Problematic statement?

[Joe]

I believe that regeneration, or the new birth, precedes and is the cause/source of saving faith. In other words, we are born again in order that we may believe, not the other way around.  

by Dr. Sam Storms  Enjoying God Ministries (EGM) What's Your Theology? Dec 06, 2007

 

This seems to say that one can only beleve if one is regenerated (by God?)

Why then is not everyone regenerated?

At least to the extant that they may choose to believe or not?

 

How does one hold both to the idea that the christian god is all loving or perfectly loving and yet hold to the idea that the christian god chooses only to elect some?

 

Illustration:

 

Person A is a grievous sinner. God elects Person A.

Person A “believes” and is thus saved.

Person B is a grievous sinner. God does not elect Person B.

Person B never believes (and in fact cannot) and thus is condemned to hell.

 

Sinking ship analogy:

 

Two people are lost at sea and a rescue ship arrives.

Person A cannot swim but God reaches down grabs ahold of Person A  and thus deliverance is at hand.

Person B cannot swim but God does not reach down to Person B and thus destruction is at hand.

 

Imagine if one could visit Person B in Hell.

(God allows a small time-out from the torment that Person B is experiencing)

 

Person B: I know that I’m a sinner and deserve this but all those people in heaven they are sinners as well. They deserve to be here too.

 

What did they do to be in heaven? Nothing. God just chose them.

 

So it didn’t really matter if I lived a life that was full of caring, love, sacrifice, humility, and etc. As much as I could in any case. None of that mattered. God did not chose me.

And those in heaven, some were just as bad of sinners as I was. Some were worse, some not so much. But none of that matters. God chose them.

 

How can Person B (or anyone) not look at this as anything but bad luck if ones eternal destination is simply a matter of choice. And that choice is out of his hands and in the hands of God?

[Cherylu]

Theodore,

 

There is a problem with what you have said below. You have changed what the Bible says we are to confess with our mouth.  Romans 10:9 says, "because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."  It says nothing about having to confess that we are sorry that Jesus life was lost by bloodshed.

 

 

Theodore A. Jones said:

Dear Cherylu,
How is one to do this? With his mouth. Confession is made unto salvation using the mouth. But does one understand what his mouth has been commanded by law to confess too? Not as long as he thinks and believes that the crucifixion of Jesus is a direct benefit like the sacrifice of an animal according to the written code.
Again I say. The crucifixion of Jesus, unlike the animal's life taken by bloodshed, is the sin of murder caused by bloodshed. If crucifying him is a direct benefit, as it is commonly taught, the only beneficiaries of his crucifixion would have to have been the people that crucified him. However the crucifixion of Jesus is unique compared to all other sacrifices animal or human. For it is the only sacrifice of sin that has been the sufficient cause to modify the law by making a change to it. This is the fact. And it is this fact that is the stumbling block for the Jew and foolishness to the Gentile that is being contested here. The crucifixion of Jesus is the sin of murder caused by bloodshed and cannot be a direct benefit to anyone. But by modifying the law as an act of righteousness that modification has increased his crucifixion to the level of unilateral accountability. For each man, by the law of faith, is allowed the grace to confess directly to God with his mouth that he is sorry Jesus' life was lost by bloodshed when he was crucified. And if he is willingly baptized in water into this Way of faith God is resolved to forgive that man's past sins by crediting that man's obedience in regard to Jesus' crucifixion as a sin as righteousness, but only to that man's account. But for the man who refuses he by a disobedience of the added law ,the law of faith, fails to comply to the demand of God from each man and remains guilty of sin. Therefore salvation from the penalty of sin is predicated upon the faith of each man to use this narrow gate that has been perfected by Jesus' crucifixion according to the will of God for men. And I say again. There are no exceptions. "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."
If some are willing to accept what I teach and obey God this Way. The gifts of God's spirit will be manifested ,as God wills in some of them, and prove that what I've taught is the truth about Jesus' crucifixion. I am confident that these things are not untrue.

[Don Maurer]

Joe,

Let me reply more anecdotally, from my own experience.  Only a few years ago (3-4), I can see myself asking the same questions as you are.  I would have questioned God's love for all creatures if he does not save them all.  The conclusion I came to may not work for everyone.  In fact it might be better for us to talk of specific passages.  Nevertheless, let me state where I am.  I think God loves all men in some way, but I do not think God loves all men with regard to salvation.

 

Let me talk about the scipture a little now.   All quotes will be from Romans 9 in the ASV unless specified.

I think the passage I wrestled with the most was in Romans 9:13.

¹³ Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

At first, I excused the word "hated" and said it was a national thing.  Yet the passage starts with salvation issues and it is so personal when it says... ³ For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh:   The passage also talks about "Abraham's seed"  (vs 7) and "Children of God"  (vs 8).   The passage spoke of individual attributes of a person, such as human "will"  (16).  The passage speaks of the hardening of an individual, Pharaoh (17).  Then in verse 24, the passage spoke of those "called," speaking of individual Jews and individual gentiles.  In verse 27 Paul spoke of the "remnant" being saved.  How can that be an issue of national promises alone, that has to be individual.  In the next section, in Romans 9:30, Paul speaks of faith, that is the faith if individuals.  Also, only one chapter away is the statements of salvation in Romans 8:28-30, and other statements concerning justification by faith alone.  My point is that the context might have national issues, but it is definitely about individual salvation and then the statement in Romans 9:13 about Esau has to be seen that God does not have a salvific love for all men equally.  That one is hard to swollow.  After coming to that conclusion exegetically, it took some time to grasp the basis of God's salvific love is his sovereignty.

 

I think the central reason that God does not love all men equally is found in Romans 9:20-21.

 ²⁰ Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?

 ²¹ Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?

I see these verses as simply making sure we understand the pecking order.  God is not subject to the whims of man's thinking that for him to be fair, or for him to be sufficiently loving that we can worship him as the loving God, that he has to give all men a fair chance at salvation equally, or even save all men equally (<---I don't know which one you are at).  I think God makes the same argument to Job.  "where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth."  The text reminds me of the creatureliness of the entire human race.  As David said, "who is man that thou art mindful of him."  As verse 20 says, who are we to argue back to God.

 

If God loves all men equally, is that really a greater love then if he choses some and not others?  Let me ask you, are you married?  I am, and I am certainly glad that my wife does not love all men equally.  Would you think your wife is manifesting her great love if she loved all men equally?  I feel the same way about God.  You might say that I am a sinner (and that is true) and that there is an element of jealousy in my thinking.  That does not change the fact, that the unique love is the greater love.

 

The concept of the unique love being the greater love fits in with Romans 9:23.

²³ and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,

God wants to make known the "riches of his glory" not upon the whole world, but only on those he loves with the unique, salvation love.

 

David said "the Lord is my shepherd" not the shepherd of all men equally.  Is Christ the intercessor of the Covenant to all men equally?  Can you even say that all men everywhere at all times had an equal chance at hearing the gospel?  So the Yucatans in the 5th century had the same chance as the Romans?

 

It seems to me that our own love for our children, our wives, is not a "love all men equally" love.  God did not give every man the same chance at the gospel.   Why then do we insist that God has to love all men equally, or if he does not, we will call him to account of his faulty love?  I will probably always think that the greater love, is the unique love.

 

 

Joe said:

How do you reconcile a "God of Love" with Paul's statement about "vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction?"

 

How loving is it of God to simply decree that some will be saved and some will be  "vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction?"

This is the question that seemingly can't be answered.
Don Maurer said:

Joe and Marvin,

Who is this Calvin?  I was quoting Paul.

 

Joe said:

The question why should God save anyone at all is easily answered.

 

It is due to God's unfathomable love.

 

But the question why doesn't God save everyone is much more difficult to answer because it calls into question God's love or His sovereignty.

 

Or both.

 

Calvin it seems mucked up this pretty badly.

[Cherylu]

Don,

 

The problem for some of us is we see way too many Scriptures speaking of God wanting all to come to repentance, of Him not being willing that any should perish, that He died for the sins of the world, and that "God so loved the world...."  Therefore, we have to think that there is some other way of interpreting the Scriptures you have spoken of above then the way that you see them.  And in fact, many do interpret them differently.

 

Some of my earliest memories are of singing songs like, "Jesus loves me," "Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world," and being told repeatedly that the Bible teaches that He died for and wants to save all men, but not all men accept His offer.   This has also been the teaching in all of the churches I have attended throughout my life.  Therefore, for me to wrap my mind or my heart around the idea that He very deliberatly chooses to not offer the largest group of mankind salvation, or even worse as in the case of double predestination, that He created the largest share of mankind to go hell and be tormented eternally, is next thing to impossible.  It is an almost total and complete contradiction to everything I have ever been taught or believed about God.  It changes His character, His dealings with mankind, and the character of His love and care for mankind so drastically that it is not something I can even begin to grasp.

 

I also find it very odd that Jesus would speak of hell as such a terrible place and basically warn people to do everything necessary to keep from going there if it is indeed His plan that some should go there and there is no way that they can change it.  Or if he has created some people for the sole purpose of going there.  And why even warn people if some have to go there and have no choice and if the rest will be irrestibly drawn to God and have no choice but to go to Heaven?  Makes no sense to me.

 

You can say that unique love is greater all that you want to.  However, if you are one of the ones that has been created with absolutely no chance of salvation, with your destiny as eternal torment in hell with no opportunity for escape and with nothing at all that you can do about it one way or the other as you were born with a sinful nature that can't help but sin, that is poor consolation I would think.  Indeed I would think that for those folks, never having been born would be the greatest blessing that could of ever happened to them.

 

By the way, I don't claim to be an Arminian either as I do see verses in the Bible that support both sides of this issue.  I think though that if the rest of the Bible is going to make sense, the usual Calvinist understanding can not be the correct one.

[Don Maurer]

Cherylu,

Thank you for the response.  I believe that we both hold the scriptures in high regard, and probably have much in common.

As you do now, I once would have used all the same passages (2 Tim 2:4; 2nd Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:2; Hebrews 2:9; John 3:16; John 12:32; and others) to deny the limited atonement.  I used to assume, like many others do, that biblical words like "all" and "world" had to mean "all men without exception." If I can ask, do you assume that the words "all" and "world" always mean "all men without exception" in each and every context where they are found?  Do you see the only possible meaning of those terms to mean "all men without exception?"

 

The greek language is nearly identical to english in this regard.  When we use the term "all" in English, are we always speaking of all men everywhere?  Or do we somethings just mean an awful lot of people.  As an example, if I say this.....

******    "My wife once complained that I have my nose in books all the time."

----Actually I don't, in fact I am on the internet as I type this note.

******   We use the universal terms like "all" in none universal ways all the time.

----Actually we don't.  We use words other then "all."

 

Sometimes the word "all" can refer to everyone within a group.

******  All my family was home for Christmas.

-----Certainly not all mankind without exception...   my house is too small for that.

 

This brings up the issue of something called "Semantic range."  There is a range of meaning for the words we use.  The exact meaning of a term is then dependent upon context.  Therefore, we cannot just assume that the term "all" must mean "all men without exception" without an investigation into the context where the term is used.  Is that fair?

 

This brings up a problem.  This format is not the format for me to go through each of the contexts I mentioned and demonstrate that the meaning of the term "All" was not intended to mean "all men without exception."  Neither is this the place to discuss such a topic since the thread is about regeneration before faith.  But this should give you an idea of why I once quoted the same passages as you do against those I accused of Calvinism, but now I am convinced that they are right.

 

By the way, concerning the tags (Arminian)....  I frequently meet people who affirm free will, universal atonement, election based upon forseen faith, and all the things taught by Arminius.  Yet they are not Arminians.  I affirm TULIP, but maybe that does not make me a Calvinist?

 

***   If you wish, we can talk about specific contexts somewhere else?

Cherylu said:

Don,

 

The problem for some of us is we see way too many Scriptures speaking of God wanting all to come to repentance, of Him not being willing that any should perish, that He died for the sins of the world, and that "God so loved the world...."  Therefore, we have to think that there is some other way of interpreting the Scriptures you have spoken of above then the way that you see them.  And in fact, many do interpret them differently.

 

Some of my earliest memories are of singing songs like, "Jesus loves me," "Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world," and being told repeatedly that the Bible teaches that He died for and wants to save all men, but not all men accept His offer.   This has also been the teaching in all of the churches I have attended throughout my life.  Therefore, for me to wrap my mind or my heart around the idea that He very deliberatly chooses to not offer the largest group of mankind salvation, or even worse as in the case of double predestination, that He created the largest share of mankind to go hell and be tormented eternally, is next thing to impossible.  It is an almost total and complete contradiction to everything I have ever been taught or believed about God.  It changes His character, His dealings with mankind, and the character of His love and care for mankind so drastically that it is not something I can even begin to grasp.

 

I also find it very odd that Jesus would speak of hell as such a terrible place and basically warn people to do everything necessary to keep from going there if it is indeed His plan that some should go there and there is no way that they can change it.  Or if he has created some people for the sole purpose of going there.  And why even warn people if some have to go there and have no choice and if the rest will be irrestibly drawn to God and have no choice but to go to Heaven?  Makes no sense to me.

 

You can say that unique love is greater all that you want to.  However, if you are one of the ones that has been created with absolutely no chance of salvation, with your destiny as eternal torment in hell with no opportunity for escape and with nothing at all that you can do about it one way or the other as you were born with a sinful nature that can't help but sin, that is poor consolation I would think.  Indeed I would think that for those folks, never having been born would be the greatest blessing that could of ever happened to them.

 

By the way, I don't claim to be an Arminian either as I do see verses in the Bible that support both sides of this issue.  I think though that if the rest of the Bible is going to make sense, the usual Calvinist understanding can not be the correct one.

[Cherylu]

Hi Don,

 

Just a very quick response here.  I am aware of the semantic range that you speak of and I have heard the argument that you are giving quite a few times before.  However, to me it seems that way too often to read these verses to mean anything other then "all" in the broadest sense seems quite contrived or tortured.  It would seem to me that the only way any one would take them that way is if you have already come to the conclusion that Calvinism is true.  In other words, that is certainly not the meaning any one would come to by just reading these verses in a normal way.

 

The reasons I listed above are not the only ones I see for thinking the Calvinist interpretation is not correct.  But I don't think this is the time or place to get into all of that.  I don't have time to either!  Have to go fix dinner now.....

[Joe]

Where I am at is that I don't see the Calvinistic understanding of God making any sense.

 

On one hand they say God draws all men to Him but

 

Then they say that God destined some to Hell from eterinty past.

 

And as Cherylu said you've got Jesus warning us to do everything we can to avoid hell but,

 

Jesus knows that some were made for destruction in hell.

 

Now God is God and he can do whatever He wants but why come out and say I love you all and want all to come to salvation but then make it impossible for that to happen unless He decrees it and then NOT DECREE IT FOR EVERYONE!

 

You ask: If God loves all men equally, is that really a greater love then if he choses some and not others? 

 

Hell Yes It Is!

 

You'll be up in heaven say, "God is a wonderful God"

 

I'll be in hell saying, "Fricking, fricking frick! Why did you not chose me to go to heaven God?"

 

"Yes I'm a sinner. Through and through, without a doubt. Unrepentant? Absolutely, but with the caveat that I can't repent unless you light the fire Lord. Which you chose not to do."

 

Did God love those in heaven to a greater degree than me? Absolutely. 

 

If you are comfortable with the idea that God can be portrayed as all-loving or perfectly loving and yet choosing to condemn some to hell when it is well within His power not to do so then so be it.

 

 That makes God frighting because it makes Him arbitrary.

Don Maurer said:

Joe,

Let me reply more anecdotally, from my own experience.  Only a few years ago (3-4), I can see myself asking the same questions as you are.  I would have questioned God's love for all creatures if he does not save them all.  The conclusion I came to may not work for everyone.  In fact it might be better for us to talk of specific passages.  Nevertheless, let me state where I am.  I think God loves all men in some way, but I do not think God loves all men with regard to salvation.

 

Let me talk about the scipture a little now.   All quotes will be from Romans 9 in the ASV unless specified.

I think the passage I wrestled with the most was in Romans 9:13.

¹³ Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

At first, I excused the word "hated" and said it was a national thing.  Yet the passage starts with salvation issues and it is so personal when it says... ³ For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh:   The passage also talks about "Abraham's seed"  (vs 7) and "Children of God"  (vs 8).   The passage spoke of individual attributes of a person, such as human "will"  (16).  The passage speaks of the hardening of an individual, Pharaoh (17).  Then in verse 24, the passage spoke of those "called," speaking of individual Jews and individual gentiles.  In verse 27 Paul spoke of the "remnant" being saved.  How can that be an issue of national promises alone, that has to be individual.  In the next section, in Romans 9:30, Paul speaks of faith, that is the faith if individuals.  Also, only one chapter away is the statements of salvation in Romans 8:28-30, and other statements concerning justification by faith alone.  My point is that the context might have national issues, but it is definitely about individual salvation and then the statement in Romans 9:13 about Esau has to be seen that God does not have a salvific love for all men equally.  That one is hard to swollow.  After coming to that conclusion exegetically, it took some time to grasp the basis of God's salvific love is his sovereignty.

 

I think the central reason that God does not love all men equally is found in Romans 9:20-21.

 ²⁰ Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?

 ²¹ Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?

I see these verses as simply making sure we understand the pecking order.  God is not subject to the whims of man's thinking that for him to be fair, or for him to be sufficiently loving that we can worship him as the loving God, that he has to give all men a fair chance at salvation equally, or even save all men equally (<---I don't know which one you are at).  I think God makes the same argument to Job.  "where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth."  The text reminds me of the creatureliness of the entire human race.  As David said, "who is man that thou art mindful of him."  As verse 20 says, who are we to argue back to God.

 

If God loves all men equally, is that really a greater love then if he choses some and not others?  Let me ask you, are you married?  I am, and I am certainly glad that my wife does not love all men equally.  Would you think your wife is manifesting her great love if she loved all men equally?  I feel the same way about God.  You might say that I am a sinner (and that is true) and that there is an element of jealousy in my thinking.  That does not change the fact, that the unique love is the greater love.

 

The concept of the unique love being the greater love fits in with Romans 9:23.

²³ and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,

God wants to make known the "riches of his glory" not upon the whole world, but only on those he loves with the unique, salvation love.

 

David said "the Lord is my shepherd" not the shepherd of all men equally.  Is Christ the intercessor of the Covenant to all men equally?  Can you even say that all men everywhere at all times had an equal chance at hearing the gospel?  So the Yucatans in the 5th century had the same chance as the Romans?

 

It seems to me that our own love for our children, our wives, is not a "love all men equally" love.  God did not give every man the same chance at the gospel.   Why then do we insist that God has to love all men equally, or if he does not, we will call him to account of his faulty love?  I will probably always think that the greater love, is the unique love.

 

 

Joe said:

How do you reconcile a "God of Love" with Paul's statement about "vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction?"

 

How loving is it of God to simply decree that some will be saved and some will be  "vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction?"

This is the question that seemingly can't be answered.
Don Maurer said:

Joe and Marvin,

Who is this Calvin?  I was quoting Paul.

 

Joe said:

The question why should God save anyone at all is easily answered.

 

It is due to God's unfathomable love.

 

But the question why doesn't God save everyone is much more difficult to answer because it calls into question God's love or His sovereignty.

 

Or both.

 

Calvin it seems mucked up this pretty badly.

[Theodore A. Jones]

Dear Cherylu,
God has created only one man in his mother's womb. All other persons, with the exception of Adam, are not created by God. For the process of natural birth cannot produce the children of God. Even though Adam was created by God out of the dust he was not a begotten of God i.e. born of God. It is only the child who is born of God that the promise is made to them that eternal death is not their destiny. All the naturally born are confined to the destiny of eternal death or as Jesus describes it, the second death.
So then is it your confession to God, "O God I am so truly happy the Lord Jesus was crucified in my place"? You are a woman, perhaps a mother, your son's life is lost to death, you are receiving condolences from your acquaintances. Most say to you that they are so sorry for YOUR loss until one comes through the line and says, "Isn't it so wonderful that your son lost his life." Which is improper and offensive? For most people they know what to do. They just refuse to do it. Even though not doing what is right means they will only be raised from the dead to die once more. "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Christ died for sins, but it was to add one to perfect God's set purpose for each man. "And for Your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man." The animals had sense enough to obey God and enter the small narrow door of the ark to save them selves. They will again have sense enough to enter by the small narrow door that Jesus' crucifixion has perfected. But I don't think that very many men have as much sense as the animals. Regarding that God has repented of creating man in the first place. He teaches the animals, but what is man that God is even mindful of him?

[Don Maurer]

Joe, the Calvinists understanding of God will never make sense unless you go to the scriptures.  No one can sit out under an apple tree and come up with Calvinism.

 

Also, you misrepresent many Calvinists.  I have been saying that God draws all men, but not all men without exception.  Yet if I read what you said below correctly, you speak as if you are not aware of what I said.

Joe said:

Where I am at is that I don't see the Calvinistic understanding of God making any sense.

 

On one hand they say God draws all men to Him but

 

Then they say that God destined some to Hell from eterinty past.

 

And as Cherylu said you've got Jesus warning us to do everything we can to avoid hell but,

[Don Maurer]

God decreed it for everyone?  Where in the scripture could you possibly defend that one, unless you are a universalist.

Joe said:

Jesus knows that some were made for destruction in hell.

 

Now God is God and he can do whatever He wants but why come out and say I love you all and want all to come to salvation but then make it impossible for that to happen unless He decrees it and then NOT DECREE IT FOR EVERYONE!

 

You ask: If God loves all men equally, is that really a greater love then if he choses some and not others? 

 

Hell Yes It Is!

[Don Maurer]

Joe, have you ever read Romans?

Rom 9:19  Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?  

It is interesting that both you, and Pauls opponent are making the same complaint.  The person who goes to hell will complain that "its not fair."

Actually, what is not fair, is that some, or even any will go to heaven.  That is not fair at all...   its grace.

Joe, do you agree that we get to heaven only by the Grace of God?

Joe said:

You'll be up in heaven say, "God is a wonderful God"

 

I'll be in hell saying, "Fricking, fricking frick! Why did you not chose me to go to heaven God?"

 

"Yes I'm a sinner. Through and through, without a doubt. Unrepentant? Absolutely, but with the caveat that I can't repent unless you light the fire Lord. Which you chose not to do."

 

Did God love those in heaven to a greater degree than me? Absolutely. 

 

If you are comfortable with the idea that God can be portrayed as all-loving or perfectly loving and yet choosing to condemn some to hell when it is well within His power not to do so then so be it.

 

 That makes God frighting because it makes Him arbitrary.

[Joe]

You say, "God draws all men, but not all men without exception."

 

Then God is not all loving or perfectly loving.

 

You have God saying, "Youse guys I luv alots, youse can come on inta heaven wit me!

 

Youse other guys I luv a 'lil bit. Youse alls can go to hell."

 

Not the picture of an All Loving God. It is a picture of, if not a hateful God, then a God who just doesn't care.

Don Maurer said:

Joe, the Calvinists understanding of God will never make sense unless you go to the scriptures.  No one can sit out under an apple tree and come up with Calvinism.

 

Also, you misrepresent many Calvinists.  I have been saying that God draws all men, but not all men without exception.  Yet if I read what you said below correctly, you speak as if you are not aware of what I said.

Joe said:

Where I am at is that I don't see the Calvinistic understanding of God making any sense.

 

On one hand they say God draws all men to Him but

 

Then they say that God destined some to Hell from eterinty past.

 

And as Cherylu said you've got Jesus warning us to do everything we can to avoid hell but,

[Joe]

Again why would God NOT decree it for everyone if He is All Loving?

Don Maurer said:

God decreed it for everyone?  Where in the scripture could you possibly defend that one, unless you are a universalist.

Joe said:

Jesus knows that some were made for destruction in hell.

 

Now God is God and he can do whatever He wants but why come out and say I love you all and want all to come to salvation but then make it impossible for that to happen unless He decrees it and then NOT DECREE IT FOR EVERYONE!

 

You ask: If God loves all men equally, is that really a greater love then if he choses some and not others? 

 

Hell Yes It Is!