I thank you for your participation.

I'm also sorry that I cannot "grasp that a partial God is evil," because I don't find that to be true. God demonstrates partiality throughout the entire Bible. I noted a small handful of examples. You addressed none of them. In fact, I don't think you directly addressed any of the direct questions I asked you.

My only agenda here is to arrive at a right understanding of God. Personally, I am uncomfortable with the thought that God hates some people, but that doesn't mean that it's not true. You're saying I quote 8 verses and that the Bible is flying over my head, but the Bible is comprised of individual scriptures that make up the whole. The Bible cannot contradict itself, yet 8 verses say he hates some people, and another verse says he loves everyone? This must be reconciled. And it should be able to be reconciled without ignoring the 8 verses or tacking on "if you accept Him" to every other verse you come across that refers to God's free gift of grace.

Now I feel like I need to respond to the suggestion comparing me to Satanists. We all have idols in our lives. Some people idolize celebrities, or their favorite sports team. Some may idolize their favorite hobby. I heard in a sermon once where the pastor said, "You know you're idolizing something when you have to demonize something else." Have you ever known someone to be completely pious about their particular Bible translation, demonizing all the rest? That's idolatry too. The same might be true for a given theological position, which could explain your anger because I don't agree with you.

If you don't agree with me, just say so. If I make an argument that you don't quite know how to address, just say "Yeah I'll get back to you on that" or "I really don't know how to address that, but I don't see how that could be true because..." We're here on the forum to learn from each other and sharpen our understanding of the Bible and God. There's no need for venom in our comments. Discussions like this are serious business and we shouldn't be dividing over them.
 
Deleted… I think I already know the answer.... with the flow of premises : )
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit confused here. I am hearing a lot of people supporting what is claimed as a Calvinist position that God loves everyone and that God wants everyone to be saved. In at least a general way, I can support that but it seems to be contrary to the idea of Election and Predestination which are pretty central to Calvinism. Not being an expert or adherent to Calvinism, could someone explain how that works? If God WANTS everyone to be saved, then why would he predestine some to be condemned? From my perspective, a God that pre-decides to condemn some people without giving them the ability to choose because the Cross was ONLY for those that are predestined (Limited Atonement) and only the predestined elect CAN choose, isn't a God that loves everyone. or is all of this just one of those hyper-calvinist things? How are these issues dealt with by card-carrying Calvinists?

Banarenth, thanks for your question. As a Calvinist, I will try to answer it and hopefully I won't get off the tracks and soup this up. Let me caveat everything I say here with the admission that when I say I'm a Calvinist I mean to say that I believe in the 5 points. I have not read any works by Calvin or know what he believed about other topics so I don't want to misrepresent.

There are two issues that you've raised as Calvinist positions:
(1) God loves everyone
(2) God wants everyone to be saved

I'm not sure that Position 1 is universally accepted (or rejected) by all Calvinists. There is at least a camp of Calvinists that believe that God loves some people and hates other people. I fall into this camp. I just don't want to sign up all Calvinists to this premise. So at least for me, Position 1 is false.

I'm fairly certain that most Calvinists believe Position 2 to be false. The verse most used to support this position is 2 Peter 3:9. I addressed how Calvinists interpret this verse in Post #13 above. Calvinism has a very strong view of God's sovereignty. In other words, if the Bible says "God wants _____" you can be certain that it's going to happen because God always gets what he wants. Nothing in the universe happens outside of God's sovereign will. If indeed God wanted everyone to be saved, they would be. So I submit to you that God indeed does not want everyone to be saved (or they would be) which should help your understanding of how that fits in with predestination and limited atonement.
 
KingJ, I'm sorry that this is upsetting you and I don't mean to make you angry. You're free to leave the discussion at anytime, in which case I thank you for your participation.

I'm also sorry that I cannot "grasp that a partial God is evil," because I don't find that to be true. God demonstrates partiality throughout the entire Bible. I noted a small handful of examples. You addressed none of them. In fact, I don't think you directly addressed any of the direct questions I asked you.

My only agenda here is to arrive at a right understanding of God. Personally, I am uncomfortable with the thought that God hates some people, but that doesn't mean that it's not true. You're saying I quote 8 verses and that the Bible is flying over my head, but the Bible is comprised of individual scriptures that make up the whole. The Bible cannot contradict itself, yet 8 verses say he hates some people, and another verse says he loves everyone? This must be reconciled. And it should be able to be reconciled without ignoring the 8 verses or tacking on "if you accept Him" to every other verse you come across that refers to God's free gift of grace.

Now I feel like I need to respond to the suggestion comparing me to Satanists. We all have idols in our lives. Some people idolize celebrities, or their favorite sports team. Some may idolize their favorite hobby. I heard in a sermon once where the pastor said, "You know you're idolizing something when you have to demonize something else." Have you ever known someone to be completely pious about their particular Bible translation, demonizing all the rest? That's idolatry too. The same might be true for a given theological position, which could explain your anger because I don't agree with you.

If you don't agree with me, just say so. If I make an argument that you don't quite know how to address, just say "Yeah I'll get back to you on that" or "I really don't know how to address that, but I don't see how that could be true because..." We're here on the forum to learn from each other and sharpen our understanding of the Bible and God. There's no need for venom in our comments. Discussions like this are serious business and we shouldn't be dividing over them.
Sorry for the venom... I left too late in that post :oops:.

When you say reconciled....you do not reconcile though...you just take one side and conclude.

The most classic example of this (with Calvinists) is perhaps Rom 9. Calvinists quote that and conclude ....eeerrrr that means God can do whatever He wants...so if He sends people to hell...He does so because He wants to...He does what pleases Him and there is a hell....= conclusion = God is partial...completely ignoring the fact that God clearly tells us exactly what pleases Him...the very reason for scripture in the first place....He wants us to know that He is sovereign and impartial....I cannot think of a clearer justification for stating the bible flies over Calvinists heads.

Then there is Acts 10:34 and James 2. Calvinists say those verses refer to Jews / gentiles and rich / poor only...and are to be treated as exceptions to the norm ...:rolleyes: Why in the universe would God urge impartiality with rich / poor....Jew / gentile and then be partial with heaven and hell? It makes NO logical sense / goes against a nature of Himself that He is trying to show us.

As for satanism...... selfishness / partiality is at its core! I would simply NOT be a Christian if I suspected God was partial. Hence the million dollar question is...How do you judge a partial God as good...NOBODY in their right mind would...and if that be the case scripture saying He is good or just is then lying. We can then conclude that God should have made us dumber / unable to grasp that partiality is evil.

Concluding God is partial goes against 99% of God's character traits from scripture....God is good, God is just, God is righteous, God is patient, God is longsuffering...etc. If God was partial WHY call Himself good. If God was partial WHY call Himself a just judge? If God was partial WHY be patient? If God was partial WHY be longsuffering. God is partial / does not love everyone goes against the grain of scripture! I could go on all day with other examples...but what's the point unless the idea of a partial God irks you...;).
 
Thank you for your response. I get what you are saying, and it is consistent with what you have said. I'm more curious how it can be said that God has predetermined that some will simply not make it, has limited the atonement of Christ's work on the cross to ONLY a certain group of pre-elected individuals, and still loves everyone as most in this topic seem to be proposing to believe. I'm just curious how that all resolves.

However, you did bring me another question. If everything God wants happens, the I'm suddenly reminded that 2 Peter 3:9 tells us that He is not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL would come to repentance. I presume that you would propose that the "ALL" in this verse only refers to the predestined? But what about those that say God loves EVERYONE. Just trying to gain an understanding of everyone's perspective. As someone who does not believe in predestination, or really any of the 5 points of Calvinism, I think it is helps to understand these things so that we can better understand where we agree, even if we don't match in our perspectives and interpretations.
 
I'm a bit confused here. I am hearing a lot of people supporting what is claimed as a Calvinist position that God loves everyone and that God wants everyone to be saved. In at least a general way, I can support that but it seems to be contrary to the idea of Election and Predestination which are pretty central to Calvinism. Not being an expert or adherent to Calvinism, could someone explain how that works? If God WANTS everyone to be saved, then why would he predestine some to be condemned? From my perspective, a God that pre-decides to condemn some people without giving them the ability to choose because the Cross was ONLY for those that are predestined (Limited Atonement) and only the predestined elect CAN choose, isn't a God that loves everyone. or is all of this just one of those hyper-calvinist things? How are these issues dealt with by card-carrying Calvinists?

Hey Banarenth,

I've looked around the internet a bit, and I've quickly found that there is definitely division within Calvinism about the answers to your questions here.

I found one article in particular where the author, who identifies as a Calvinist, affirms that
1) God does want everyone to be saved, and
2) His will won't be accomplished in this case.

http://www.mslick.com/desireall.htm

The author does this by adopting a complex view of "God's will," distinguishing God's "perfect will" from His "permissive will." Using this distinction, he shows how God could desire one thing, but predestine/engineer/arrange the exact contrary. I personally disagree with the author, but he very clearly articulates a complex concept, and it's worth a read if only to understand his position.
 
Am interested on how a Calvinist reply/point of view on this one....
Aha, thanks for your question.

Here's how I deal with these:

(1) All babies go to heaven: Full disclosure, I don't know. I think there is some evidence in the Bible that suggests that babies who die go to heaven, but I don't fully buy into the "age of accountability" doctrine. My biggest issue is more philosophical because if we accept the premise that all babies born are "saved" then at some point in their life they become "unsaved" when they reach this age of accountability. I just don't believe that to be the case. What I believe is that some people are elect, and some are not. God may have very well chosen all babies that die premature deaths as elect. But again, let me bookend my comments with I don't know.

(2) God made nobody for hell: I don't find this to be true. Without laying out the entire doctrines of grace, I will refer you to the passage that I think best demonstrates the view that some people are made for hell. If you look at Romans 9:17-18, Paul is telling us that basically the sole reason God "raised up" Pharaoh, was to show His power and that his name might be proclaimed in all the Earth. Hence, Pharaoh was an instrument of God to show His power - "for this very purpose." Verse 18 tells us that "God hardens whomever He wills, and has mercy on whomever He wills." The key point here is that God does what He wants. If He wanted to have mercy on everyone, He would.

Many people take issue with this, claiming that it's not fair, or that God is being partial. Coincidentally, the Romans took issue with it too. They protested to Paul, "Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His Will?" (Romans 9:19) Paul chastises them in Romans 9:20, "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?" and in Romans 9:21 Paul compares God to the molder of clay and lays out that a potter can make whatever kinds of pots He wants and the clay has no right to what it might become. In other words, a potter can make a vase in which to put flowers, or a potter can make a vase in which to spit in. In either case, the potter can do what He wants and the clay has no right to say anything about it. Finally, in Romans 9:22-23 Paul hits it home: "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, and endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, on order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory..." Hence, some people are made for destruction with the purpose of making known the riches of His glory for those who are made for His mercy.

Now I'm aware that many non-Calvinists like to just throw out this passage because it says "what if" at the front of it. I believe this to be a mistake. Every single verse in the Bible teaches us something about God. If this verse was just Paul's pointless rambling, it wouldn't be there.
 
Last edited:
Even Nazarenes believe in an age of accountability doctrine, which is really only a doctrine that exists because an sinful nature doctrine exists. In Calvinism, I get why there is a sinful nature doctrine. I've come to terms with it in my own denomination, but it has always seemed a bit inconsistent with free will IMO. To punish a person for something they did not choose, and had not ability to act up suggests a very biased and relatively unjust God. I generally just accept the doctrine on face value because it seems to cause more confusion with people when you explore it deeper, and ultimately, you end up in the same place anyway. So it's usually not worth going too deep.

If there is such a thing as predestination, and that God has elected some people to become saved before they were born, then it seems to me that God DID make some people for the purpose of sending them to Hell. I personally do not believe that, but I also don't have a problem with the logic. I could certainly make a case for God doing such a thing and still being Holy and Sovereign because those people may simply exist to impact others and prove God to those that were elect. However, if God also LOVED those that are born condemned, then Hell should not be their destination...at least, not for eternity. It's a bit too much like chopping off you kids hand the first time he steals a cookie. Permanent punishment for a temporary transgression.
 
Just sitting here thinking about this topic in a general way.

So far, the only real evidence presented for God loving EVERYONE is John 3:16. That is using the text a bit out of context, but the real meat of it is that Scripture says "God loved the World". But, does that really mean everyone? Perhaps, but the text as written does not necessary imply that. As a pastor, I love my congregation. I love my church body. I love my teens. I love my children. I love my helpers. Does that mean that I individually love every single person in each of those groups? I don't even know everyone yet. There are certainly some that I care more about that others. There are some that I simply don't connect well with on a personal level. There are some I've met over the years that were so destructive to the body and those around them that I can't help but wonder if we would have all been better off if they had chosen another church. Do I love them all? Well, perhaps on one level or another. I certainly would do anything I could to help them. Now, I understand that God's love is much greater than ours, so perhaps He genuinely does love every single individual, but the text itself does not necessarily imply that. It is an insufficient argument on it's own weight.

However, to say that God doesn't love everyone implies one of three things. Either God created some of us knowing that He would love us making His love a bit incomplete, or that we only become loved after as a result of something that is external to God and internal to ourselves, or that God ceases to love some. I John tells us that God IS love, so really, none of those sit well with me. I don't necessarily insist that God must love everyone equally, only that I don't see a way around it that sits well with me when I consider it. From my seat, it seems to me that Calvinists would embrace a God that doesn't love everyone because some are irrevocably created with an eternal sentence of Hell looming over their heads. I also know that while that is a fairly central platform to Calvinism, in practice, it's usually understood and presented in a much, much kinder way. I doubt I'm doing any justice to it, which is why I'm seeking clarification.

Any thoughts?
 
I can't keep up with all the activity on this topic. Trust me when I say I will address everyone's comments to me. But I have a couple minutes that I think I can jam out a response to this specific question:

From my seat, it seems to me that Calvinists would embrace a God that doesn't love everyone because some are irrevocably created with an eternal sentence of Hell looming over their heads. I also know that while that is a fairly central platform to Calvinism, in practice, it's usually understood and presented in a much, much kinder way. I doubt I'm doing any justice to it, which is why I'm seeking clarification.

Any thoughts?

From a Calvinist viewpoint, everyone is born in sin and deserves God's wrath. Everyone. But for whatever reason we do not understand, God chose to rescue a collection of people, referred to in the Bible as "the elect," from His wrath. The only reason we see in the Bible for this is that "He loved us." Why did He love me and not someone else? I do not know. Why did he choose the Israelites and not another tribe? I don't know. But the bottom line is that He did and that He predestined it. In fact, God wrote every day of my life in His book "when yet there was none of them." (Psalms 139:16)

I share your discomfort with the inevitable conclusion that if God predestined those that will be saved, it follows that He predestined those that won't. This is bothersome, but I believe Romans 9:17-23 adequately explains how that can be true.

Calvinists believe that God is sovereign and that He ordains everything that happens. God is not weak. He is powerful beyond comprehension and is in total control of everything that transpires. God was not "surprised" by the rebellion of Lucifer and his angels in heaven. He ordained it. God was not "surprised" by the fact that Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. He ordained it. After Adam ate the fruit, God did not say, "oh, dang. Let me come up with a plan to make this right..." Adam's rebellion was part of His plan. He "declared the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done" (Isaiah 46:9-10). God ordained these things so that the conclusion of this galactic drama will ultimately "make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy" (Romans 9:22-23).
 
Aha, thanks for your question.

Here's how I deal with these:

(1) All babies go to heaven: Full disclosure, I don't know. I think there is some evidence in the Bible that suggests that babies who die go to heaven, but I don't fully buy into the "age of accountability" doctrine. My biggest issue is more philosophical because if we accept the premise that all babies born are "saved" then at some point in their life they become "unsaved" when they reach this age of accountability. I just don't believe that to be the case. What I believe is that some people are elect, and some are not. God may have very well chosen all babies that die premature deaths as elect. But again, let me bookend my comments with I don't know.

(2) God made nobody for hell: I don't find this to be true. Without laying out the entire doctrines of grace, I will refer you to the passage that I think best demonstrates the view that some people are made for hell. If you look at Romans 9:17-18, Paul is telling us that basically the sole reason God "raised up" Pharaoh, was to show His power and that his name might be proclaimed in all the Earth. Hence, Pharaoh was an instrument of God to show His power - "for this very purpose." Verse 18 tells us that "God hardens whomever He wills, and has mercy on whomever He wills." The key point here is that God does what He wants. If He wanted to have mercy on everyone, He would.

Many people take issue with this, claiming that it's not fair, or that God is being partial. Coincidentally, the Romans took issue with it too. They protested to Paul, "Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His Will?" (Romans 9:19) Paul chastises them in Romans 9:20, "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?" and in Romans 9:21 Paul compares God to the molder of clay and lays out that a potter can make whatever kinds of pots He wants and the clay has no right to what it might become. In other words, a potter can make a vase in which to put flowers, or a potter can make a vase in which to spit in. In either case, the potter can do what He wants and the clay has no right to say anything about it. Finally, in Romans 9:22-23 Paul hits it home: "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, and endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, on order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory..." Hence, some people are made for destruction with the purpose of making known the riches of His glory for those who are made for His mercy.

Now I'm aware that many non-Calvinists like to just throw out this passage because it says "what if" at the front of it. I believe this to be a mistake. Every single verse in the Bible teaches us something about God. If this verse was just Paul's pointless rambling, it wouldn't be there.


Thanks for the answer….
I deleted my post because I seem to get a grip of Calvinist premises….

Although I did not expected your answer to be “I don't know” : )

Reason is I seem to assume that the basic premise of Calvinist is:
God is good.
God is just.
God is sovereign.
I think all Christians will agree on the above.
And the next one:

God knows everything, thus, the predestination.
Now, I think all Christians agrees that we are saved by grace thru our Lord Jesus Christ….

Thanks again for the answer, IMO, in a horizontal relationship: we seek to understand each other….to live in harmony with each other…
 
What is meant by God "loving" people. Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, defined how God loves people and He described it as things like sunshine and rain (Mt. 5:43-48). So, in that sense, He certainly does love all people. But the Scripture also tells us that there are some people whom He hates (Pr. 6:16-19; Ps. 5:5; 11:5).
 
God loves everyone.

IMO: It is kind a similar to forgiveness.

The forgiver has shown forgiveness to the forgiven (everyone)

If the forgiven does not believe or does not have faith on forgiveness shown by the forgiver:

I think it is no longer an issue with the forgiver, it is an issue with the forgiven.

That is: the forgiven who thinks he is still unforgiven is giving himself a "hell of a time".
 
Last edited:
Major, thanks again for your reply.

I'm going to have to do some more research into what you're saying about "loved less," etc. Respectfully, I'm not ready to buy into that right away. Just looking at my Strong's concordance, the word "hate" from Romans 9:13 is transliterated "miseo" and means "to hate, pursue with hatred, detest."

Even so, your point the passage referring to national salvation instead of individual salvation is noted, but I'm not sure what difference that really makes. Unless God just "loves them less" (which I'm not ready to accept yet) He just hates national Edom instead of just Esau, right? I guess I'm failing to see how your expansion from individual to nation strengthens your argument.


Well, I wasn't really using this verse to support my argument. Rather, I was dissecting it to show that it doesn't support the opposing side. But yes, I'm aware that not every verse in the Bible is going to support predestination. I'd like to talk about that too, but that's probably a topic for another thread entirely.

Certainly. You choose it and let me know. But may I say that IF one does not properly grasp "Predestination" it will cloud almost every other Biblical doctrine.
 
Back
Top