[soc.religion.christian] He loves me, He loves me not, He loves me, He...

lab@uunet.uu.net (Lance Beckner) (07/31/89)

In article <Jul.22.17.51.16.1989.26025@athos.rutgers.edu>,
bnr-fos!bnr-public!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) writes:
> 
> Although God hates a person who sins, (what exactly do you do with
> Scriptures like Psalm 5:5 and Psalm 11:5 which are part of God's Word
> and cannot be ignored to avoid this truth), His perfect righteousness
> will not permit Him to even see sins that have been paid for. If Christ
> paid for the sins of a given person then God no longer sees the sins of
> that person and, therefore, can no longer hate him.

No, I don't ignore these scriptures.  But I am trying to look at them in
light of all other scripture.  Right now, I don't have an answer.  But I
don't accept your answer either.  Here is my problem:

     God hates sinners + We are all sinners = God hates us all. 

And yet the scriptures clearly teach that God loves us (His children).  So
if God loved me enough that while I was still a sinner, Christ died for me,
that means that while God hated me (in my sins), He loved me.

Maybe this is (at least in part) the answer.  Could it be possible that God
hates us (because of our sins) and yet loves us at the same time?

     speaking of Romans 8:38-39, Dave says that these scriptures imply that
     all of those whom God loves will be saved.  I write:
> >In case you didn't know, Paul is writing to Christians here.

     Dave writes:   
> This is not a proof that God does not hate non-Christians. 

But it does not prove that He hates non-Christians either.  It tells the
believers in Rome (and everywhere else) that nothing will separate them from
the love of God.

>   He loves
> those whom He has planned to save but not actually saved yet because
> their sins have already been paid for even if the actual bestowing of
> His gift of salvation is not complete yet.

Do you have scriptural support for this?  Or is this just your way of
reconciling these passages?  (this is NOT a flame, I just want to know).
I see us as being enemies of God right up to the point where we accept  
Christ as Savior (Rom 5:10). 

I am going to have to do a lot of study on the love-hate aspect of God's
character.  I have a couple of theories that I'm going to try to chase down. 
But those could be wrong.

-- 
Lance A. Beckner                   "Jesus loves me, this I know,
INTERNET: lab@fibercom.com         for the Bible tells me so." 
UUCP: ...!uunet!fibercom!lab

davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (08/04/89)

In article <Jul.30.22.14.08.1989.1005@geneva.rutgers.edu> fibercom!lab@uunet.uu.net (Lance Beckner) writes:
>     God hates sinners + We are all sinners = God hates us all. 

This is not exactly correct. My position is that God hates sinners but
that He does not hate His elect even prior to His bestowing of
salvation upon them because their sins have already been paid for by
Christ. Since the penalty for those sins has been paid for, His perfect
justice would not permit Him to see those sins any more. If He does not
see the sins of a person because they have been paid for then He is
obligated to save that person and He is also obligated to not hate that
person. We must remember that the forgiveness of our sins really
happened when Christ endured the penalty for them on the cross and not
when God chose to actually bring us to salvation. Note that this does
not leave the Old Testament believers in trouble because the Scriptures
teach that Christ is in principle the Lamb slain from before the
foundations of the earth because God's Word is as good as done as soon
as He speaks it since He cannot lie. Would that we all could keep our
commitments with this degree of infallability; but then we would have
to insure that all of them were good ones, wouldn't we!
 
Speaking of Romans 8:38-39 which says "For I am persuaded, that neither
death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things
present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other
creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is
in Christ Jesus our Lord.":

>But it does not prove that He hates non-Christians either.  It tells the
>believers in Rome (and everywhere else) that nothing will separate them from
>the love of God.

But it does. The Scriptures teach that it is appointed unto man once to
die and then the judgement. This means that when any one of us dies
there is no further oportunity for salvation. If nothing whatsoever can
separate us from the love of God, and if we agree that those whom God
loves must be saved, then how would you rationalize the fact that most
of the people in this world die unsaved? The Scriptures teach that many
are on the broad way to destruction and only a few are on the narrow
way to eternal life.  God could not have loved those numerous people who
have died unsaved because hell will separate them from His love.
 
>Do you have scriptural support for this?  Or is this just your way of
>reconciling these passages?  (this is NOT a flame, I just want to know).

I believe that I have answered this in the preceding paragraph. If you
do not think I have dealt with it adequately then let me know.
 
Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014
856 Grenon Avenue
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K2B 6G3

[I'd be curious what reaction others who believe in God's judgement
have to this.  My impression is that it is common for Christians to
believe in eternal suffering in hell, but very uncommon indeed to
believe that God hates most of mankind.  I certainly understand where
you get your conclusion.  It is certainly hard to believe that a God
who loves people could condemn them to hell.  But it seems to me that
most Christians adopt a solution other than giving up the idea of a
loving God.  This is an area in which logical precision may not always
be possible, since there's no reason to think that we understand God
completely.  But most answers I've seen say in effect that God's love
is not quite what we imagine it.  His love is a consuming fire.  His
judgement is seen as in some way the inverse side of his love.  I
confess that this kind of love is hard to reconcile with our concept
of love.  But most Christians have been willing to accept that our
concept of love may need redefinition when applied to God, rather than
concluding that God hates most human beings.  This view has the
advantage of being consistent with the implications behind a number of
OT visions of God.  God is so holy that for a sinful person to see him
is death.  It's not the God abandons his holiness for hate when a
sinful person sees him, but that holiness itself is dangerous.  One
can conceive of a kind of love that is similarly dangerous.  On earth
we see it only in a veiled form.  But when we are confronted with his
love in its full power, we can survive it unscathed only if we have
accepted his protection.  What do others who believe in the existence
of a (non-empty) Hell have to say?  --clh]

mclek@gatech.edu (Larry E. Kollar) (08/05/89)

I can't agree with the premise that God hates sinners (or a non-elect).
If this were the case, it would be better -- and probable -- that such
people *were never born.*  I believe (best not to presume to absolutely
know the mind of God -- see Job) that He hates the sin and love the sinner.

This is going to get pretty metaphysical, but I'll keep it short.

Point 1:  God, being all-powerful, can easily know whether a newborn
	  will become saved.

Point 2:  If God knows our fate at birth, our fate is sealed.  God cannot
	  be wrong.

Premise:  God wants us all to accept His gift of His son, who died & went
	  to hell so we didn't have to.

Given the above, could an all-powerful God *choose not to know* whether
someone *will* be saved or not?  He would know when a person accepts Christ
when it happened, of course.  But perhaps the unsaved have the benefit of
the doubt until death, so that they have every possible opportunity to 
hear of and receive His gift.

Just another electronic target for y'all to shoot holes in.
-- 
Larry Kollar	...!gatech!dcatla!mclek
: life BEGIN funds @ enough_to_retire < WHILE work REPEAT ;

[Actually, the problem you mention is not necessarily fatal.  Most
people who believe in predestination believe that causality happens on
two levels, so that the fact that something is determined on God's
level doesn't rob decisions of their reality on the human level.  If
you're not familiar with this, I'm sure someone can amplify it.  Thus
your point 2 does not necessarily follow.  However your proposal is an
interesting one.  It is distantly related to a model of the
incarnation referred to as "kenosis", self-emptying.  Someone has
commented that the real miracle in the universe is not the existence
of God, but the existence of anything else.  How could a
self-existent, omnipotent being leave room for anything else to be
real?  In some sense the existence of people as independent agents has
to involve some decision on God's part to allow us an independence
which "naturally" would not seem to be ours.  You suggest that he does
so by voluntarily failing to exercise some of his powers.  Do you see
any Scriptural evidence for any of this?  --clh]

lab@uunet.uu.net (Lance Beckner) (08/09/89)

[This continues a discussion with Dave Mielke, on the subject of whether
God hates those who are not saved.  The argument in Dave's last posting
was (1) the scriptures teach that there is a judgement, in which some
perish. (2) those whom God loves must be saved.  Therefore there are
some that God does not love.  --clh]

I'm sorry, but I never agreed that all of those whom God loves must be saved.
At present I am still holding to my original position that God loves
everyone.  But many will reject His love, and they will perish as a result.

> of the people in this world die unsaved? The Scriptures teach that many
> are on the broad way to destruction and only a few are on the narrow
> way to eternal life.  God could not have loved those numerous people who
> have died unsaved because hell will separate them from His love.

As I have said before, I am still prayerfully studying this issue.  Let me
just try to answer this off of the top of my head (keeping in mind that this
may change as I investigate this further).  I believe it is true that hell
will separate the lost from the love of God.  But I don't think that means
that God never loved the lost.  Rather, it means that even though He loved
them, He still had to judge them for their rejection.  God is a God of love;
He is also a God of justice.  Often times we think that God EITHER loves
someone, OR He will send them to hell.  Because God is a God of justice, all
of us deserve to go to hell.  But because He is also a God of love, He sent
His Son, so that whoever puts their faith on Christ's finished work at the
cross of Calvary, can be saved from their just punishment.

In Christian Friendship,
Lance

-- 
Lance A. Beckner                   INTERNET: lab@fibercom.com
FiberCom, Inc.                     UUCP: ...!uunet!fibercom!lab
P.O. Box 11966                     FAX: (703) 342-5961
Roanoke, VA  24022-1966            PHONE:  (703) 342-6700

hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (08/09/89)

>In article <Jul.30.22.14.08.1989.1005@geneva.rutgers.edu> fibercom!lab@uunet.uu.net (Lance Beckner) writes:
>>     God hates sinners + We are all sinners = God hates us all. 
>

On a quick look at a Bible concordance/subject index under the topic
of "hate" I find no reference to God hating sinners.  Maybe I (or my
reference) overlooked something, and I will stand corrected if
anybody can give me a reference which explicity says He hates
sinners.  I do find plenty of scriptures indicating He hates various
sins, but that doesn't necessarily mean he hates the sinner.

I beleive God loves all of us, even the worst sinners.  However he
hates our sins just as parents can love their children but hate some
of the things they do.

[I suggest that you correspond privately with Dave on this subject.
He began this discussion with a list of passages which he believes
support the idea of God hating sinners.  Probably he can send you a
copy of that list.  Here are some references I turn up, though his
list was much longer.  (I just told my computer to look for "hate*".
His list was based on a more subtle search.)  Ps 5:5, Ps 11:5, Ps
31:6, Ps 139:21, Hos 9:15, Mal 1:3.  --clh]

darin@decwrl.dec.com (Darin Johnson) (08/09/89)

[In article <Aug.4.21.23.02.1989.19584@athos.rutgers.edu> 
dcatla!mclek@gatech.edu (Larry E. Kollar) suggested that God might
choose not to know whether someone is going to be saved, because
if he knows our fate, our fate is sealed.  --clh]

Two observations:

1) God knows what our eventual fate is because God is omniscient, not
   because it was 'decided'.  God can see the future, so he automatically
   knows if we are saved or not (unless God makes a special effort to
   not know this, which I doubt).  However, at the present time, we may
   not have made that choice for ourselves.  God has not told us what
   our individual fate is, so we act no differently.

   As an analogy, suppose you had a machine to see into the future.  You
   saw that your child would run away from home and lead a life of crime.
   However, at the moment, your child is 3 years old.  Your child has
   not abandoned you yet.  Do you love him/her less?  What would you do
   in this case?  Would you let your child know that he/she is going to
   mess up in the future?  If you had 2 children, would you spend all your
   parenting on one child, and ignore the other since you that one would
   grow up 'ok'?

2) Some have said that since God can not love sin, that God can not love
   those he knows will reject him forever (he/him used for  clarity).  I
   think this is a bad argument.  God hates the sin, but not the sinner.
   It hurts God greatly to turn away his own creations because of their
   sin.  If my cat got in a fight with a skunk, there is a very good
   chance it would spend the night outside.  I don't hate the cat, but
   I hate that horrible smell.  With us, we have decided that we like
   sin more than God, and God can not let us inside until we leave the
   sin behind.

Darin Johnson (leadsv!laic!darin@pyramid.pyramid.com)
	We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

[Thanks also to Philip R. Lindberg, bcstec!tahoma!prl3546@uunet.uu.net,
who made a point similar to item (2) --clh]

rsm@mvuxi.att.com (Robert S Mcleod) (08/12/89)

	In regard to the issue of sin, I think some discussion on what makes
us sinners maybe worth exploring and commenting on.  Keep in mind John 3:16, 
and 1 Tim 1:15.

In Christ,

Bob McLeod

kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) (08/12/89)

My "understanding" .. I don't think God knows whether we are going to be saved.
It is not a question of whether He could or not.  In creating us, God made us
in His image.  We are "God-like" in the sense that we write our own destiny.
This was given to us as a gift when He created us.

Consider the following: If God knew our (individual) fate, and it was bad, 
                        would He not *change* it... particularly if He knew
                        that we could not help but act otherwise?

                        "God so loved the world..."

dennis

davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (08/12/89)

In article <Aug.9.02.26.39.1989.9551@athos.rutgers.edu> fibercom!lab@uunet.uu.net (our moderator) writes:
>[This continues a discussion with Dave Mielke, on the subject of
>whether God hates those who are not saved. The argument in Dave's last
>posting was (1) the scriptures teach that there is a judgement, in
>which some perish. (2) those whom God loves must be saved. Therefore
>there are some that God does not love. --clh] 

If I had no further Scriptural backing than that then I would have to
be declared wrong. I have quoted a couple of Scriptures a couple of
times which declare (I'll risk saying "very clearly") that there are
those whom God does actually hate. Nobody has responded to these
Scriptures in order to show me where my interpretation of them may be
in error, yet nobody has acknowledged that they say what they say
either. I shall requote them here and i urge everyone, especially
those who insist on interpreting Scriptures literally, to make sure
that they are included in whatever doctrine is being proclaimed. They
are, after all, part of the Word of God too, and cannot be ignored if
we want to insure that we are proclaiming the whole counsel of God.
The apostle Paul declares the importance of this attitude in Acts
20:26-27 where he says "Wherefore I take you to record this day, that
I {am} pure from the blood of all {men}. For I have not shunned to
declare unto you all the counsel of God.".
 
Here are the two afore-mentioned Scriptures which tell us that God
hates not only the sin but also the sinner. Psalm 5:5 says "The foolish
shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.".
Psalm 11:5 says "The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him
that loveth violence his soul hateth.". Let us Christians avoid the
temptation to tell the world about the God that we wish we had, and
rather tell them about the God whom we really do have, the God who is
described by Himself in His Word. Failure to do this can hardly be
expected to meet His aproval.
 
A note to those who may think that I am prolonging this discussion at
the risk of causing needless descention. I used to believe that God
loves everyone but I have now discovered that this is not true. It is
becoming more and more clear to me that those who arbitrarily tell
others that God loves them are in danger of having told one of the
biggest lies they could ever tell. This lie may be inadvertent, but
ignorance of God's law has never been an acceptable excuse for its
breakage. I am sure that all of us would like to be sure that we are
witnessing to the unsaved in a way that would be in accordance with His
law and would, thereby, be acceptable to Him. Since we know that people
are saved by His Grace, then we should not expect Him to bring someone
to salvation through a misrepresentation of His motives. Since it is He
who does the actual saving, why need any of us worry about only saying
things that please our hearers at the risk of committing sins by saying
things that are not necessarily true. While we may claim success
because there are those whom we have told that God loves them and who
have been saved, this would only be because in those particular cases
our declaration of God's love for those people was correct. This does
not excuse, however, the sin of our lying to those whom God does not
intend to save and who, therefore, do not respond, of God's love for
them.
 
In article <Aug.9.02.26.39.1989.9551@athos.rutgers.edu> fibercom!lab@uunet.uu.net (Lance Beckner) writes:
>I'm sorry, but I never agreed that all of those whom God loves must be saved.
>At present I am still holding to my original position that God loves
>everyone.  But many will reject His love, and they will perish as a result.

Jesus says in John 6:44 "No man can come to me, except the Father which
hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.". If no
one is able to come to Jesus unless the Father draws him, and if God
loves everyone, then surely He draws everyone. If God draws everyone
then the only reason that anyone would end up in hell would be his
voluntary rejection of Him. Let us suppose that this conclusion is true
and test it against a few other Scriptures.
 
Jesus says in John 6:39 "And this is the Father's will which hath sent
me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but
should raise it up again at the last day.". If Jesus will lose none of
those who have been given to Him by the Father then the only ones in
danger of hell are those who have not been explicitly given to Him by
the Father. If we assume that God draws everyone then only those who
are being drawn yet have not explicitily been given are in danger of
hell. This leaves us with the question "are there those whom the Father
draws yet has not given to Jesus?".
 
God says in Isaiah 55:10-11 "For as the rain cometh down, and the snow
from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and
maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and
bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my
mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that
which I please, and it shall prosper {in the thing} whereto I sent
it.". With a declaration like this, would God ever send forth His Word
to draw someone and not succeed? I would like to suggest that the
Father will only send forth His Word to draw someone if that person has
been given to Jesus, otherwise He would be sending forth His Word only
to have it return to Him void, not having accomplished the purpose for
which it was sent. If He draws everyone, if everyone He draws has been
given, and if everyone who has been given is not lost, then we are
forced to conclude that no one is lost, i.e. everyone is saved and in
absolutely no danger of having to endure hell.
 
We know that this cannot be true because Jesus tells us in Matthew
7:13-14 "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide {is} the gate, and
broad {is} the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be
which go in thereat: Because strait {is} the gate, and narrow {is} the
way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.". If the
majority of us people will enter into the wide gate that leads to
destruction, i.e. hell, then that same majority must not have been
given to Jesus by the Father. If they were not given then they must not
have been drawn because God tells us that He never sends forth His Word
without it accomplishing its purpose. This now leaves us with the
question "if God loves everyone then why does He only draw a minority
of us to Himself?".
 
Perhaps God's infinitely perfect love is deffective? I don't think so.
He tells us in Psalm 5:5 and Psalm 11:5 that He hates those who commit
sins. There is only one explanation that works when every single
Scripture is taken into account. God should hate every single one of us
because, as we are told in Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned, and come
short of the glory of God;". His hatred for those who commit sin is so
great that He declared that the penalty for someone who commits a sin
is hell, i.e. spiritual death, as we are told in Romans 6:23, which
begins "For the wages of sin {is} death;". God wanted to save some
people from this fate and, at the same time, to give them an
irrefutable demonstration of the infinite nature of His love with which
He would then love them throughout eternity. He, therefore, voluntarily
chose those whom He would love, used His foreknowledge to determine
exactly which sins they would commit, personally endured the penalties
for each and every one of those sins, and then obligated Himself to
love them because He could no longer hate them as He could no longer
"see" those sins which He Himself had already paid for. We may not in
any way claim that His love is less than infinite just because He has
not chosen to bestow it on everyone. He would have demonstrated its
infinite nature had He only bestowed it on one single person, because
enduring hell (infinite punishment for infinite time) in a finite
amount of time is already more than infinite suffering. The fact that
He has chosen to bestow His love on a whole bunch of people makes it
even more magnifiscent.
 
I would like to conclude by quoting a couple more Scriptures in which
God declares His absolute sovereignty and that nothing is occurring by
chance. Let none of us ignore these Scriptures when attempting to seek
truth. Romans 9:15 says "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.". Ephesians 1:11 says "In whom also we have obtained an
inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who
worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:".
 
    Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014
    856 Grenon Avenue
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    K2B 6G3

[Those interested in this discussion will want to refer to a posting
later in this group by Stan Reeves.  It is the only attempt I have
seen so far to do just both to the passages Dave quotes and the
evidence that God loves everyone. --clh]

davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (08/12/89)

In article <Aug.9.03.17.35.1989.9923@athos.rutgers.edu> laic!vogon.laic!darin@decwrl.dec.com (Darin Johnson) writes:
>1) God knows what our eventual fate is because God is omniscient, not
>   because it was 'decided'.  God can see the future, so he automatically
>   knows if we are saved or not (unless God makes a special effort to
>   not know this, which I doubt).  However, at the present time, we may
>   not have made that choice for ourselves.  God has not told us what
>   our individual fate is, so we act no differently.

This position assumes that God is a mere observer, i.e. He does not
intervene in our affairs. The Scriptures are, however, full of cases
where He has directly intervened. We must remember that God can, with
perfect foreknowledge, intervene in such a way as to make things turn
out in the way that He wants them to.
 
Even if the concept of a person having the free will to either accept
or reject God were true, there is still no way to avoid the fact that
God has to involve Himself with each person who is to even stand a
chance of being saved. John 6:44 begins "No man can come to me, except
the Father which hath sent me draw him:".
 
>   As an analogy, suppose you had a machine to see into the future.  You
>   saw that your child would run away from home and lead a life of crime.
>   However, at the moment, your child is 3 years old.  Your child has
>   not abandoned you yet.  Do you love him/her less?  What would you do
>   in this case?  Would you let your child know that he/she is going to
>   mess up in the future?

There are a couple of Scriptural problems with this theory.
 
The Scriptures teach that we have abandoned God as of the time we are
conceived. Psalm 58:3-5 says "The wicked are estranged from the womb:
they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Their poison
{is} like the poison of a serpent: {they are} like the deaf adder
{that} stoppeth her ear; Which will not hearken to the voice of
charmers, charming never so wisely.". In case anyone wants to fault me
for having said "from conception" when this Scripture implies "from
actual birth", I would also like to quote Psalm 51:5 which says
"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive
me.".
 
You have assumed that God considers all of us to be His children. There
is no Scriptural support for this idea other than the leap in logic
that says that we must be because He created Adam, because we are all
descendants of Adam, and because He must have considered Adam to be a
child of His. What the Scriptures actually teach is that we become His
children at the point when we become saved. John 1:12 says "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:".
 
Please understand that I have not chosen to respond to you in this way
so as to give you a hard time. I, in fact, rarely even look at who
originated each article until afterward so that I can insure that my
response is not biased. This has given me an opportunity, though, to
illustrate the dangers of coming up with a nice sounding theory that is
very convincing yet cannot be supported by the Scriptures. I'm sure
that we all agree that the best way to get to accurately know God is to
let Him describe Himself to us through His Word. I, personally, would
like to see Scripture references that support any given position. This
is the only way to insure that we are speaking with even a minute
degree of authority.
 
    Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014
    856 Grenon Avenue
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    K2B 6G3

ddomingo@orion.cf.uci.edu (Douglas Domingo-Foraste) (08/14/89)

[This is a response to article <Aug.11.22.03.42.1989.7260@athos.rutgers.edu>
by bnr-fos!bnr-public!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke).  Dave is
looking at the consequences of the assumption that God loves everyone.
(1) based on Jn 6:44, if God loves everyone he will surely draw
everyone to Christ, and the only reason anyone would end up in hell
would be rejecting God.  He proposes to assume this and test it. (2)
based on Jn 6:39 the only ones who might end up in hell are those not
given to Christ by the Father.  But if God draws everyone this implies
that some are drawn but not given.  Does this make sense? (3) based in
Is 55:10-11, if God sends forth his word to draw someone it will
succeed.  So all who are drawn have been given.  In conclusion, if he
draws everyone, everyone will be saved and no one is in danger of
hell.  --clh]

I am going to summarize Dave's syllogisms for the sake of clarity:

First syllogism:
(1) John 6.44--only those drawn by the Father come to Christ
(2) John 6.39--Jesus will not lose any given by the Father
ergo:  only those "drawn" but not "given" risk hell

Second syllogism:
(1) only those "drawn" but not "given" risk hell
(2) Isaiah 55.10--God's word does not return void 
                 (i.e. all who are drawn are also given [drawn=given])
ergo: no one "drawn" risks hell since drawn=given

Third syllogism:
(1) no one "drawn" risks hell
(2) God does send people to hell
ergo: all are not "drawn"

I hope I've done his argument justice.  I think there are two problems
with the set of syllogisms.  First, I believe the logic of the second
is faulty, especially point (2), and the key is his rhetorical question.

>it.". With a declaration like this, would God ever send forth His Word
>to draw someone and not succeed? I would like to suggest that the

Yes, it seems to me that that is exactly what happens.  Dave has
equated God's word "returning void" with its failure to provoke a 
positive response from its hearer.  But it is a point he neglects
to demonstrate.  I suggest an alternative: God's word does not return
void when it provokes any response in the hearer, either positive or
negative.  I realize that my suggestion is equally unproven.

The second problem with Dave's argumentation is that is relies on
literalism.  The difference between Dave and his detractors is not
one of inerrancy.  From what I can tell after three months or so, 
most people in the group take the Bible as authoritative in some
measure. But Dave takes his various passages from the Psalms
about God hating sinners, not as the psalmists' emotive literary 
expressions, but God's dictated theological treatise.  If you
believe that God made Eve out of Adam's rib, that God has an arm
that is not too short, and that Jesus wanted to sit on the city
of Jerusalem, then Dave's approach makes consistent sense.  But
if you believe that the Bible is everything God wanted to tell man
and only what God wanted to tell man, yet imbued with the literary
style of its various authors, then Dave's approach obscures God's
intentions rather than clarifies them.

Doug Domingo-Foraste
Thesaurus Linguae Graecae

davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (08/17/89)

[This is a continuation of the discussion between Dave Mielke and
ddomingo@orion.cf.uci.edu (Douglas Domingo-Foraste).  In the last
posting, Douglas criticized Dave's use of Isaiah 55.10 (God's word
does not return void).  Dave cited it to show that if God draws
someone to Christ, then they will end up being given to Christ.
Dave's crucial comment was
  With a declaration like this, would God ever send forth His Word
  to draw someone and not succeed?
Douglas suggested that sending forth could be said to succeed if
it provoked any reaction from the hearer, even rejection.  --clh]

The problem is that my "rhetorical question" was not worded adequately,
and not that the Scripture which I quoted did not make its point.
Isaiah 55:10-11 says "For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from
heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh
it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread
to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it
shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I
please, and it shall prosper {in the thing} whereto I sent it.". You
would be entirely correct if this Scripture only said that God's Word
does not return to Him void, i.e. it always has some effect or other,
but the effect that it had was left up to the reaction of its hearer.
Note, however, that this Scripture also says that His Word always
accomplishes the purpose for which it was sent. If God wishes to draw
someone then He must send His word forth. This Scripture declares that
that drawing will be accomplished because that is the purpose He sent
it forth for.
 
[Douglas also criticized Dave's argument as "literalistic."  The
issue here is not inerrancy, but how the Psalmist meant the words
he wrote:
>... Dave takes his various passages from the Psalms
>about God hating sinners, not as the psalmists' emotive literary 
>expressions, but God's dictated theological treatise.  If you
>believe that God made Eve out of Adam's rib, that God has an arm
>that is not too short, and that Jesus wanted to sit on the city
>of Jerusalem, then Dave's approach makes consistent sense.  But
>if you believe that the Bible is everything God wanted to tell man
>and only what God wanted to tell man, yet imbued with the literary
>style of its various authors, then Dave's approach obscures God's
>intentions rather than clarifies them.
]

For the record, here is a summary of my beliefs with respect to your
comments. The Bible is both no more and no less than God wanted to tell
mankind. Although each verse is full of the literary style of its human
author, it is also full of the precise meanings that God, its real
author, intended it to have. If this were not true then Jesus would
have been in error when He reminded Satan (and us) in Matthew 4:4 "But
he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.". Note, too,
that Jesus quoted Scripture in order to deal with Satan, thereby
demonstrating what His basis for living was. In so doing He was letting
us know what He meant by the phrase "every word that proceedeth out of
the mouth of God".
 
God's ability to say exactly what He means to say through whatever
literary style He wants to is yet another marvelous example of His
infinite abilities. Please also remember that it is He who gives us
whatever gifts we have. James 1:17 reminds us "Every good gift and
every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of
lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.". If I
were a computer programmer, for example, then I would be less than
honest if I were ever to claim that I achieved that skill on my own. It
would be a God-given skill which I would be obligated to use to its
fullest in order to glorify HIs name before my fellow workers, my
management, etc. It is not beyond belief that He gave the various
authors of the Bible the literary skills and style that He wanted them
to have so that they would write their particular Scriptures in the way
that He wanted them to.
 
Before I go on I would like to give an illustration of how we can all
accomplish one of the goals I mentioned in the preceding paragraph,
i.e. doing our best at our jobs in order to glorify His name. We must
do our best, but we must never accept any credit for having done so. If
anyone ever asks us why we do what we do so well then we must always
declare not only firmly but also unhesitantly that we are merely using
those skills which God has given us and that He really deserves all the
credit. We should be prepared to do this at job interviews, employee
reviews, meetings, public conferences, and anywhere else that we happen
to find ourselves in. The reason that God gives us these skills is not
so that we can build up an earthly fortune of riches and reputation,
but rather to obligate those with whom we associate to pay attention to
us when we tell them about God. Note that the standard for how well we
are to do our jobs is that we must act as though God Himself were our
immediate manager. Ephesians 6:5-7 says "Servants, be obedient to them
that are {your} masters according to the flesh, with fear and
trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with
eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the
will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the
Lord, and not to men:".
 
For the record, I would also like to declare that I do believe that God
created Eve from one of Adam's ribs. If she were a unique creation,
i.e. not created from part of Adam, then we would not be able to read
in Genesis 2:23 "And Adam said, This {is} now bone of my bones, and
flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out
of Man.". I would suggest that your sarcasm does more to obscure the
meaning of the Scriptures than my decision to interpret some of them
literally. Remember that even our conversations in this public
newsgroup are a witness for Christ to all those whom God chooses to
incline to read our various postings. If we malign what He has told us
through His Scriptures, then we can be reasonably sure that He will not
choose to use our efforts in this area to bear fruit for Himself.
 
You are putting yourself on a fairly high pedistle by giving yourself
the right to decide whose remarks obscure what God really meant. I hope
that you really do not feel that you have such a perfect understanding
of the Scriptures that you can determine if someone else's remark has
obscured a truth that you perhaps cannot see yet. Please permit me to
give you my guildelines for knowing when to interpret something
literally and when to interpret it symbolically.
 
The Bible is the declaration to mankind of God's salvation plan for
mankind. Any Scripture which relates directly to this plan can be
interpreted literally without too much worry that some important
meaning is being overlooked. Any Scripture which has no aparent bearing
on His salvation plan, e.g. Moses striking the rock two times and it
then bringing forth water, must be interpreted symbolically in order to
really know what God meant by it. Statements pertaining to our current
state of affairs, i.e. our hopelessly sinful nature, have a direct
bearing on His salvation plan so I feel that they must be taken at face
value. We really risk obscuring God's message and, in so doing, grossly
misleading mankind if we decide that God's declaration of His hatred
for sinners cannot be what He has really said simply because we can
seemingly logically explain it away by saying that that was just the
way the phrase came out because the psalmist wrote in that sort of a
style. If this were true then 2 Timothy 3:16 would be in error when it
declares "All scripture {is} given by inspiration of God, and {is}
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
in righteousness:".
 
    Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014
    856 Grenon Avenue
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    K2B 6G3

lab@uunet.uu.net (Lance Beckner) (08/17/89)

In article <Aug.11.22.03.42.1989.7260@athos.rutgers.edu>, bnr-fos!bnr-public!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) writes:
> 
> those whom God does actually hate. Nobody has responded to these
> Scriptures in order to show me where my interpretation of them may be
> in error, yet nobody has acknowledged that they say what they say
> either. I shall requote them here and i urge everyone, especially

I assume that this was a general post, Dave.  But I also assume that you were
looking for a response from me in particular.  First, let me say that I did
respond (sort of); I just haven't come up with a solid answer yet.  In
article <Jul.30.22.14.08.1989.1005@geneva.rutgers.edu>, I wrote:

     No, I don't ignore these scriptures.  But I am trying to look at them
     in light of all other scripture.  Right now, I don't have an answer. 
     But I don't accept your answer either.

I also went on to say:

     Could it be possible that God hates us (because of our sins) and yet
     loves us at the same time?

But probably the most important statement of the article was:

     I am going to have to do a lot of study on the love-hate aspect of God's
     character.  I have a couple of theories that I'm going to try to chase
     down.  But those could be wrong.


Later, in article <Aug.9.02.26.39.1989.9551@athos.rutgers.edu>, I wrote:

     As I have said before, I am still prayerfully studying this issue.  Let

I must admit, Dave, that my first response was more of an emotional response
than it should have been.  My attitude was, "How dare you say that about the
God that *I* worship."  In subsequent postings though, you did show strong
scriptural support for your theory.  Unfortunately, I have not yet reached
a conclusion.  I am still doing a LOT of studying, and a LOT of praying over
this particular issue.  It is also interesting to note that some of the ideas
that I have come up with, along with their scriptural support, have already
appeared on this newsgroup.  So when I do finally reach a conclusion and post
it, it may not seem all that original.

I would appreciate the prayers of my brothers and sisters as I continue to
search the scriptures for God's truth.  It is unfortunate, but I can't trust
myself to objectively search His Word.  No matter how sincere my effort, my
understanding of scripture could be tainted by my pre-conceived notions.

I remain convinced that the Bible has the answer to this rather perplexing
problem.  I am also convinced that in the scope of things, it really isn't
all that important who is "right" and who is "wrong".  For if our sins have
been washed away by the blood of Christ, then we are Children of God, and
brothers and sisters in Christ.

Peace,
Lance

-- 
Lance Beckner | INTERNET: lab@fibercom.com | UUCP: ...!uunet!fibercom!lab
---------------------------- 2 Timothy 2:15 -----------------------------  
     "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth 
     not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

weinrich@lightning.rutgers.edu (Timothy M. Weinrich) (08/19/89)

   Can anyone give me any reason at all to believe that God is
incapable of loving and hating a person at the same time?

   It might be considered strange if He could not do so, since most
people can.


   Twinerik

[I think that is what Stan Reeves' posting a week ago was saying. --clh]