Calvinism and Love

You are assuming that "God loves everyone" is the truth. "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated".
I'm not assuming anything I'm going with what the word of God teaches and it's not what your trying to twist Romans 9:13 into.

It helps to look at another example of the word "hate" in the New Testament. Jesus said this to those who were deciding about whether to follow Him or not: "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" (Luke 14:26).

Clearly, Jesus doesn't want us to carry bitter, angry feelings toward our fathers, mothers, wives, and children. After all, we are commanded in Scripture to honor our parents, love our wives, and to raise our children wisely. In this case, the word "hate" is about comparison. Jesus wanted disciples who were so deeply committed to Him that their love for their family members looked like hate by comparison.

The same idea is at work in God's use of these contrasting words in Malachi and quoted by Paul here. God's act of love for Jacob, in choosing to give to him the covenant promises, was well beyond His actions towards Esau, in declaring that Esau would serve Jacob. There is a strong contrast there: one is clearly being given the preferred treatment, the other is not. Using dramatic, contrast-enhancing language, it can be said that one was "loved" and the other "hated."

It's like saying I hate tomatoes. That doesn't mean I want to go smash every tomato on the face of the earth. I wouldn't want to do that because I Love spaghetti sauce.

So who is doing the assuming?
 
EDIT by Admin You understand why Calvinist shy away from sharing the gospel. When you share the gospel you explain to people how much God loves them that he sent his only son to die for them.

"God is love" only has to be in the bible one time to make it true. Any true Christian writing a book about God would not overlook the fact that he loves us.
It looks like this is getting a little out of hand gentleman. Please reel it back in
 
Last edited:
So being a Calvinist does not make you a non-Christian heretic. It simply shows that part of your doctrine is not perfect. I believe is that the main problem with American Calvinism that we see on most christian forms is not your garden variety Calvinism but fundamentalist Calvinism. Many of the leaders and followers of the so-called Young, Restless, Reformed Movement are not only Calvinists; they are also fundamentalists. And it is their fundamentalism that makes me rant against Calvinism—their form of Calvinism especially. They are the ones who preach and teach and write as if five point “TULIP” Calvinism is part of the gospel itself and anyone who does not believe in it is not a Christian.

Calvinism is wrong, no doubt about it. Not entirely wrong, of course, but wrong at the points where it matters the most. Like this thread on the love of God.

The fundamentalist Calvinists don’t seem to be aware of this weakness in their own kind of Calvinism. It’s a house of cards which is a big part of its attraction—to vulnerable, young, impressionable Christian minds. But remove one card and the whole “house” collapses.

What’s one card? Well, an obvious one is “limited atonement.” Twice in the New Testament the Apostle Paul warns against using one’s liberty in Christ to cause a brother weaker in the faith to stumble and fall and thereby causing someone for whom Christ died to be “destroyed” If limited atonement is true, that’s not even possible.

So it's hard for me to see the love in Calvinism when they clearly ignore a warning that's meant for another brother.
 
Furthermore, please notice that Paul quotes two Old Testament passages, which he believed to support his point ("for the children ... it was said to her, ... as it is written"). Therefore, we should be able to look at these two passages in their context. Under the influence of inspiration, we know that Paul would not use these passages in conflict with their original meaning (Titus 1:2). By reading them, as the Jews themselves would have previously read hundreds of times, maybe we can better understand Paul's point. Did God’s election of Jacob over Esau pertain to an election of individuals unto salvation? Or, did God’s choice relate to the roles played by nations in God’s scheme to fulfill the promises to Abraham and produce the Messiah?
10 And not only, but also Rebecca, having conceived by one -- Isaac our father -- 11 (for they being not yet born, neither having done anything good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to choice, might remain; not of works, but of Him who is calling,) it was said to her -- 12 `The greater shall serve the less;' 13 according as it hath been written, `Jacob I did love, and Esau I did hate.'

The above text is not about nations. "For they being not yet born, neither having done anything good or evil" refers specifically to the children. And the point Paul is making is that it's all about God's purpose. God chooses and calls.
 
So being a Calvinist does not make you a non-Christian heretic. It simply shows that part of your doctrine is not perfect.
So being a non-Calvinist (believer in man's free-will choice to believe) does not make you a non-Christian heretic. It simply shows that part of your doctrine is not perfect. Believing in man's free-will choice to accept Jesus is wrong. No doubt about it.
 
What’s one card? Well, an obvious one is “limited atonement.” Twice in the New Testament the Apostle Paul warns against using one’s liberty in Christ to cause a brother weaker in the faith to stumble and fall and thereby causing someone for whom Christ died to be “destroyed” If limited atonement is true, that’s not even possible.
If by "limited atonement" you mean Jesus' sacrifice was not sufficient for all, I agree with you. If by "limited atonement" you mean it is not efficient for all because only some are saved, then I agree with you. If by "limited atonement" you mean Jesus only died for the elect, then I do not agree, although I am prepared to find out that I'm wrong.

If "God is love" assumes everyone deserves a chance to be saved, then grace is not grace. Grace is unmerited favor, which leaves no room for deserving anything.
 
If by "limited atonement" you mean Jesus' sacrifice was not sufficient for all, I agree with you. If by "limited atonement" you mean it is not efficient for all because only some are saved, then I agree with you. If by "limited atonement" you mean Jesus only died for the elect, then I do not agree, although I am prepared to find out that I'm wrong.

If "God is love" assumes everyone deserves a chance to be saved, then grace is not grace. Grace is unmerited favor, which leaves no room for deserving anything.
How many definitions are there for a limited atonement? How's that work you just pick the one that's needed at the moment? God is love and everyone does have a chance to be saved. It's that simple John 3:16
 
10 And not only, but also Rebecca, having conceived by one -- Isaac our father -- 11 (for they being not yet born, neither having done anything good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to choice, might remain; not of works, but of Him who is calling,) it was said to her -- 12 `The greater shall serve the less;' 13 according as it hath been written, `Jacob I did love, and Esau I did hate.'

The above text is not about nations. "For they being not yet born, neither having done anything good or evil" refers specifically to the children. And the point Paul is making is that it's all about God's purpose. God chooses and calls.
Incorrect. It Pertains to roles played by nations in God’s scheme to fulfill the promises to Abraham and produce the Messiah. The bloodline was very important.

Also:
The story of Jacob and Esau is a significant narrative in the Bible, found in the Book of Genesis. It tells of the twin sons of Isaac and Rebekah, who were born with a predestined rivalry. Esau, the elder, was a skilled hunter and favored by his father, while Jacob, the younger, was more inclined towards domestic life and favored by his mother.

The most notable event in their story is when Jacob, with the help of Rebekah, deceives Isaac into giving him the blessing meant for Esau. This act of deception leads to a lifelong enmity between the brothers. Despite this, God’s plan unfolds as Jacob becomes the father of the twelve tribes of Israel, and Esau’s descendants are seen as adversaries to Israel for generations.

The good news is after the resurrection and the disciples went to the mission field the descendants of Esau could be saved. That shows how much god loved them. John 3:16
 
How many definitions are there for a limited atonement? How's that work you just pick the one that's needed at the moment? God is love and everyone does have a chance to be saved. It's that simple John 3:16
There are verses in the Bible invite you to believe. John 3:16 isn't one of them. John 3:16 identifies the believing ones are the ones who will not perish but have everlasting life.

Again, if "God is love" means everyone deserves a chance to be saved, then grace is not grace.
 
Incorrect. It Pertains to roles played by nations in God’s scheme to fulfill the promises to Abraham and produce the Messiah. The bloodline was very important.

Also:
The story of Jacob and Esau is a significant narrative in the Bible, found in the Book of Genesis. It tells of the twin sons of Isaac and Rebekah, who were born with a predestined rivalry. Esau, the elder, was a skilled hunter and favored by his father, while Jacob, the younger, was more inclined towards domestic life and favored by his mother.

The most notable event in their story is when Jacob, with the help of Rebekah, deceives Isaac into giving him the blessing meant for Esau. This act of deception leads to a lifelong enmity between the brothers. Despite this, God’s plan unfolds as Jacob becomes the father of the twelve tribes of Israel, and Esau’s descendants are seen as adversaries to Israel for generations.

The good news is after the resurrection and the disciples went to the mission field the descendants of Esau could be saved. That shows how much god loved them. John 3:16
The language of the scripture is plain. "For they being not yet born, neither having done anything good or evil" refers specifically to the children.
 
Umm ...

Pretty close.
Close only counts in horseshoes I'm talking dead nuts here.

‘Dead nuts’ is an idiom used by skilled workers or machinists to refer to something accurate—not just ‘good enough’ accurate but precise, dead center, right on the spot accurate.

That's what I'm talking about! We've got to be skilled workers of the word. Doesn't happen overnight but God willing and the creek don't rise we're both going to be armchair theologians in no time.
 
The language of the scripture is plain. "For they being not yet born, neither having done anything good or evil" refers specifically to the children.
Yes the children... that would be the bloodline. The ones not yet born. The future generations. The language of the scripture is and it's been explained to you several times.
 
There are verses in the Bible invite you to believe. John 3:16 isn't one of them. John 3:16 identifies the believing ones are the ones who will not perish but have everlasting life.

Again, if "God is love" means everyone deserves a chance to be saved, then grace is not grace.
John 3:16 expresses God’s love for the world and his plan of salvation through Jesus Christ. The verse says that God gave his only son, Jesus, to die for the sins of humanity, and that whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. The verse shows that God’s love is sacrificial, generous, and universal, and that salvation is a gift of grace, not of works

God's love and grace are the unmerited, unearned, and undeserved favor and kindness of God toward us. God shows his love and grace by saving us from our sins, making us alive with Christ, and giving us good gifts. God's love and grace are not based on our works or worthiness, but on his own character and mercy.
 
So being a non-Calvinist (believer in man's free-will choice to believe) does not make you a non-Christian heretic. It simply shows that part of your doctrine is not perfect. Believing in man's free-will choice to accept Jesus is wrong. No doubt about it.
There's plenty of doubt about it. Nothing but doubt. You realize don't you that calvinists are in the minority when it comes to Christianity. They're wrong from the gate. Not that many people fall for the Whopper that they try to lay on Christianity. When you take god's love out of the equation you're left with a cold hearted man-made theology. Calvinists are looking for love in all the wrong places.
 
There's plenty of doubt about it. Nothing but doubt. You realize don't you that calvinists are in the minority when it comes to Christianity. They're wrong from the gate. Not that many people fall for the Whopper that they try to lay on Christianity. When you take god's love out of the equation you're left with a cold hearted man-made theology. Calvinists are looking for love in all the wrong places.

Fallacy Argumentum ad populum. Claiming a truth because many people think so.
 
Love is His nature, or better, one of His attributes. That doesn't mean God must love everyone. "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated".
It’s ironic you quote a verse and don’t understand its meaning. Here let me help you understand the biblical meaning of the verse you quoted.

Miseo in the lexicon , hate means to esteem less, to love less- even many Calvinist theologians agree that is the meaning. The same meaing from Jesus when He said a disciple must hate his own mother, father to come follow Him. Hate there means the exact same thing. You love your mother/father less than you do Jesus- You esteem Jesus more, love Him more.

Why would God bless Esau if He actually hated him ?

An oxymoron once again in your theology, a contradiction.

miseó: to hate

Original Word:
μισέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: miseó
Phonetic Spelling: (mis-eh'-o)
Definition: to hate
Usage: I hate, detest, love less, esteem less.

HELPS Word-studies

3404
miséō – properly, to detest (on a comparativebasis); hence, denounce; to love someone or something less than someone(something) else, i.e. to renounce one choice in favor of another.

Lk 14:26: "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate (3404 /miséō, 'love less' than the Lord) his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple" (NASU).

[Note the comparative meaning of 3404 (miséō) which centers in moral choice, elevating one value over another.]

to be disinclined to, disfavor, disregard in contrast to preferential treatment (Gn 29:31; Dt 21:15, 16) Mt 6:24; Lk 16:13. τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ J 12:25 or ἑαυτοῦ Lk 14:26 (cp. the formulation Plut, Mor. 556d οὐδʼ ἐμίσουν ἑαυτούς; on the theme cp. Tyrtaeus [VII B.C.] 8, 5 D.3). Ro 9:13 BDAG


BDAG.
② to be disinclined to, disfavor, disregard in contrast to preferential treatment (Gn 29:31; Dt 21:15, 16) Mt 6:24; Lk 16:13. τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ J 12:25 or ἑαυτοῦ Lk 14:26 (cp. the formulation Plut, Mor. 556d οὐδʼ ἐμίσουν ἑαυτούς; on the theme cp. Tyrtaeus [VII B.C.] 8, 5 D.3). Ro 9:13 (Mal 1:2f). Perh. 2 Cl 6:6 (s. 1b). (JDenney, The Word ‘Hate’ in Lk 14:26: ET 21, 1910, 41f; WBleibtreu, Paradoxe Aussprüche Jesu: Theol. Arbeiten aus d. wissensch. Prediger-Verein d. Rheinprovinz, new ser. 20, 24, 15–35; RSockman, The Paradoxes of J. ’36).—ACarr, The Mng. of ‘Hatred’ in the NT: Exp. 6th ser., 12, 1905, 153–60.—DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW.

And here is a Greek Scholar/Teacher Robert Mounce

I loved, but Esau I hated” (Mal 1:2–3). This should not be interpreted to mean that God actually hated Esau. The strong contrast is a Semitic idiom that heightens the comparison by stating it in absolute terms. 17

Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 198–199.

Berkeley softens the contrast translating, “To Jacob I was drawn, but Esau I repudiated” (the NRSV has “chose” and “rejected”). In discussing the “hatred” of God, Michel comments that it “is not so much an emotion as a rejection in will and deed” (TDNT 4.687).

Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995).

Here are more renown Scholars

Esau I hated. I.e., “loved less,” according to an ancient Near Eastern hyperbole. It expresses the lack of gratuitous election of Esau and the Edomites (Idumaeans). See Gen 29:30–31: “he loved Rachel more than Leah …; when the Lord saw that Leah was hated …”; cf. Deut 21:15–17; compare Luke 14:26 (“hate”) with Matt 10:37 (“love more”). There is no hint here of predestination to “grace” or “glory” of an individual; it is an expression of the choice of corporate Israel over corporate Edom.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer S.J., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 33, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 563.

13. Characteristically Paul backs up his argument with a quotation from Scripture, this one from Malachi 1:2–3: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Two questions are important here: Is Paul referring to nations or individuals? and What is meant by hated? As to the first, we have just seen that the Genesis passage refers primarily to nations and we would expect that to continue here. That this is the case seems clear from what Malachi writes about Esau: “Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals” (Mal. 1:3). Both in Genesis and Malachi the reference is clearly to nations, and we should accept this as Paul’s meaning accordingly.

The meaning of hated is a different kind of problem. There is a difficulty in that Scripture speaks of a love of God for the whole world (John 3:16) and the meaning of “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16) is surely that God loves, quite irrespective of merit or demerit in the beloved. Specifically he is said to love sinners (Rom. 5:8). It is also true that in Scripture there are cases where “hate” seems clearly to mean “love less” (e.g., Gen. 29:31, 33; Deut. 21:15; Matt. 6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25). Many find this an acceptable solution here: God loved Esau (and the nation Edom) less than he loved Jacob (and Israel). But it is perhaps more likely that like Calvin we should understand the expression in the sense “reject” over against “accept”. He explains the passage thus: “I chose Jacob and rejected Esau, induced to this course by my mercy alone, and not by any worthiness in his works.… I had rejected the Edomites.…” This accords with the stress throughout this passage on the thought of election for service. God chose Israel for this role; he did not so choose Edom. Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans,

hope this helps !!!
 
Back
Top Bottom