GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?  (Read 8064 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

revc

  • Guest
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #70 on: Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 08:44:38 »
Quote
Where the scriptures speak of the faith OF Jesus Christ to change that to faith IN Jesus Christ would destroy the gospel of Jesus Christ

This is merely an assertion with absolutely no linguistics to back it up.  Perhaps a list of all the scriptures that speak of Christ possessing faith, and linguistic data backing up the translations would do well.

Quote
Paul CLEARLY said that the righteousness of God is by the faith "of" Jesus Christ

This is an example of ignorance of the original language and a seeming lack of interest in arriving at the meaning of the original language.  You have yet to explain your view that the genitive is anything but an objective genitive.  Before you can arrive at interpretation you must first determine translation.  It really makes no sense to discuss anything further with you if you are unwilling to defend your assertion that God incarnate had faith, as opposed to first-hand, intimate knowledge, of all things pertinent to the situation, as well as defining the exact object of that faith.  I have seen no attempts in this thread of the basics you need to establish first.  Dragging your presumptions into the texts is unacceptable in any linguistic endeavor.

This places an easy task in front of you.  There is no request for argument, no request for theological specifics, no request for refutations of anything anyone has said, only a justification for insisting on a use of the genitive in the way you are using it.  And, it is only Romans 3:22 and Galatians 2:16 that you need attend to, for now.  If you cannot educate readers in the language, then why would you lecture as though you have laid the foundation? If someone does not know what the scriptures say, how can he pretend to know what they mean?


RC

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #70 on: Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 08:44:38 »

Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6699
  • Manna: 349
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #71 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 04:53:07 »
RB,

Nobody can be born again apart from God's grace and power. John 1:13 simply tells us that nobody can will themselves apart from God or can exercise any power or claim of their own to effect their new birth.
I made a long post to you yesterday, only to not find it this morning....strange indeed. Oh well, let us try this once more.

I agree with this statement of yours so far.
Quote from: soterion Reply #66 on: Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 20:08:31
According to the previous verse, it takes receiving God (as opposed to rejecting Him).
This statement does not make much sense based on what you said that I did agree to~let me explain.....Let us look at John 1:10-12.
Quote from: John the apostle
John 1:11-12~"He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:"
Verse twelve of John's gospel chapter one John tells us the reason "WHY" some did received Christ while the world and his own did not. The reason as to why some did receive Christ while most did not is because of God's power/right/authority was freely give to them to believe~which John added, even to them that believe on his name which I understand that to mean, the many in the gospel that were NOT of Israel and that was NOT circumcised as the Jews had to be, EVEN TO THEM that only believe on him, this power was given to them as well, in order for them to believe even if they had NOT been circumcised as the Jews were commanded to be up until the death of Christ, and then afterwards it was no longer a requirement. Circumcision had NO profit to it as far a being saved and in covenant with God.
Quote from: soterion Reply #66 on: Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 20:08:31
This simply means that those who believe in Him He gave the right to become children of God.
I agree with that statement.
Quote from: soterion Reply #66 on: Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 20:08:31
Thus, nobody can be born again apart from believing in Him.
But, no sooner said, you added this. Sir, The power to believe IS THE GIFT, regeneration must come first "before" one can believe. What you should have said is this: "Thus, nobody can believe apart from being born again!" For that is exactly what John is teaching us from his gospel. For proof of this, we have John 1:13 which is the Spirit's commentary of John 1:12.
Quote from: John the Apostle
John 1:13~"Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."
Not of the will of the flesh would totally eliminate man been active in this spiritual birth, or even having faith, which we know that that is impossible from many other scriptures~ Romans 8:7,8 ~among many that could be given.
Quote from: soterion Reply #66 on: Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 20:08:31
God loves all
I gave a post on this yesterday, let me come back later today and consider your statement and see if it will stand the test of the scriptures.
Quote from: Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles
Romans 9:13-16~As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."
Later....RB
« Last Edit: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 04:57:31 by RB »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #71 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 04:53:07 »

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9614
  • Manna: 274
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #72 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 07:49:14 »
RB, once again you are being mislead by your insistence upon the KJV.  But even more the KJV doesn't really say what you think it says.

KJV  John 1:12  But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

A better translation

ESV  John 1:12  But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,

The point is that these two are actually saying the same thing; but the ESV presents the better sense and the easier to understand.  Those who receive Him, i.e., those who believe in His name are the ones to whom He gave the power to become the sons of God.  It is those who receive Him, i.e, those who believe in His name who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (v.13).

So then, while the KJV actually says the same thing, it does so poorly.  Those who receive Jesus are those who believe in His name.  And it is to them that He gave the power to become sons of God, to be born of God, to be born again, to be born from above.

And your reference to Romans 9:13-16 is once again misplaced.  That passage has nothing to do with whether either of those twins would receive eternal life or whether either would be condemned.  It is simply about which one would serve God in his earthly life.  It is not about being chosen to be saved; rather it is about being chosen to serve God's purpose.

You presented that as objection to soterion's statement that "God loves all".  You of course do not believe that God loves all and you present Romans 9:13-16, and some others, to support your belief.  I find it interesting that Jesus said in answer to the question of which was the greatest commandment in the Law,

Mat 22:37  And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
Mat 22:38  This is the great and first commandment.
Mat 22:39  And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Mat 22:40  On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."


We read elsewhere that Jesus said that really everyone is our neighbor.  That means that God, whom you claim does not love everyone, in fact commands that we love everyone.  Strange.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #72 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 07:49:14 »

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9614
  • Manna: 274
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #73 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 07:54:56 »
Also, man's will does not fall outside of God's sovereignty. That man has a choice is due to the grace and sovereignty of God. While a person cannot by the strength of his own mind or body save Himself, neither is he made a child of God apart from any choice on his part to either receive God or reject Him. Jesus did all the work of our salvation. That is what the gospel message is all about. People will either believe it unto salvation or reject it unto condemnation.
::thumbup:: ::thumbup::

 ::amen!:: ::amen!::

+1

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #73 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 07:54:56 »

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 34617
  • Manna: 760
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #74 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 08:12:18 »
AMEN2

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #74 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 08:12:18 »



Offline soterion

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5094
  • Manna: 233
  • Gender: Male
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #75 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 08:51:18 »

Verse twelve of John's gospel chapter one John tells us the reason "WHY" some did received Christ while the world and his own did not. The reason as to why some did receive Christ while most did not is because of God's power/right/authority was freely give to them to believe~which John added, even to them that believe on his name which I understand that to mean, the many in the gospel that were NOT of Israel and that was NOT circumcised as the Jews had to be, EVEN TO THEM that only believe on him, this power was given to them as well, in order for them to believe even if they had NOT been circumcised as the Jews were commanded to be up until the death of Christ, and then afterwards it was no longer a requirement. Circumcision had NO profit to it as far a being saved and in covenant with God. I agree with that statement.

But, no sooner said, you added this. Sir, The power to believe IS THE GIFT, regeneration must come first "before" one can believe. What you should have said is this: "Thus, nobody can believe apart from being born again!" For that is exactly what John is teaching us from his gospel. For proof of this, we have John 1:13 which is the Spirit's commentary of John 1:12.

Not of the will of the flesh would totally eliminate man been active in this spiritual birth, or even having faith, which we know that that is impossible from many other scriptures~ Romans 8:7,8 ~among many that could be given.


4WD answered well what the nutshell difference is in our individual viewpoints. As you can see in my previous post, I equate, "...as many as received Him..." with, "...to them that believe on His name."

Those who are not given the power to become sons of God are those who strive to become such by their own will and power apart from God. They are those who do not receive Him/believe in Him and rely on His power and grace.

The passage is not saying that people don't even have the willpower to believe in God. It is simply saying that people cannot by their own will and flesh become children of God apart from God. We cannot make ourselves children of God; He makes us such according to our having believed in Him.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #75 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 08:51:18 »

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 34617
  • Manna: 760
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #76 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 09:00:35 »
BINGO

Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6699
  • Manna: 349
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #77 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 14:09:34 »
God loves all
I'm staying on course just as Nehemiah did in his days and I will not allow the Sanballat's and the Tobiah's distract me from finishing each post as I come to them.

Without question “God is love” (1st John 4:8). It is not simply that God “loves,” but that He is Love itself. Love is not merely one of His attributes, but His very nature.

There are many today who talk about the love of God, who are total strangers to the God of love. The Divine love is commonly regarded as a species of amiable weakness, a sort of good-natured indulgence; it is reduced to a mere sickly sentiment, patterned after human emotion. Now the truth is that on this, as on everything else, our thoughts need to be formed and regulated by what is revealed thereon in Holy Scripture, not by what our religious affiliation teaches us and others.

1. The love of God is UNINFLUENCED. By this we mean, there was nothing whatever in the objects of His love to call it into exercise, nothing in the creature to attract or prompt it. The love which one creature has for another is because of something in them; but THE LOVE OF GOD IS FREE, SPONTANEOUS, UNCAUSED. The only reason why God loves any is found in His own sovereign will:
Quote from: Moses
Deuteronomy 7:7,8~“The Lord did not set His love upon you, nor choose you because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: but because the Lord loved thee”.
God has loved His people from everlasting, and therefore nothing of the creature can be the cause of what is found in God from eternity. He loves from Himself: “according to His own purpose”~See 2nd Timothy 1:9

Quote from: John
1st John 4:9~“We love Him, because He first loved us”
God did not love us because we loved Him, but He loved us before we had a particle of love for Him. Had God loved us in return for ours, then it would not be spontaneous on His part; but because He loved us when we were loveless, it is clear that His love was UNINFLUENCED. It is highly important if God is to be honored and the heart of His child established, that we should be quite clear upon this precious truth. God’s love for me, and for each of “His own,” was entirely unmoved by anything in them.

What was there in me to attract the heart of God? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. But, to the contrary, everything to repel Him, everything calculated to make Him loathe me—sinful, depraved, a mass of corruption, with “no good thing” in me.

 “What was there in me that could merit esteem, Or give the Creator delight? ‘Twas even so, Father, I ever must sing, Because it seemed good, in Thy sight.”See Matthew 11:25-27

 2. It is ETERNAL. This of necessity. God Himself is eternal, and God is love; therefore, as God Himself had no beginning, His love had none. Granted that such a concept far transcends the grasp of our feeble minds, nevertheless, where we cannot comprehend, we can bow in adoring worship. How clear is the testimony of...................
Quote from: Jeremiah
Jeremiah 31:3~ “I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore with loving-kindness have I drawn thee.”
How blessed to know that the great and holy God loved His people before heaven and earth were called into existence, that He had set His heart upon them from all eternity. Clear proof is this that His love is spontaneous, for He loved them endless ages before they had any being.

The same precious truth is set forth in
Quote
Ephesians 1:4,5~ “According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him. IN LOVE having predestinated us.”
What praise should this evoke from each of His children! How tranquilizing for the heart: since God’s love toward me had no beginning, it can have no ending! Since it be true that “from everlasting to everlasting” He is God, and since God is “love,” then it is equally true that “from everlasting to everlasting” He loves His people.

3. It is SOVEREIGN. This also is self-evident. God Himself is sovereign, under obligations to none, a law unto Himself, acting always according to His own imperial pleasure. Since God be sovereign, and since He be love, it necessarily follows that His love is sovereign. Because God is God, He does as He pleases; because God is love, He loves whom He pleases. Such is His own express affirmation: “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (Rom. 9:19).(which we will consider next) There was no more reason in Jacob why he should be the object of Divine love, than there was in Esau. They both had the same parents, and were born at the same time, being twins; yet God loved the one and hated the other! Why? Because it pleased Him to do so~he very well could have left all in sin and condemnation to face the second death.

The sovereignty of God’s love necessarily follows from the fact that it is uninfluenced by anything in the creature. Thus, to affirm that the cause of His love lies in God Himself, is only another way of saying, He loves whom He pleases. For a moment, assume the opposite. Suppose God’s love were regulated by anything else than His will, in such a case He would love by rule, and loving by rule He would be under a law of love, and then so far from being free, God would Himself be ruled by law. “In love having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to”—what? Some excellency which He foresaw in them? No; what then? “According to the good pleasure of His will” (Ephesians 1:4,5).

4. It is INFINITE. Everything about God is infinite. His essence fills heaven and earth. His wisdom is illimitable, for He knows everything of the past, present and future. His power is unbounded, for there is nothing too hard for Him.

So His love is without limit. There is a depth to it which none can fathom; there is a height to it which none can scale; there is a length and breadth to it which defies measurement, by any creature-standard.

Beautifully is this intimated in Ephesians First in....
Quote from: Paul
Ephesians 3:18,19~"May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
And Ephesians 2:4: "But God, who is rich in mercy, for His GREAT LOVE wherewith He loved us: the word “great” there is parallel with the “God so loved” of John 3:16. It tells us that the love of God is so transcendent it cannot be estimated or known.

"No tongue can fully express the infinitude of God’s love, or any mind comprehend it: it “passeth knowledge”. The most extensive ideas that a finite mind can frame about Divine love, are infinitely below its true nature. The heaven is not so far above the earth as the goodness of God is beyond the most raised conceptions which we are able to form of it. It is an ocean which swells higher than all the mountains of opposition in such as are the objects of it. It is a fountain from which flows all necessary good to all those who are interested in it" (John Brine, 1743).

5. It is IMMUTABLE. As with God Himself there is “no variableness, neither shadow of turning” (James 1:17), so His love knows neither change or diminution. The worm Jacob supplies a forceful example of this: “Jacob have I loved,” declared Jehovah, and despite all his unbelief and waywardness, He never ceased to love him. John 13:1 furnishes another beautiful illustration. That very night one of the apostles would say, “Show us the Father”; another would deny Him with cursings; all of them would be scandalized by and forsake Him. Nevertheless “having loved His own which were in the world, HE LOVE THEM UNTO THE END.” The Divine love is subject to no vicissitudes. Divine love is “strong as death … many waters cannot quench it” (Song of Solomon 8:6,7). Nothing can separate from it: Romans 8:35-39

 “His love no end nor measure knows, No change can turn its course, Eternally the same it flows From one eternal source.”

 6. It is HOLY. God’s love is not regulated by caprice passion, or sentiment, but by principle. Just as His grace reigns not at the expense of it, but “through righteousness” (Romans 5:21), so His love never conflicts with His holiness. “God is light” (1st John 1:5) is mentioned before “God is love” (1st John 4:8). God’s love is no mere amiable weakness, or effeminate softness. Scripture declares, “whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth” (Hebrews 12:6). God will not wink at sin, even in His own people. His love is pure, unmixed with any maudlin sentimentality.

7. It is GRACIOUS. The love and favor of God are inseparable. This is clearly brought out in Romans 8:32-39. What that love is from which there can be no “separation,” is easily perceived from the design and scope of the immediate context: it is that goodwill and grace of God which determined Him to give His Son for sinners. That love was the impulsive power of Christ’s incarnation: “God so loved the world (Jews and Gentiles) that He gave His only begotten Son” (John 3:16).

God is love, but does he love all without exception? My post coming later....RB



« Last Edit: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 15:59:35 by RB »

Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6699
  • Manna: 349
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #78 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 14:19:49 »
Quote from: The prophet Malachi
Malachi 1:1-3~The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi. I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness."
Before I speak here are confessions of men before me.

Augustine (354-430): "He who said, ‘I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,’ loved Jacob of His undeserved grace, and hated Esau of His deserved judgment" (Enchiridion, xcviii).

Martin Luther (1483-1546): "the love and hate of God towards men is immutable and eternal, existing, not merely before there was any merit or work of ‘free-will,’ but before the world was made; [so] all things take place in us of necessity, according as He has from eternity loved or not loved ... faith and unbelief come to us by no work of our own, but through the love and hatred of God" (The Bondage of the Will, pp. 226, 228-229).

John Calvin (1509-1564):

[1] "Now a word concerning the reprobate, with whom the apostle is at the same time there concerned. For as Jacob, deserving nothing by good works, is taken into grace, so Esau, as yet undefiled by any crime, is hated [Rom. 9:13]" (Institutes 3.22.11). "And as Esau was deprived of this habitation, the prophet sacredly gathers that he was hated of God, because he had been thus rejected from the holy and elect family, on which the love of God perpetually rests ... when Pighius holds that God’s election of grace has no reference to, or connection with, His hatred of the reprobate, I maintain that reference and connection to be a truth. Inasmuch as the just severity of God answers, in equal and common cause, to that free love with which He embraces His elect" (Calvin's Calvinism [Grandville, MI: RFPA, 1987], pp. 59, 75).

[2] "God distinguishes between the righteous and the unrighteous, and in such a way as shows that he is not an idle spectator; for he is said to approve the righteous, and to hate the wicked. The Hebrew word ... bachan, which we have rendered to approve, often signifies to examine or try. But in this passsge I explain it as to distinguish the righteous from the wicked. It is farther declared, that God hates those who are set upon the infliction of injuries, and upon doing mischief. As he has ordained mutual intercourse between men, so he would have us to maintain it inviolable. In order, he must be the enemy of the wicked, and wicked men’s love of iniquity, to teach us that those who please and flatter themselves in their mischievous practices gain nothing by such flatteries, and only deceive themselves" (Comm. on Ps. 11:5).

John Knox (c.1514-1572): "[God] will destroy all the speak lies. He hateth all that work iniquity; neither will he show himself merciful to such as maliciously offend. But all the sinners of the earth shall drink the dregs of that cup which the Eternal holdeth in his hands. For he will destroy all those that traitorously decline from him. They shall cry but he will not hear" (An Answer to a Great Number of Blasphemous Cavillations Written by an Anabaptist and Adversary to God's Eternal Predestination [London: Thomas Charde, 1591], pp. 403-404).

Jerome Zanchius (1516-1590): "When hatred is ascribed to God, it implies (1) a negation of benevolence, or a resolution not to have mercy on such and such men, nor to endue them with any of those graces which stand connected with eternal life. So, ‘Esau have I hated’ (Rom. 9), i.e., ‘I did, from all eternity, determine within Myself not to have mercy on him.’ The sole cause of which awful negation is not merely the unworthiness of the persons hated, but the sovereignty and freedom of the Divine will. (2) It denotes displeasure and dislike, for sinners who are not interested in Christ cannot but be infinitely displeasing to and loathsome in the sight of eternal purity. (3) It signifies a positive will to punish and destroy the reprobate for their sins, of which will, the infliction of misery upon them hereafter, is but the necessary effect and actual execution" (Absolute Predestination, p. 44).

David Paraeus (1548-1622): "The cause [of the election of Jacob and reprobation of Esau] was the eternal purpose of God, whereby he determined to make such difference of them. Esau was wicked, and Jacob was no less wicked; for they were both conceived in sin: and yet God loved the one and hated the other: not for any inherent or foreseen difference, but kat' eklogeen according to election, whereby he elected one but not the other" (quoted in Pierre du Moulin, Anatomie of Arminianism [London: T. S. for Nathaniel Newbery, 1620], p. 503).

William Perkins (1558-1602):

[1] "God before all worlds did purpose to hate some creatures, and that justly, so far forth as his hating of them will serve for the manifestation of his justice, but he neither hates them indeed ... before they are; and therefore, actual hatred comes not in till after the creation. Whom God hath decreed ... to hate, them being once created, he hates in Adam with actual hatred" (The Workes of That Famous and Worthy Minster of Christ in the Universitie of Cambridge, Mr William Perkins (London: John Legatt & Cantrell Legge, 1616), vol. 1, p. 287 [spelling and punctuation modernized]).

[2] "This hatred of God is whereby he detesteth and abhorreth the reprobate when he is fallen into sin for the same sin. And this hatred which God has to man comes by the fall of Adam and is neither an antecedent nor a cause of God's decree, but only a consequent and followeth the decree" (A Golden Chain, chapter 53).

Pierre du Moulin (1568–1658): "Whom God hateth from the womb, to them he doth not give sufficient and saving grace [this being the heretical Arminian notion of grace]; for this were to love them: But God hated Esau from the womb, Rom. 9:13, therefore he did not give him sufficient and saving grace. For although Malachi [1:2-5] speaketh these things of a temporal rejection, yet it sufficeth to the present matter, that this rejection (as Arminius confesseth) is laid down by saint Paul, as a type of the spiritual rejection. So that there are some whom God hath rejected with a spiritual rejection, before they have done either good or evil; therefore he doth not give them sufficient means to faith, or to salvation: for this cannot be made to agree with hatred" (Anatomie of Arminianism [London: T. S. for Nathaniel Newbery, 1620], p. 405).

William Gouge (1575-1653): "That difference which is made between Esau a type of the world [Esau have I hated] and Jacob a type of the Church [Jacob have I loved (Mal 1:2-3)] shows that the Lord is far from hating his Church. The world, not the Church, is the object of God's hatred ... That none may pervert this comfortable doctrine, let me add two caveats. 1. That men deceive not themselves with a naked name, thinking themselves to be of the Church, when they are only in it, such may Christ hate (Jer 12:8) ..." (Of Domestic Duties [1622], section 68).

John Robinson (c.1576-1625), the minister of many of the Congregationalist settlers who journeyed to Plymouth Colony, New England: "Lastly, seeing it cannot be denied, but that Jacob as a faithful and godly man was in time actually beloved in God, and Esau, as godless and profane, actually hated; it must needs follow, that God before the world was, purposed in himself accordingly, to love the one and hate the other: seeing whatsoever God in time doth, by way of emanation or application to, and upon the creature, that he purposed to do, as he doth it, from eternity [Rom. 9:13] ... [In Romans 9:18], 'whom he wills he hardens,' [God] speaks of that will, according to which he himself works in ... hatred."

David Dickson (1583-1663):

[1] "However he giveth the wicked and violent persecutor to have a seeming prosperity, while the godly are in trouble, yet that is no act of love to them: for the wicked, and him that loveth violence, his soul hateth ... All the seeming advantages which the wicked have in their own prosperity, are but means of hardening them in their ill course, and holding them fast in the bonds of their own iniquities, till God execute judgment on them: upon the wicked he shall rain snares ... Whatsoever be the condition of the wicked for a time, yet at length sudden, terrible, irresistible, and remediless destruction they shall not escape: fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest is the portion of their cup" (Commentary on the Psalms [Edinburgh: Banner, 1985], p. 51).

[2] "Such as make iniquity their work, shall have the effects of God’s hatred for their wages: for thou hatest all the workers of iniquity [Ps. 5:5]" (A Commentary on the Psalms [London: Banner, 1959], vol. 1, p. 21).

Canons of Dordt (1618-1619): "The good pleasure of God is the sole cause of this gracious election; which doth not consist herein, that out of all possible qualities and actions of men God has chosen some as a condition of salvation; but that he was pleased out of the common mass of sinners to adopt some certain persons as a peculiar people to himself, as it is written, 'For the children being not yet born neither having done any good or evil,' etc., it was said (namely to Rebecca): 'the elder shall serve the younger; as it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated' (Rom. 9:11-13). 'And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed' (Acts 13:48)" (I:10).

George Gillespie (1613-1649), Scottish Presbyterian Commissioner to the Westminster Assembly: "I cannot understand how there can be such a universal love of God to mankind as is maintained [by some]. Those that will say it must needs deny the absolute reprobation; then a love to those whom God hath absolutely reprobated both from salvation and the means of salvation" (cited in David Blunt, "Debate on Redemption at the Westminster Assembly," British Reformed Journal [January-March, 1996], no. 13, p. 8).

John Owen (1616-1683):

[1] "We deny that all mankind are the object of that love of God which moved him to send his Son to die; God having 'made some for the day of evil' (Prov. 16:4); 'hated them before they were born' (Rom. 9:11, 13); 'before of old ordained them to condemnation' (Jude 4); being 'fitted to destruction' (Rom. 9:22); 'made to be taken and destroyed' (II Pet. 2:12); 'appointed to wrath' (I Thess. 5:9); to 'go to their own place' (Acts 1:25)" (Works, vol. 10, p. 227).

[2] "... reprobation ... [is] the issue of hatred, or a purpose of rejection (Rom. 9:11-13)" (Works, vol. 10, p. 149).

Francis Turretin (1623-1687):

[1] "For as he who loves a person or thing wishes well and, if he can, does well to it, so true hatred and abhorrence cannot exist without drawing after them the removal and destruction of the contrary" (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 2, pp. 237-238).

[2] "What is said of God’s love towards Jacob and hatred towards Esau applies here: 'Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau' (Mal. 1:2, 3). This is applied by Paul to election and reprobation (Rom. 9:11-13). Compare also the passages concerning God having mercy and hardening–'He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth' (Rom. 9:18); concerning 'the vessels of mercy' which God had prepared unto glory and 'the vessels of wrath' which were fitted to destruction (Rom. 9:21,22); concerning those who were appointed to salvation and others who were appointed unto wrath and disobedience (apeitheian, 1 Thess. 5:9; 1 Pet. 2:8); who are inscribed in the Lamb’s book of life (Rev. 13:8); and others 'who were ordained to condemnation' (Jd. 4); concerning the blessed, called by God to the possession of their kingdom, and the cursed whom (as he never knew) he thrusts far away from his face (Mt. 7:23; 25:41). Nor, moreover, is thus endangered either the goodness or the infinite mercy of God, who is so good and merciful that he is also perfectly just. As he demonstrates the former towards the elect, so he justly exercises the latter towards guilty and sinful reprobates" (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol.1, p. 380).

Matthew Poole (1624-1679): "But as for the wicked, let them not rejoice in [David's] trials, for far worse things are appointed for them; God hates and will severely punish them ... His soul hateth; [God] hateth [him that loveth violence] with or from his soul, i.e. inwardly and ardently ... For the righteous Lord loveth righteousness; his countenance doth behold the upright; This is given as the reason why God hateth and punisheth wicked men so dreadfully" (Commentary on Ps. 11:5, 7).

Herman Witsius (1636-1708): "From the holiness of God flows a mortal and implacable hatred of sin. It is as much the nature of holiness to 'hate iniquity, as to love righteousness' (Ps. 45:8). Sin is 'an abomination to his soul' (Prov. 6:16), that is, to his very essence, and essential holiness: and neither sin only, but also the sinner is the object of his hatred. 'For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination to the Lord thy God,' (Deut. 25:16). He therefore separates from himself, and from his chosen people, all whom he cannot make partakers of his favour: and so he cannot but inflict upon them that punishment which is the effect of his hatred. According to Solomon's reasoning, Prov. 16:5, 'Every one that is proud in heart, is an abomination to the Lord.' And the consequence is, He shall not be unpunished. In the same manner David reasons, Ps. 5:4, 5, 6, 'Thou art not a God that hast pleasure in wickedness.' Thou hatest sin, and the sinner too, because of it. 'Thou hatest all the workers of iniquity.' And surely the fruit of this must be exceeding bitter: 'Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing.' And thus from the holiness of God, arises a hatred of sin and the sinner; from hatred, punishment" (The Economy of the Covenant Between God and Man [Escondido, CA: den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1990], vol. 1, p. 96).

Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675): "the Scriptures do not extend unto all and each God's purpose of showing mercy to man, but restrict it to the elect alone, the reprobate being excluded even by name, as Esau, whom God hated with an eternal hatred (Rom 9:10-13)" (article 6).

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758): "But the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit are what God sometimes bestows on those whom he does not love, but hates ..." (Charity and Its Fruits, p. 38).

Robert Haldane (1764-1842): "Nothing can more clearly manifest the strong opposition of the human mind to the doctrine of the Divine sovereignty, than the violence which human ingenuity has employed to wrest the expression, ‘Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.’ By many this has been explained, ‘Esau have I loved less.’ But Esau was not the object of any degree of the Divine love ... If God’s love to Jacob was real literal love, God’s hatred to Esau must be real literal hatred. It might as well be said that the phrase, ‘Jacob have I loved,’ does not signify that God really loved Jacob, but that to love here signifies only to hate less, and that all that is meant by the expression, is that God hated Jacob less than he hated Esau. If every man’s own mind is a sufficient security against concluding the meaning to be, ‘Jacob have I hated less,’ his judgment ought to be a security against the equally unwarrantable meaning, ‘Esau have I loved less’ ... hardening [is] a proof of hatred" (Romans, pp. 456, 457).

William S. Plumer (1802-1880):

[1] "Thou hatest all workers of iniquity [Ps. 5:5]. Those do greatly slander God, who teach that he will punish sin only because it is opposed to his law or his will, and not because it is opposed to his infinite, eternal, unchangeable rectitude. So repugnant to God’s nature is iniquity, that he would not save even his elect, except in a way that should fully and forever put away both the guilt and stain of sin, and bring all conceivable odium on transgression. God would not even spare his Son, when he stood in the place of sinners, lest he might seem to spare sin. Could he cease to hate it, he would cease to be worthy of love and confidence. Nor is it merely some forms of sin that God abhors, but he hates all workers of iniquity. Nor does he hate sin in general, as some men profess to do, but countenance it in detail" (Psalms: A Critical and Expository Commentary with Doctrinal and Practical Remarks [Edinburgh: Banner, 1975], p. 81; italics Plumer's).

[2] "The cruelty, rage and pride of violence are utterly repugnant to the divine nature. Luther says this clause 'is spoken emphatically, in that the prophet does not simply say that God hates, but his soul hates, thereby declaring that God hates the wicked in a high degree, and with his whole heart.' In our version hardly any word has so uniform a rendering as the last verb in this verse. When given as a verb it is uniformly translated hate. Not fire is so opposed to water as the nature of God to sin. To him it is a horrible thing" (Psalms: A Critical and Expository Commentary with Doctrinal and Practical Remarks [Edinburgh: Banner, 1975], p. 168; italics Plumer's).

John Kennedy of Dingwall (1813-1847): "Nor is it by concluding that because God is love, therefore He loveth all, that you can have before you the view of His character presented in the text. Beware of being content with a hope that springs from believing in a love of God apart from His Christ, and outside of the shelter of the cross. It may relieve you of a superficial fear. It may excite a feeling of joy and gratitude in your heart. It may beget in you what you may regard as love to God. This love, too, may be the mainspring of very active movements in the bustle of external service; but it leaves you, after all, away from God, ignoring His majesty and holiness, dispensing with His Christ, and enjoying a peace that has been secured by a cheating, instead of a purging, of your conscience. The time was when men openly preached an uncovenanted mercy as the resort of sinners, and laid the smoothness of that doctrine on the sores of the anxious. 'Universal love,' in these days in which evangelism is in fashion, is but another form in which the same 'deceit' is presented to the awakened. This is something from which an unrenewed man can take comfort. It is a pillow on which an alien can lay his head, and be at peace far off from God. It keeps out of view the necessity of vital union to Christ, and of turning unto God; and the hope which it inspires can be attained without felt dependence on the sovereign grace, and without submitting to the renewing work of God the Holy Ghost. 'God is love;' but when you hear this you are not told what must imply the declaration that He loves all, and that, therefore, He loves you. This tells us what He is, as revealed to us in the cross, and what all who come to Him through Christ will find Him to be. It is on this that faith has to operate. You have no right to regard that love, which is commended in the death of His Son, as embracing you if you have not yet believed. It is only with the character, not at all with the purpose, of God that you have in the first instance to do. What right have you to say that He loves all? Have you seen into the heart of God that you should say He loves you, until you have reached, as a sinner, through faith, the bosom of His love in Christ? 'But may I not think of God loving sinners without ascribing to Him any purpose to save?' God loving a sinner without a purpose to save him! The thing is inconceivable. I would reproach a fellow-sinner if I so conceived of his love. Love to one utterly ruined, and that love commanding resources that are sufficient for salvation, and yet no purpose to use them! Let not men so blaspheme the love of God. 'But may I not conceive of God as loving men to the effect of providing salvation, and to the effect of purchasing redemption for them, without this being followed out to the result of His purpose taking actual effect in their salvation?' No, verily. For the love of God is one, as the love of the Three in One. The one love of the One God is the love of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If that love generated in the person of the Father a purpose to provide, and in the person of the Son a purpose to redeem, it must have generated in the person of the Holy Ghost a purpose to apply. You cannot assign one set of objects to it, as the love of the Father, and a different set of objects to it, as 'the love of the Spirit.' And there can be no unaccomplished purpose of Jehovah. 'My counsel shall stand,' saith the Lord, 'and I will do all my pleasure.' 'The world,' which the Father loved and the Son redeemed, shall by the Spirit be convinced 'of sin, righteousness, and judgment,' and thus the Father’s pleasure shall prosper, and the Son’s 'travail' be rewarded, through the efficient grace of God the Holy Ghost" ("The Pleasure and Displeasure of God;" Eze. 33:11).

Herman Bavinck (1854-1921): "But also in that negative event of rejection there is frequently present a positive action of God, consisting in hatred (Mal. 1:2-3; Rom. 9:13), cursing (Gen. 9:25), hardening (Exod. 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; 10:20, 27; 11:10; 14:4; Deut. 2:30; Josh. 11:20; 1 Sam. 2:25; Ps. 105:25; John 12:40; Rom. 9:18) infatuation (1 Kings 12:15; 2 Sam. 17:14; Ps. 107:40; Job 12:24; Isa. 44:25; 1 Cor. 1:19), blinding and stupefaction (Isa. 6:9; Matt. 13:13; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10; John 12:40; Acts 28:26; Rom. 11:8)" (Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2 [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004], p. 393).

A. W. Pink (1886-1952):

[1] ‘Thou hatest all workers of iniquity’—not merely the works of iniquity. Here, then, is a flat repudiation of present teaching that, God hates sin but loves the sinner; Scripture says, ‘Thou hatest all workers of iniquity’ (Ps. 5:5)! ‘God is angry with the wicked every day.’ ‘He that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God’—not ‘shall abide,’ but even now—‘abideth on him’ (Ps. 5:5; 8:11; John 3:36). Can God ‘love’ the one on whom His ‘wrath’ abides? Again; is it not evident that the words ‘The love of God which is in Christ Jesus’ (Rom. 8:39) mark a limitation, both in the sphere and objects of His love? Again; is it not plain from the words ‘Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated’ (Rom. 9:13) that God does not love everybody? ... Is it conceivable that God will love the damned in the Lake of Fire? Yet, if He loves them now He will do so then, seeing that His love knows no change—He is ‘without variableness or shadow of turning!’" (The Sovereignty of God, p. 248).

[2] "In the final analysis, the exercise of God's love must be traced back to His sovereignty, or, otherwise, He would love by rule; and if He loved by rule, then is He under a law of love, and if He is under a law of love then is He not supreme, but is Himself ruled by law. 'But,' it may be asked, 'Surely you do not deny that God loves the entire human family?' We reply, it is written, 'Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated' (Rom. 9:13). If then God loved Jacob and hated Esau, and that before they were born or had done either good or evil, then the reason for His love was not in them, but in Himself" (The Sovereignty of God, p. 25).

John Murray (1898-1975): "[Divine hatred can] scarcely be reduced to that of not loving or loving less ... the evidence would require, to say the least, the thought of disfavour, disapprobation, displeasure. There is also a vehement quality that may not be discounted ... We are compelled, therefore, to find in this word a declaration of the sovereign counsel of God as it is concerned with the ultimate destinies of men" (Romans, vol. 2, pp. 22, 24).

Lorraine Boettner (1901-1990): "One writer has asked, 'Did God love Pharaoh? (Rom. 9:17). Did He love the Amalekites? (Ex. 17:14). Did He love the Canaanites, who He commanded to be exterminated without mercy? (Deut. 20:16). Did He love the Ammonites and Moabites whom He commanded not to be received into the congregation forever? (Deut. 23:3). Does He love the workers of iniquity? (Ps. 5:5). Does He love the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, which He endures with much long-suffering? (Rom. 9:22). Did He love Esau? (Rom. 9:13)” (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination [Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1932], p. 293).

Homer C. Hoeksema (1923-1989): "All history, in which vessels unto honor or unto dishonor are formed, is the revelation and realization of the counsel of God according to which He loved Jacob and all His elect people, but hated Esau and all the reprobate" (cf. "A Scriptural Presentation of God’s Hatred").

James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000): "although hatred in God is of a different character than hatred in sinful human beings—his is a holy hatred—hate in God nevertheless does imply disapproval ... [Esau] was the object of [God’s] displeasure ... Since the selection involved in the words love and hate was made before either of the children was born, the words must involve a double predestination in which, on the one hand, Jacob was destined to salvation and, on the other hand, Esau was destined to be passed over and thus to perish" (Romans, vol. 3, p. 1062).

Cornelius Hanko (1907-2005): "God loves His people in Christ, but He hates all the workers of iniquity (Ps. 5:5). Since God loves holiness, that very love turns in hatred against unholiness and sin. Since He is righteous, He burns with righteous indignation against all wickedness. Since He loves Himself as the sole Good, He banishes from His presence all that is in conflict with His Holy Name. God is a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Him. No one has ever dared to deny that God hates the devil. And yet also the devil is one of God's creatures, who was created as a holy angel. If God hates the devil and his host, does He not hate those who are branded in Scripture as the very seed of the serpent, a generation of vipers? Nor can we distinguish between the deed and the person, as if God hates the sin but loves the sinner. For the deed can never be separated from the depravity of the one who commits the sin, nor can the guilt be reckoned to anyone but the guilty party. Therefore God does not banish sin to hell, but the sinner. The Word of God never hesitates, therefore, to declare that God's very soul hates the wicked and him that loveth violence (Ps. 11:5). "Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated" (Rom. 9:13). See also verses 17 and 18" ("Particular Love, Particular Atonement, and Missions," Standard Bearer, vol. 42, issue 4).

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #78 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 14:19:49 »

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9614
  • Manna: 274
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #79 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 14:43:28 »
RB,

You and many others like to quote Romans 9:13 and use it to make reference to God not loving everyone.  Try this one on for size:

Luke 14:26  "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple"

Do/DId you hate your own father and mother?  Your wife?  Your children?  Your brothers and sisters?  Do you meet that requirement?
« Last Edit: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 14:46:03 by 4WD »

Offline Kenneth Sublett

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)cheives (M)ore
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #80 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 15:27:45 »
RB
Quote
Malachi 1:1-3~The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi. I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness."

Martin Luther (1483-1546): "the love and HATE of God towards men is immutable and eternal, existing, not merely before there was any merit or work of ‘free-will,’ but before the world was made; [so] all things take place in us of necessity, according as He has from eternity loved or not loved ... FAITH and unbelief come to us by no work of our own, but through the love and hatred of God" (The Bondage of the Will, pp. 226, 228-229).

MOST people have trouble reading the WHOLE thought pattern WORD FOR WORD.  God HIDES from the World.  However, one will note that the BIBLES put lines BETWEEN individual elements.

The Jacob and Esau ALLEGORY has nothing to do with personal salvation but to PROVE that God plans ahead for who will CARRY THE SEED which after centuries of "seedS" would produce THE SEED SINGULAR.

Gen. 25:21 And Isaac intreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren:
        and the Lord was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
Gen. 25:22 And the children STRUGGLED together within her;
        and she said, If it be so, why am I thus?
        And she went to enquire of the Lord.
Gen. 25:23 And the LORD SAID unto her,
        TWO NATIONS are in thy womb,
        and two manner of PEOPLE shall be separated from thy bowels;
               and the one people shall be STRONGER than the other PEOPLE;
               and the elder shall serve the younger.

SEE WHAT YOU MISS IF YOU DO NOT STOP, LOOK AND LISTEN TO EVERY WORD

2Cor. 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you.
        In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall EVERY WORD BE established.
Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written,
        That man shall not live by bread alone,
        but by EVERY WORD of God.

Pause and TASTE.

Paul understood that the SPIRITUAL COVENANT was with ABRAHAM (a Gentile).

Gal 4:20 I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you.
Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law,
            do ye not hear the law?

Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham HAD TWO SONS
        the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman
        was born after the flesh;
        but he of the freewoman was by promise.

Gal 4:24 Which things are an ALLEGORY:
        for these are the two COVENEANTS;
                the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
 
Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount SINAI in Arabia,
        and answereth to Jerusalem which NOW IS, and is in bondage with her children.

The events at Mount Sinai flowed from SILENCE and the feast thrown by the Midianites led them astray. Remember that after David fell from grace and was too fearful to return to Gibeon to seek the Lord, God gave him a Jebusite High place to build an alternative. Gary has noted that I have to repeat (repeat, repeat) that

    God promised David a TENT
    But, Solomon built God a HOUSE
    But, God does not dwell in houses built by human hands.
    That is whey the loud musical dedication caused God to SHUT DOWN the temple from access.

    Slavery Stream: Because God had abandoned the NATIONAL GOVERNMENT to the worship of the Starry Host consistent with other Goyim or Gentile nations, the temple served for national sacrifices

    Freedom Stream: At the same time, the SECOND STREAM of faithful Israelites met in their synagogues to rest, read and rehearse: 
    that began as "the church in the wilderness." This quarantined the people FROM the national, governmental animal sacrifices.

    Rev. 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city,
    which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is ABOVE is free, which is the mother of us all.
Gal 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not:
        for the desolate hath MANY MORE CHILDREN
        than she which hath an husband.

Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as ISAAC was, are the children of PROMISE.

Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh
        PERSECUTED him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture?
        CAST OUT the bondwoman and her son:  [Mount Sinai, Jerusalem]
        for the son of the bondwoman shall not be HEIR [Nothing about heaven or hell
        with the son of the freewoman.

Gal 4:31 So then, brethren,
        WE are not children of the bondwoman,
        but of the FREE
.

MOST churches as ORGANIZATION, TAXES, CLERGY AND WARRIOR LEVITES follow (and boast) about following the ESAU PATTERN. In the discussion of what Jesus "created" it was NOT physical in nature and took not one tenant from the CHRONICLES of Kings whom God ABANDONED.

Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6699
  • Manna: 349
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #81 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 16:03:58 »
RB,

You and many others like to quote Romans 9:13 and use it to make reference to God not loving everyone.  Try this one on for size:

Luke 14:26  "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple"

Do/DId you hate your own father and mother?  Your wife?  Your children?  Your brothers and sisters?  Do you meet that requirement?

Get in line, you WILL receive your answer in due course. The same for Kenneth, if I can figure out his cryptic writing ::idea::

Offline Kenneth Sublett

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)cheives (M)ore
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #82 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 16:22:25 »
Quote
if I can figure out his cryptic writing

Everytime I quote Scripture EVERYONE thinks I am a heretic.  I just went over the Erasmus-Luther debate: Erasmus adds lots of B.I.B.L.E and Luther just displays his rosey posey personal EXAMPLES.  ERASMUS added the following which you MUST understand that Scripture almost always REPEATES a statement so that NO ONE can misunderstand.

SELAH: PAUSE AND READ HOW GOD MAKES HIMSELF KNOWN.  NOTE THAT THIS IS A LIST AND NOT A PARAGRAPH.

Psa. 119:97 ¶ MEM. O how love I thy LAW!
        IT is my meditation all the day.
Psa. 119:98 ¶ Thou through thy COMMANDMENTS
        hast made me wiser than mine enemies:
        FOR they are ever with me.
Psa. 119:99 I have more UNDERSTAND than all my teachers:
        FOR thy testimonies are my meditation.
Psa. 119:100 I UNDERSTAND more than the ancients,
        BECAUSE I keep thy precepts.
Psa. 119:101 ¶ I have refrained my feet from every evil way,
        THAT I might keep thy word.
Psa. 119:102 ¶ I have not departed from thy JUDGMENTS:
        FOR thou hast taught me.
Psa. 119:103 ¶ How sweet are thy words unto my taste!
        YEA, sweeter than honey to my mouth!
Psa. 119:104 Through thy precepts I get understanding:
        THEREFORE I hate every false way.
Psa. 119:105 ¶ NUN. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet,
        AND a light unto my path.
Psa. 119:106 ¶ I have sworn, and I will perform it,
        THAT I will keep thy righteous judgments.

Ginger Rella

  • Guest
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #83 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 18:00:33 »
Knowing I am not wanted here, I must say something.

I truly am trying to understand what makes you folks tick.

I am not here to enter into your debate but I definitely am here to voice an opinion.

RB started a thread directed to Yogi.

It was titled Yogi, would you consider debating me using your 3 posts, to which Yogi replied in reply #1
Red in all due respect I think I will decline your invitation due to the fact that you and I have been over this several time and have gotten no where closer to unity so I do not see the need to engage with you on this again.Thanks for the offer though but we both already know the outcome.

And Red replied that

It's NOT for you and me, but for others still seeking the truth. If I took that attitude then I would never post again on many doctrines that are discussed here. I still may address your posts for others.

And Yogi said
Done posted my thoughts if you have something to add or rebuke go for it if I fill the need I may or may not respond we will just see how this flows.

And then it happened. What always happens.

Someone replied.... 4WD ,  and it seemed for a brief while that the debate would be between them, until soterion, bemark, revc, faroukfarouk and even Jaime , who all set the way for the inevitable entry of Kenneth Sublett.

All have come to the fray as if none of you is capable of truly doing a one on one debate and truly need the pack for support.

Why is that?

Do you honestly believe that safty in numbers is what is needed to make your points?

For those of us who do read the posts you make, in an effort to learn, I can assure you that you are not teaching anyone anything.

Oh, you are masters of double talk and alleged interpretations of ancient Greek whatevers. You even have a way of portraying yourselves as scholarly.

 But I guess as long as you all  are in your comfort level that is all that matters.

Is such a shame when someone has a viable question and observation and you throw them under the bus. I have been there when you rolled over me. Not again...

Online Texas Conservative

  • If you talk about baptism more than Jesus, you're confused.
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8882
  • Manna: 361
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #84 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 18:31:03 »
Knowing I am not wanted here, I must say something.

I truly am trying to understand what makes you folks tick.

I am not here to enter into your debate but I definitely am here to voice an opinion.

RB started a thread directed to Yogi.

It was titled Yogi, would you consider debating me using your 3 posts, to which Yogi replied in reply #1
Red in all due respect I think I will decline your invitation due to the fact that you and I have been over this several time and have gotten no where closer to unity so I do not see the need to engage with you on this again.Thanks for the offer though but we both already know the outcome.

And Red replied that

It's NOT for you and me, but for others still seeking the truth. If I took that attitude then I would never post again on many doctrines that are discussed here. I still may address your posts for others.

And Yogi said
Done posted my thoughts if you have something to add or rebuke go for it if I fill the need I may or may not respond we will just see how this flows.

And then it happened. What always happens.

Someone replied.... 4WD ,  and it seemed for a brief while that the debate would be between them, until soterion, bemark, revc, faroukfarouk and even Jaime , who all set the way for the inevitable entry of Kenneth Sublett.

All have come to the fray as if none of you is capable of truly doing a one on one debate and truly need the pack for support.

Why is that?

Do you honestly believe that safty in numbers is what is needed to make your points?

For those of us who do read the posts you make, in an effort to learn, I can assure you that you are not teaching anyone anything.

Oh, you are masters of double talk and alleged interpretations of ancient Greek whatevers. You even have a way of portraying yourselves as scholarly.

 But I guess as long as you all  are in your comfort level that is all that matters.

Is such a shame when someone has a viable question and observation and you throw them under the bus. I have been there when you rolled over me. Not again...

Rella,

What makes those who participate in these threads tick?

Have you noticed all involved are men.

RB surely knew that many disagree with him here when he initiated the debate request.  Debating/Arguing over doctrine is not for the faint of heart.

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 34617
  • Manna: 760
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #85 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 18:40:16 »
I took it that the one on one between RB and Yogi was off. Opening up thenthread to anyone. Rella, you are welcome to throw your two cents in of course. I don’t understand what you call “run over”. It’s an open discussion. In my view no way can someone run over anyone on an open forum. If someone comes on strong, do like Trump and come on stronger.

Offline Kenneth Sublett

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)cheives (M)ore
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #86 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 19:07:02 »
The meaning of IS IS that Martin Luther  and Erasmus were quoted to prove something new: that God loves some and calls some and hates some and destroys some.  My alleged scholarship was from Palm 119: I don't need to be a scholar.

When I read the ancient text I want to be as scholarly as Simple Simon who would DEMAND to know the meaning of WORDS.  I understand that youngsters missed out on laura Engalls Grade 8.

Now, just to irritate anyone, here is another passage quoted by Erasmus in debating Luther. Notice the break up of statements with semicolons and LORDY the Holy Spirit put paragraphs on SEPARATE lines.

Psa. 4:2 O ye sons of men,
        how long will ye turn my glory into shame?
        how long will ye love vanity, and seek after LEASING? Selah.
Psa. 4:3 But KNOW that the Lord
        hath set apart him that is GODLY for himself:
        the Lord will hear when I call unto him.
Psa. 4:4 Stand in awe, and sin not:
        commune with your own heart upon your bed,
        AND be still. Selah.
Psa. 4:5 Offer the sacrifices of RIGHTEOUSNESS,
        and put your TRUST in the Lord.
Psa. 4:6 There be MANY that say,
        Who will shew us any good?
        Lord, lift thou up the light of thy countenance upon us.
Psa. 4:7 Thou hast put gladness in my heart,
        more than in the time
              THAT their corn and their wine increased.
Psa. 4:8 I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep:
        for thou, Lord, only makest me dwell in safety.

Now, who can doubt that I am a real SCHOLAR? I love the First Amendment and a tough skin.

Ginger Rella

  • Guest
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #87 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 19:08:01 »
Rella,

What makes those who participate in these threads tick?

Have you noticed all involved are men.

RB surely knew that many disagree with him here when he initiated the debate request.  Debating/Arguing over doctrine is not for the faint of heart.

TC, Yes, I know all involved are men. I also understand the reason for that.

I am not here to debate or argue any doctrine ever again. Been there done that and came to understand that nothing I could or would ever say in any debate , outside of the political side of things , would ever be heard, much less considered so I do not venture where I am not wanted... Not anymore.

Yes Red knows who and why those who disagree with him do so, but it was he who made this statement.

It's NOT for you and me, but for others still seeking the truth, in seeking a one on one debate with Yogi.

Because when I , and others like myself can see a one on one discussion it is then I and others like me can come to understand each side of the coin as it were.

You ask...

"What makes those who participate in these threads tick?"

I know exactly what makes them tick. It is not the exploring of the truth or the education of people like me, it is because it is vitally important to prove their beliefs and too often there needs to be group support.

I know you do not accept this.  I, frankly don't care.

I have said what I wanted to .

Have a great life, all of you

Ginger Rella

  • Guest
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #88 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 19:14:42 »
I took it that the one on one between RB and Yogi was off. Opening up thenthread to anyone. Rella, you are welcome to throw your two cents in of course. I don’t understand what you call “run over”. It’s an open discussion. In my view no way can someone run over anyone on an open forum. If someone comes on strong, do like Trump and come on stronger.

No, no more from me in these types of forums.

For me it is not a discussion, never has been but being lectured.

So, TC was right.

Only men need apply.

Offline Kenneth Sublett

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)cheives (M)ore
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #89 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 19:24:07 »
I won't tell her the meaning of LEASING.  She could look it up on the internet without having to spend 50G at a university and tell us what it Means. If she tells me that it is something like subletting I reserve the right to debate her Otherwise, I will give her total respect.

Ginger Rella

  • Guest
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #90 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 20:39:09 »
I won't tell her the meaning of LEASING.  She could look it up on the internet without having to spend 50G at a university and tell us what it Means. If she tells me that it is something like subletting I reserve the right to debate her Otherwise, I will give her total respect.

If I am the her you are referring to....

To my recollection leasing means lies or lying.

If I am not the her, then she can answer for herself.

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 34617
  • Manna: 760
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #91 on: Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 21:15:25 »
Rella I disagree strongly. You are one of the strongest women I have talked with. You have made some of the best points and asked the most pertinent questions of anyone on some of these discussions. Remain strong and Trumplike. I don’t see you getting runover. It must be a self  perception issue. I have HEARD and strongly considered your arguments as you did mine and others. You are puhlenty strong to keep up with anyone here. If someone gets too grumpy, tell ‘em to shove it. Just as you would on the political threads. I have no problem facing others who come on strong. I also reserve the right to be wrong on beliefs I have clung to for my whole life. I have done that on a couple of issues since being here. Now I agree that a discussion  partner that is a bunghole will incite me like gasoline on a fire. As my wife knows, I CANNOT allow ANYONE to out bunghole me. It ain’t happening.

Also it may surprise you but me, 4WD, Erm and Soterion are sometimes prolific posters but undoubtedly I KNOW we are in the vast minority even on this board. I contend on occassion there are 4 or 5 others on the other side that are just as prolific as us. Michael is one, R. B on occasion, chosenone sometimes. In the not so distant past, posters on the other side like Gospel and Charlie 24 made me look like a piker. Personally I would be happy to shut up  about baptism in particular if ONLY others will admit it DOES have something to do with salvation. To assert it has nothing to do with salvation is ridiculous. It’s up to others to shut me up.
« Last Edit: Thu Aug 02, 2018 - 07:36:07 by Jaime »

Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6699
  • Manna: 349
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #92 on: Thu Aug 02, 2018 - 04:38:02 »
RB surely knew that many disagree with him here when he initiated the debate request.  Debating/Arguing over doctrine is not for the faint of heart.
Of course I knew. But, I did want Yogi to come out and debate me to see if he is as confident in what he believes as he wants others to believe that he is~he may be confident, but he cannot defend his doctrine with the scriptures.

Whenever I go to post in one of their threads that they are very active in, generally they leave and we never truly have a serious dialogue where people like Rella, and a few others can sit back and learn and have some of their questions answered. I truly do not mind if I go against the whole gang of the Baptismal regenerationist~BUT, I would that they would be much more precise in answering my post as I'm in answering their post~at least make an attempt.  They generally hit one of two points and make a remark trusting that it could reveal any weakness in my armour.  I put at least three hours in the morning posting in a way that they cannot gainsay what I'm saying. I never skip any point that they are making, but address each as I come to them, which none of them do~and I understand why. Most are more interesting in protecting their church doctrine instead of standing only upon the word of God. The scriptures will support themselves, a particular church doctrine will not stand the test of the scriptures~so what do they do~they run to the so-called originals, (as though they exist) and other versions seeking to convince others that their church doctrine is correct.

This being said, I still can deal with this if they would (a couple of them do somewhat) come out and dialogue in a more honest way. 
« Last Edit: Thu Aug 02, 2018 - 04:41:13 by RB »

Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6699
  • Manna: 349
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #93 on: Thu Aug 02, 2018 - 04:56:53 »
Every time I quote Scripture EVERYONE thinks I am a heretic.
No Kenneth, only when you explain scriptures does it come out.

Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6699
  • Manna: 349
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #94 on: Thu Aug 02, 2018 - 05:04:18 »
Michael is one, R. B on occasion,
Michael is much more gracious than I'm~I can get very forcible and dogmatic, yet try to maintain a kind and gentle spirit, yet, I do not always succeed~I labor to chose my words carefully so as not to be obnoxious and rude to others, and give them the benefit of the doubt that I may have. I am not here just to gain friends, but to spread truth and combat error.

Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6699
  • Manna: 349
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #95 on: Thu Aug 02, 2018 - 05:35:29 »
God loves all and wants all saved.
One of the most popular beliefs of the day is that God loves everybody, and the very fact that it is so popular with all classes ought to be enough to arouse the suspicions of those who are subject to the Word of Truth. God’s Love toward all His creatures is the fundamental and favorite tenet of Universalists (which takes in MANY groups), Theosophists, Christian Scientists, Spiritualists, Russellites, etc. No matter how a man may live~in open defiance of Heaven, with no concern whatever for his soul’s eternal interests, still less for God’s glory, dying, perhaps with an oath on his lips,~notwithstanding, God loves him, we are told. So widely has this dogma been proclaimed, and so comforting is it to the heart which is at enmity with God, we have little hope of convincing many of their error. That God loves everybody, is, we may say, quite a modern belief~espically so in the last two hundred plus years, before then, NOT so much. The writings of the church-fathers, the Reformers or the Puritans will (we believe) be searched in vain for any such concept. Perhaps the late D. L. Moody—captivated by Drummond’s “The Greatest Thing in the World”~did more than anyone else last century to popularize this concept.....but we will leave that to God to judge.

It has been customary to say God loves the sinner, though He hates his sin. But that is a meaningless distinction. What is there in a sinner but sin? Is it not true that his “whole head is sick”, and his “whole heart faint”, and that “from the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness” in him? (Isaiah 1:5,6). Is it true that God loves the one who is despising and rejecting His blessed Son? God is Light as well as Love, and therefore His love must be a holy love. To tell the Christ-rejector that God loves him is to cauterize his conscience, as well as to afford him a sense of security in his sins. The fact is, that the love of God, is a truth for the saints only, and to present it to the enemies of God is to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs. With the exception of John 3:16, not once(then Jesus was NOT speaking to a sinner, but to Nicodemus, one that WAS born again, yet without much understanding) in the four Gospels do we read of the Lord Jesu~the perfect Teacher~telling sinners that God loved them! In the book of Acts, which records the evangelistic labors and messages of the apostles, God’s love is never referred to at all! But, when we come to the Epistles, which are addressed to the saints, we have a full presentation of this precious truth—God’s love for His own. Let us seek to rightly divide the Word of God and then we shall not be found taking truths which are addressed to believers and misapplying them to unbelievers. That which sinners need to have brought before them is, the ineffable holiness, the exacting righteousness, the inflexible justice and the terrible wrath of God. Risking the danger of being mis-understood, let us sa~and we wish we could say it to every evangelist and preacher in the countr.....there is far too much presenting of Christ to sinners today (by those sound in the faith), and far too little showing sinners their need of Christ, i.e., their absolutely ruined and lost condition, their imminent and awful danger of suffering the wrath to come, the fearful guilt resting upon them in the sight of God....to present Christ to those who have never been shown their need of Him, seems to us to be guilty of casting pearls before swine.

"If" it be true that God loves every member of the human family then why did our Lord tell His disciples,
Quote
John 14:21,23~“He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me: and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father….. If a man love Me, he will keep My words: and My Father will love him”
? Why say “he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father” if the Father loves everybody? The same limitation is found in Proverbs 8:17: “I love them that love Me.” Again; we read, “Thou hatest all workers of iniquity”......not merely the works of iniquity. Here, then, is a flat repudiation of present teaching that, God hates sin but loves the sinner; Scripture says......
Quote from: David
Psalm 5:5~Thou hatest all workers of iniquity”
“God is angry with the wicked every day.” “He that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God”—not “shall abide,” but even now—”abideth on him” (Psalm 5:5; 7:11, John 3:36). Can God “love” the one on whom His “wrath” abides? Again; is it not evident that the words “The love of God which is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:39) mark a limitation, both in the sphere and objects of His love? Again; is it not plain from the words “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (Romans 9:13) that God does not love everybody? Again; it is written, “For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth” (Hebrews 12:6). Does not this verse teach that God’s love is restricted to the members of His own family? If He loves all men without exception, then the distinction and limitation here mentioned is quite meaningless. Finally, we would ask, Is it conceivable that God will love the damned in the Lake of Fire? Yet, if He loves them now He will do so then, seeing that His love knows no change.....He is “without variableness or shadow of turning”!
Quote from: soterion Reply #66 on: Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 20:08:31
God loves all and wants all saved.
Is unscriptural, which makes your next point without biblical support.....wants all saved~we shall consider your scriptures that you gave next and test them with the scriptures, to see if you are rightly dividing the word of truth.
« Last Edit: Thu Aug 02, 2018 - 05:39:54 by RB »

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9614
  • Manna: 274
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #96 on: Thu Aug 02, 2018 - 08:05:13 »
Without question “God is love” (1st John 4:8). It is not simply that God “loves,” but that He is Love itself. Love is not merely one of His attributes, but His very nature.
You said God is love itself.  I would agree with that.  How is it that God hates in the way that you claim.  If God is truth and He is, can He lie?  If God is Just, and he is, can He be unjust?  If God is righteousness and He is, can He be unrighteous?  You say God is love and then say God hates;  so it seems obvious that something is wrong with your view of what it means when the Bible says God hates.
Quote from: RB
The love of God is UNINFLUENCED. By this we mean, there was nothing whatever in the objects of His love to call it into exercise, nothing in the creature to attract or prompt it.
If that is indeed true, then it must be true for the objects of His hate if hate means what you say it means.
Quote from: RB
What was there in me to attract the heart of God? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. But, to the contrary, everything to repel Him, everything calculated to make Him loathe me—sinful, depraved, a mass of corruption, with “no good thing” in me.
If there is no cause in mankind for God to love, then there by the very same argument must be no cause in mankind for God to hate, as you define hate.

What you fail to understand is that God loves his creation.  He may indeed be displeased with the actions of his creation, but that is only possible is His creation is free to commit actions which displease Him.  And that of course you deny.  Man, according to you, does not have the free will to please God.  But then it must be that man does not have the free will to displease God.

Offline soterion

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5094
  • Manna: 233
  • Gender: Male
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #97 on: Thu Aug 02, 2018 - 08:32:38 »

Why say “he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father” if the Father loves everybody? The same limitation is found in Proverbs 8:17: “I love them that love Me.” Again; we read, “Thou hatest all workers of iniquity”......not merely the works of iniquity. Here, then, is a flat repudiation of present teaching that, God hates sin but loves the sinner

God is angry with the wicked every day.” “He that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God”—not “shall abide,” but even now—”abideth on him” (Psalm 5:5; 7:11, John 3:36). Can God “love” the one on whom His “wrath” abides? Again; is it not evident that the words “The love of God which is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:39) mark a limitation, both in the sphere and objects of His love? Again; is it not plain from the words “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (Romans 9:13) that God does not love everybody? Again; it is written, “For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth” (Hebrews 12:6). Does not this verse teach that God’s love is restricted to the members of His own family? If He loves all men without exception, then the distinction and limitation here mentioned is quite meaningless. Finally, we would ask, Is it conceivable that God will love the damned in the Lake of Fire? Yet, if He loves them now He will do so then, seeing that His love knows no change.....He is “without variableness or shadow of turning”!


If I recall correctly, your default position regarding man is that we are all born "workers of iniquity." From the start every person is an enemy of God, steeped in sin and guilty before Him. Going by your logic above, that automatically makes us all hated by God and without hope. If you were consistent about God's unchangeableness, then you would have to admit that no one will be saved because God's hatred for sinners will never change.

The contradictions go further. You say that only those who love God will be loved by God, thus the rest are hated and will be cast out. Since we are all born enemies of God and workers of iniquity, and incapable of loving God, then we are again all doomed. Therefore, God has to make some able to love Him and then God can love them back. ::frown:: 

I would suggest that those passages about God loving those who love Him are telling us that God works His will in the lives of those who seek and obey Him from their hearts in a way that He does not in the lives of those who are not seeking His will. It is not that God looks at each person differently and that He wants a different destiny for each, but that He works in their lives differently due to their choices. Even in this, God still wants those who are disobedient to repent (Ezekiel 18:23, 32).

You cherry-pick scriptures to teach all about how God hates so many people from their very first breath, and that God arbitrarily picks the few out of the whole rotten crop to redeem unto Himself and make His children. I still say this a is a horrible way to approach God's will regarding man. Man alone is created in God's image, and I suggest that alone makes us worthy to be loved by Him. I will maintain that God loves all, John 3:16 alone making that clear, and that He wants all saved (1 Timothy 2:4) and that He wants all to repent (2 Peter 3:9).

Ginger Rella

  • Guest
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #98 on: Thu Aug 02, 2018 - 08:38:30 »
You say God is love and then say God hates;



God says:

Malachi 1:2-3 King James Version (KJV)
2 I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob,

3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

God hated. He said so. He is not a liar.

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 34617
  • Manna: 760
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #99 on: Thu Aug 02, 2018 - 08:45:30 »
Rella I have always taken that to mean “in comparison” God hated Essau as compared to his love for Jacob. Kinda like Jesus telling us to hate our Mother, Brother and siblings if we want to follow him. I think he means IN COMPARISON to our love for him. I don’t for a minute believe we are to literally hate our family members. Just my opinion. Your opinion is equally valid.
« Last Edit: Thu Aug 02, 2018 - 08:56:14 by Jaime »

Offline Kenneth Sublett

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)cheives (M)ore
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #100 on: Thu Aug 02, 2018 - 08:52:25 »
Gen. 25:21 And Isaac intreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren:
        and the Lord was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
Gen. 25:22 And the children STRUGGLED together within her;
        and she said, If it be so, why am I thus?
        And she went to enquire of the Lord.
Gen. 25:23 And the Lord said unto her,
        TWO NATIONS are in thy womb,
        and two manner of PEOPLE shall be separated from thy bowels;
        and the one people shall be STRONGER than the other PEOPLE;
        and the elder shall serve the younger.

Ginger Rella

  • Guest
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #101 on: Thu Aug 02, 2018 - 09:00:29 »
If I recall correctly, your default position regarding man is that we are all born "workers of iniquity." From the start every person is an enemy of God, steeped in sin and guilty before Him. Going by your logic above, that automatically makes us all hated by God and without hope. If you were consistent about God's unchangeableness, then you would have to admit that no one will be saved because God's hatred for sinners will never change.

The contradictions go further. You say that only those who love God will be loved by God, thus the rest are hated and will be cast out. Since we are all born enemies of God and workers of iniquity, and incapable of loving God, then we are again all doomed. Therefore, God has to make some able to love Him and then God can love them back. ::frown:: 

I would suggest that those passages about God loving those who love Him are telling us that God works His will in the lives of those who seek and obey Him from their hearts in a way that He does not in the lives of those who are not seeking His will. It is not that God looks at each person differently and that He wants a different destiny for each, but that He works in their lives differently due to their choices. Even in this, God still wants those who are disobedient to repent (Ezekiel 18:23, 32).

You cherry-pick scriptures to teach all about how God hates so many people from their very first breath, and that God arbitrarily picks the few out of the whole rotten crop to redeem unto Himself and make His children. I still say this a is a horrible way to approach God's will regarding man. Man alone is created in God's image, and I suggest that alone makes us worthy to be loved by Him. I will maintain that God loves all, John 3:16 alone making that clear, and that He wants all saved (1 Timothy 2:4) and that He wants all to repent (2 Peter 3:9).

I cannot accept that God loved Pharoah et al equally to the Jews.

Were the Jews not his chosen ones?

 
and that He wants all saved (1 Timothy 2:4)
Yes, that has been said

and that He wants all to repent (2 Peter 3:9)
and so has this

But as to God loving all. It is not an unconditional love by any stretch. You turn your back on HIM, and he will not beg.
Those whome he hates has turned their backs.

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9614
  • Manna: 274
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #102 on: Thu Aug 02, 2018 - 09:35:37 »
God hated. He said so. He is not a liar.
But that only means that you have to ask what that means.  I believe it means, as Jaime noted above, that it means that God loves less, that he blesses less, in comparison to His love.  Clearly when Christ said that we must hate our parents, our children, our cousins etc., in order to follow Him, he meant in measure by comparison to loving Him.  He said elsewhere that whoever hates his brother is a murderer.  So then do you really believe that Jesus is telling us to be murderers, i.e., that we should sin?  I don't think so.

Ginger Rella

  • Guest
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #103 on: Thu Aug 02, 2018 - 12:09:40 »
But that only means that you have to ask what that means.  I believe it means, as Jaime noted above, that it means that God loves less, that he blesses less, in comparison to His love.  Clearly when Christ said that we must hate our parents, our children, our cousins etc., in order to follow Him, he meant in measure by comparison to loving Him.  He said elsewhere that whoever hates his brother is a murderer.  So then do you really believe that Jesus is telling us to be murderers, i.e., that we should sin?  I don't think so.



Thank you, thank you, thank you.....

You are making my translation case for me big time, but not going into that now.

For the purposes of this discussion we will assume that the word hate means just what we believe it does in 2018.

The idea that it means loves less, actually is in the KJV dictionary. (Interesting as there have been so many antiKJV comments lately))

There it says.........

HATE, v.t. L. odi, for hodi.

1. To dislike greatly; to have a great aversion to. It expresses less than abhor, detest, and abominate, unless pronounced with a peculiar emphasis.

How long will fools hate knowledge? Prov.1.

Blessed are ye when men shall hate you. Luke 6.

The Roman tyrant was contented to be hated, if he was but feared.

2. In Scripture, it signifies to love less.

If any man come to me, and hate not father and mother, &c. Luke 14.

He that spareth the rod, hateth his son. Prov. 13.

HATE, n. Great dislike or aversion; hatred.

But , reading a little further we find .

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

The subject here is the word for hate, which is the Greek miseo. One Skeptic is typical of critics when he writes:

Most Christians feel obligated to soften the face meaning of the word 'hate' to something like 'love less than me,' even though the Greek word miseo means 'hate.'

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesussayshate.php

Now, with  all due respect to Jaime, I am addressing this to you.

.... "you have to ask what that means" ~ No I do not, not anymore then you do.

...."  I believe it means" ~ Where is it written what you believe?  You are spinning your interpretation or that of some translator. Exactly how do you know that what the transalator translated is correct and not just something used to "make it fit and sound right"?

...." that it means that God loves less, that he blesses less, in comparison to His love" ~ Rinse and repeat.... Where is that written? (above article suggestes differently)

...."  Clearly when Christ said that we must hate our parents, our children, our cousins etc., in order to follow Him, he meant in measure by comparison to loving Him. " ~  Possibly, but we will never know for sure because the original scripts that the translators translated from stopped short of any understandable explanation. And where exactly are these scripts???? Do we know for a fact that all of them actually existed?

.... " He said elsewhere that whoever hates his brother is a murderer.",  Not every man is my brother not is every woman my sister. And they are not yours either. As children of God, we are to have each others backs. Hate one of God's own and you might as well have signed your own death warrant. But hate a spawn of Satan and your will be a true warrior for Christ. IMHO

Fact: God possesses 2 essential qualities,  holiness and justice. So as a  divine being with standards, God hates anything that despises, detests, or disregards those standards.

In Exodus 34:14 we are told

"For the Lord, whose name is jealous, is a jealous God."

While that is a subject for another day, we know that God was jealous of people worshipping "other" gods.

Why would that not be the case with Jesus?

Why would He, as part of the Trinity.... of God the Father, ....God the Son ....God the Holy Spirit not be jealous if His disciples love for their earthly family that might interfere with what the end goal was....?  They were expected to drop all and follow him. Period. End goal being the establishment of Himself as the"Savior" of the world.


As to Jesus saying we must hate ..... in order to follow him. I just recently read a commentary on this very thing that explains "my" beliefs on this far better than I can word it. I have always thought Jesus to be only recruiting disciples, as it were, saying that.  The following seems to bear this up.

"Jesus may have chosen the word "hate" to show us that this is how a mother or father will perceive the actions of a child who chooses the Lord above them. They will see it as disloyal, especially if we try to witness to them." ( I actually saw this first hand with a friend whose son scared her so badly she never came to the Lord as far as I know.... and she lost a lot of her motherly love for him to the point of hatred )

https://www.gotquestions.org/hate-father-mother.html

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

If you do not have this unwavering faith in Jesus, you are destined to be destroyed. A little less love would not amount to destroy. He did it to Sodom and Gomorrah and that had  to do with utter contempt for the people and their lifestyles once Lot et al got out. It was not that He loved them just a little less.

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 34617
  • Manna: 760
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Yogi, would you consider debating me using your three posts?
« Reply #104 on: Thu Aug 02, 2018 - 12:24:48 »
Good stuff Rella. See you are MORE than capable of facing the dastardly male menace here. Don’t ever convince your self you are not worthy, or somehow out of your league.

By the way, I in no way think we must hate our families to follow Jesus.

Maybe another topic, but related to this discussion: Did Jesus ever employ hyperbole or exaggerated statements, which were apparently a common rabbinic teaching tool at the time?

If Jesus was quoted in Aramaic that it was raining cars and dogs, are we to assume literal cats and dogs were falling from the sky?
« Last Edit: Thu Aug 02, 2018 - 13:03:10 by Jaime »

 

     
anything