Do you hate your parents?
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
elected4ever
New member
irrelevant
irrelevant? Is that how you sign your mother's and father's day cards?
"Mom/Dad you are the best! Thanks for everything!
irrelevant, e4e"
There could be cases where the expected answer is not true or even right, but generally, should people hate their parents?
elected4ever
New member
It sounds nicer than saying it is none of your dam business doesn't it?
OK, then. I didn't mean to touch a nerve.
I'll rephrase:
Generally, should people hate their parents?
elected4ever
New member
I think people should assume the best about people until it is demonstrated otherwise. So I guess the answer would be no.
Lon
Well-known member
Lon said:
Lon said:
Lon said:
Drag them out? You haven't qualified the bible passages yet. You haven't described what your take on 'hate' is yet. Hate as in 'not love?' Hate as in, when you hate, you've commited murder on a heart-level? Hate as in despise? Hate as in contrast to allegiance? Hate as a similie or metaphor? What are we talking about? It greatly influences my answer. I could answer literally either way depending on my and your understanding of 'hate.'
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
God, in His holy wrath, hated Esau and predestined to reprobation before he was even born. Such is God's right to do so. God predestines the elect to salvation and the reprobate to damnation.
And, yes, I hate my mother and father, in the sense that Christ was commanding in Mt. 10:37 and Luke 14:26. In Luke, Christ was using an ancient instrument of rhetorical comparison, in effect, stating that your love for me (Jesus) must be so great that your love for your parents would appear as hate when compared to your love of your parents. And, yes, I affirm that my love for Christ is so great that it appears as if I hate my own parents.
Some make the mistake of trying to link verses in Mt. and Luke with Malachi and Esau. They would claim that God only loved Esau less, much, much less, but He still loved him. No, this is not what the passage states and the rest of the bible teaches about the sovereignty of God. Much straining is required to make the Esau passage into something different. There is no connection between them unless one strains to make the connection.
God's predestining of the reprobates is a harsh doctrine (to our finite minds), but it is scriptural. I always find it interesting that persons that teach the doctrine of the Trinity, they ask persons coming to study to put aside their preconceived notions and not rely upon unaided human reason to determine what can or cannot be true about God. The same persons will insist that the Scriptures be the unquestioned authoritative guide, too. All good advice and instruction. Yet these same persons are unwilling to follow these same rules when encountering God's sovereign predestination.
The part of the doctrine of predestination that has God, by a sovereign and eternal decree, choosing one portion of mankind to salvation while leaving the other portion to reprobation, initially strikes us as being opposed to our ideas of justice and thus needs a defense. The defense of the doctrine of reprobation rests upon mankind's original sin and total inability to save themselves.
God's decree finds all of mankind fallen. None have any claim on God's grace. Yet, instead of leaving all of mankind to their just punishment, God gratuitously confers undeserved happiness upon one portion of mankind (elect),—an act of pure mercy and grace to which no one can object,—while the other portion (reprobate) is simply passed by. No undeserved misery is visited upon the reprobate. No one has any right to object to this part of God's decree. If the decree dealt simply with innocent persons, it would be unjust to assign one portion to reprobation; but since the decree deals with men in a particular state, a state of guilt and sin, it is not unjust.
Any strict Calvinist (e.g., myself) must insist that while some are saved from their unbelief and disobedience, in which all are involved, and others are not, it is still the sinner's sinfulness that constitutes the ground of his reprobation. Election and reprobation proceed on different grounds; one the grace of God, the other the sin of man. It is incorrect to say that because God elects to save a man irrespective of his character or what he deserves, that therefore God elects to condemn a man irrespective of his character or what he deserves. No one has a birthright to be saved or offered salvation.
Here is a summary of the proper doctrine of election as understood by any Calvinist worthy of the label
:
And, yes, I hate my mother and father, in the sense that Christ was commanding in Mt. 10:37 and Luke 14:26. In Luke, Christ was using an ancient instrument of rhetorical comparison, in effect, stating that your love for me (Jesus) must be so great that your love for your parents would appear as hate when compared to your love of your parents. And, yes, I affirm that my love for Christ is so great that it appears as if I hate my own parents.
Some make the mistake of trying to link verses in Mt. and Luke with Malachi and Esau. They would claim that God only loved Esau less, much, much less, but He still loved him. No, this is not what the passage states and the rest of the bible teaches about the sovereignty of God. Much straining is required to make the Esau passage into something different. There is no connection between them unless one strains to make the connection.
God's predestining of the reprobates is a harsh doctrine (to our finite minds), but it is scriptural. I always find it interesting that persons that teach the doctrine of the Trinity, they ask persons coming to study to put aside their preconceived notions and not rely upon unaided human reason to determine what can or cannot be true about God. The same persons will insist that the Scriptures be the unquestioned authoritative guide, too. All good advice and instruction. Yet these same persons are unwilling to follow these same rules when encountering God's sovereign predestination.
The part of the doctrine of predestination that has God, by a sovereign and eternal decree, choosing one portion of mankind to salvation while leaving the other portion to reprobation, initially strikes us as being opposed to our ideas of justice and thus needs a defense. The defense of the doctrine of reprobation rests upon mankind's original sin and total inability to save themselves.
God's decree finds all of mankind fallen. None have any claim on God's grace. Yet, instead of leaving all of mankind to their just punishment, God gratuitously confers undeserved happiness upon one portion of mankind (elect),—an act of pure mercy and grace to which no one can object,—while the other portion (reprobate) is simply passed by. No undeserved misery is visited upon the reprobate. No one has any right to object to this part of God's decree. If the decree dealt simply with innocent persons, it would be unjust to assign one portion to reprobation; but since the decree deals with men in a particular state, a state of guilt and sin, it is not unjust.
Any strict Calvinist (e.g., myself) must insist that while some are saved from their unbelief and disobedience, in which all are involved, and others are not, it is still the sinner's sinfulness that constitutes the ground of his reprobation. Election and reprobation proceed on different grounds; one the grace of God, the other the sin of man. It is incorrect to say that because God elects to save a man irrespective of his character or what he deserves, that therefore God elects to condemn a man irrespective of his character or what he deserves. No one has a birthright to be saved or offered salvation.
Here is a summary of the proper doctrine of election as understood by any Calvinist worthy of the label
:- Election is a sovereign free act of God, through which He determines who shall be made righteous.
- The elective decree was made in eternity.
- The elective decree contemplates mankind as already fallen.
- The elect are brought from a state of sin and into a state of blessedness and happiness.
- Election is personal determining what particular individuals shall be saved.
- Election includes both means and ends,—election to eternal life includes election to righteous living here in this world.
- The elective decree is made effective by the efficient work of the Holy Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases.
- God's common grace would incline all men to good if not resisted.
- The elective decree leaves others who are not elected—others who suffer the just consequences of their sin.
- Some men are permitted to follow the evil which they freely choose, to their own destruction.
- God, in His sovereignty, could regenerate all men if He chose to do so.
- The Judge of all the earth will do right, and will extend His saving grace to multitudes who are undeserving.
- Election is not based on foreseen faith or good works, but only on God's sovereign good pleasure.
- Much of the larger portion of the human race has been elected to life.
- All of those dying in infancy are among the elect.
- There has also been an election of individuals and of nations to external and temporal favors and privileges—an election which falls short of salvation.
- The doctrine of election is repeatedly taught and emphasized throughout the Scriptures.
Last edited:
Philetus
New member
Does scripture use rhetorical comparisons in any other place?
None have any claim on God's grace? What about your so called 'elect'? Doesn't the "one portion of mankind (elect)” have a claim the rest could object to? That is such double talk that you can’t possibly call that PURE mercy and grace. You have to call that at best 50% mercy and Grace. No one objects to God’s decree that all mankind is under the curse of sin; nor would anyone in their right mind object to PURE mercy and Grace. What the Open View (and many others) object to is your Calvinistic (“Any strict Calvinist (e.g., myself)”) twisted interpretation of God’s universal offer of salvation to ‘WHOSOEVER WILL’.
Yeper! That’s correct! That is why we can call it Pure Grace and you can’t.
And again, you base your numbers on what exactly?
Right again! But again, your interpretation and application stinks! All are 'elected' to receive or reject God's offer of salvation by GRACE through Faith but not all will respond favorably. Those who do are the 'elect' to receive power/the right to become children of God.
Universal curse/Partial solution? The Calvinistic view of God is of a weak, controlling despot that doesn’t know the first thing about love, redemption or relationship. The God that has all the power and freedom to love Jacob and Hate Esau and still goes to the cross to redeem ALL humanity is the God revealed in Christian scripture. Total solution.
Sunday School 101
Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
elected4ever
New member
God has chosen the destiny of all men. It is God's will that all be saved. It pleased the Father to bruise the Son that whosoever believes in Him should receive everlasting life. It is God's choice that all believe but man has the authority to choose not to believe. Those who perish have of their own free will chosen not to believe. Those who have chosen to believe the Son have entered into the election of God. It is not that the election was withheld by God. What did Jesus say, "If you believe thou mayest."
It was God's choice to give man sovereignty over creation thereby giving man the will and the ability to choose. It is God's choice that He and man have fellowship with each other but Adam chose not to do as God had directed him but to do otherwise. It is man who chose to become dead to God. (Separated from God) This separation is the immediate death that Adam suffered and because all mankind was born of the seed of Adam after this death all man are born in death and all the deeds of man are works of death and no flesh is justified in His sight.
I find that most OVers have no concept of righteousness. I do believe that most OVers have a high concept of morality but morality is not righteousness. Man's morality, though basted on God's law, is not righteousness. It is the very fact of the higher moral standards of right and wrong that condemn a man because man knows to do right and does not do it. Why, because man acts according to the death that is in him and not the righteousness and life that is God.
The law was given to show man his deadness and by the law of God man is condemned. Do not expect to be a person of high moral standard and self justified and be saved. You must be born again. You must receive the life of God Himself to be justified. You must be born of God. Every man must receive the life of God from God to be saved. If that has not occurred in your life and if in fact you do not have the spirit of God dwelling within then you are none of His.
It does not matter your church affiliation, your doctrine or your theology. If you remain a sinner, a person who is opposed to God in the death of man trying to appease God through good works and the keeping of the law, your eternal damnation is assured. Jesus said, " I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me." Jesus is the word of god given to man by which all men must be saved. To the Jew first and also the Greek
It was God's choice to give man sovereignty over creation thereby giving man the will and the ability to choose. It is God's choice that He and man have fellowship with each other but Adam chose not to do as God had directed him but to do otherwise. It is man who chose to become dead to God. (Separated from God) This separation is the immediate death that Adam suffered and because all mankind was born of the seed of Adam after this death all man are born in death and all the deeds of man are works of death and no flesh is justified in His sight.
I find that most OVers have no concept of righteousness. I do believe that most OVers have a high concept of morality but morality is not righteousness. Man's morality, though basted on God's law, is not righteousness. It is the very fact of the higher moral standards of right and wrong that condemn a man because man knows to do right and does not do it. Why, because man acts according to the death that is in him and not the righteousness and life that is God.
The law was given to show man his deadness and by the law of God man is condemned. Do not expect to be a person of high moral standard and self justified and be saved. You must be born again. You must receive the life of God Himself to be justified. You must be born of God. Every man must receive the life of God from God to be saved. If that has not occurred in your life and if in fact you do not have the spirit of God dwelling within then you are none of His.
It does not matter your church affiliation, your doctrine or your theology. If you remain a sinner, a person who is opposed to God in the death of man trying to appease God through good works and the keeping of the law, your eternal damnation is assured. Jesus said, " I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me." Jesus is the word of god given to man by which all men must be saved. To the Jew first and also the Greek
elected4ever
New member
yes, but the Spirit will convict that person and the person's conduct will change. The old self will lose its grip but not without a fight. that is why salvation is not left to man. Satan cannot destroy the work of God but God can and does destroy the work of Satan. Satan can deceive man but he cannot deceive God
Thank you for the direct answers.
We'll get to whether or not God hated Esau in a bit but for now I want to look into your answer to the second question...
Why don't you hate your parents? In what way are you not contradicting Jesus' command to hate your whole family?
Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."
This is not a trick question. You know the answer, I'm just wanting you to say it.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Two types of election
The first type of Biblical election is one of service and is based on God's choice. God chose Israel for a purpose. We cannot pick our gifts nor our purpose in God's plan for our service.
Romans 9:4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came
Luke 6:12 Now it came to pass in those days that He went out to the mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God. 13 And when it was day, He called His disciples to Himself; and from them He chose twelve whom He also named apostles:
John 15:16 You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.
I Corinthians 12:28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.
Ephesians 4:11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,
The second type of election is to salvation which is our choice based on our faith not on our works of service. Which is what the Jews refused to accept then and Calvinists reject today.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written: “ Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”
The argument that the Jews used against the Gospel was that they were already God's chosen people, they had the Word of God, and their service saved them.
John 5:39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
John 8:33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?”
John 9:28 Then they reviled him and said, “You are His disciple, but we are Moses’ disciples.
Calvinists take verses about service and gifts of service to prove that our salvation is God's choice and not our own; John 15:16 "You did not choose Me, but I chose you" is about service, not salvation, as is clearly indicated in John 6:70, "Jesus answered them, 'Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?' 71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve." Judas was chosen to be an apostle but, obviously, not chosen to be saved.
The first type of Biblical election is one of service and is based on God's choice. God chose Israel for a purpose. We cannot pick our gifts nor our purpose in God's plan for our service.
Romans 9:4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came
Luke 6:12 Now it came to pass in those days that He went out to the mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God. 13 And when it was day, He called His disciples to Himself; and from them He chose twelve whom He also named apostles:
John 15:16 You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.
I Corinthians 12:28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.
Ephesians 4:11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,
The second type of election is to salvation which is our choice based on our faith not on our works of service. Which is what the Jews refused to accept then and Calvinists reject today.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written: “ Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”
The argument that the Jews used against the Gospel was that they were already God's chosen people, they had the Word of God, and their service saved them.
John 5:39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
John 8:33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?”
John 9:28 Then they reviled him and said, “You are His disciple, but we are Moses’ disciples.
Calvinists take verses about service and gifts of service to prove that our salvation is God's choice and not our own; John 15:16 "You did not choose Me, but I chose you" is about service, not salvation, as is clearly indicated in John 6:70, "Jesus answered them, 'Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?' 71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve." Judas was chosen to be an apostle but, obviously, not chosen to be saved.
Listen to what you are saying AMR.
"God is RIGHT to predestine people to Hell BEFORE they were ever born!"
Brilliant answer! Dead on correct. This is basically the answer I've been trying to draw out of Lonster.
In short Jesus was using a figure of speech. He wasn't saying to actually hate your parents, what He was saying was to love your family and love Me even more.
On what basis do you claim that Jesus' use of the term is a figure of speech and God's use is not?
I don't believe that the passage is talking about the two boys at all! Indeed, it is abundanly clear that God is not talking about Jacob and Esau but rather the two nations which would come from them.
God very simply does not hate unborn babies.
Anyone who would advise against the use of sound reason in the study or verification of ANY doctrine, including the Trinity, is a false teacher and a fool. His mind is debased and separated from the mooring of Scripture. If Scripture is the basis of our doctrine, sound reason is the mooring line that keeps us fastened to it. No truth claim can ever violate even a single law of reason without being utterly falsified and as the predestination of unborn babies for Hell and any concept of justice are contradictory, the Calvinist has a big problem, unless, of course, they disengage their ability to think clearly in which case anything at all can be made acceptable.
Our ideas of justice? Since when did the definition of justice become a matter of opinion?
There is no way I'm going to let you redefine justice AMR.
Your appeal here to original sin doesn't work because, according to Calvinism, God predestined that too. All you've done is moved the problem back a step. You said God's decree "finds all of mankind fallen" when in fact you believe that it was God's degree that CAUSED all of mankind to fall in the first place.
So the God of Calvinism sets two men's houses on fire and saves one of them from the flames and then demands the man's gratefulness while the other man isn't saved from the flames and then is punished for having set his own house on fire and according to Calvinism neither man has anything to complain about.
You forgot, "...and who will not."Here is a summary of the proper doctrine of election as understood by any Calvinist worthy of the label
Election is a sovereign free act of God, through which He determines who shall be made righteous.
Was this decree made before, after or at the same time as the decree to cause man to sin in the first place? Or was that part outside of God's sovereign conrrol?
You don't believe that man was created evil and in a state of sin, do you?
And by extension...
"...and those that shall not be saved."
Whether just or unjust it would seem.
Are you here suggesting that such resistance is outside of the providential control of God? Wheren't those who resist predestined to resist?
Their sin which God predestined that they would commit - right?
FREELY CHOOSE?!
By "freely choose" you mean that they are simply unaware of God having caused them to want to sin and then to act on that desire. Is that correct?
Which is precisely why we can validly conclude by extension that if you haven't been predestined to salvation you have been predestined to Hell.
Quite right except that your theology teaches that any action of mine was first an action of God's; that I do not and cannot do anything apart for God's sovereign decree and thus any action of mine that is punished by God would render Him a hypocrite and unjust.
As were the sins which He intends to punish in eternal Hell.
Can someone remind AMR which road was the wide one and which was the straight and narrow one again.
This is off topic but I suppose then that God having predestined all these abortions was a good thing after all.
Fortunately, saying it doesn't make it so.
It really is impossible for me to comprehend how anyone can accept that the version of God that Calvinism puts forward is in any way a just God.
Lonster,
Watch this conversation closely! It will be all about the conflict between the Calvinist idea of sovereignty vs. God's righteousness and justice. The Calvinist will systematically dismantle justice, even going so far as to redefine the term so that it is synonymous, when applied to God, with the term 'arbitrary'. You just cannot have it both ways. Either God meticulously controls everything or He is just - not both. The Calvinist tries his best to have both but he has no choice but to redefine justice to make it work.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
Ok,
NO
YES
Is that more accurate? The foundation of understanding MUST be established before one can answer. Since you are reserving comment of understanding to actually 'ask' a 'straightforward' question, I'll do it for you.
One: Did God hate Esau? Yes. You have to read it that way, because that is what it says but Malachi is clear that this is a judgement on the people descended from Esau. If God actually hated Esau, it is not mentioned. This is a statement about the people who were condemned. The term 'hate' must be considered. I do not believe that it is as simple as our understanding of the word. It means the object is detestable. It is a comment more on the nature of the descendants of Esau. They were detestable "they were indignate toward God 'forever.' God despises them in thier detestableness.
Two: Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you
If we are to love our enemies, how could we possibly be expected to hate our parents? Answer: We cannot so therefore there is something else to be gleened from the command to do so. Jesus does not contradict Himself, ever. Rather it is a command to the order of things and steers directly back to the first of the ten commandments: "You shall have no other God before me."
Hate in this instance is a comparative term of allegiance. So 'yes,' I hate all in compared to my allegiance and 'no' I do not hate anybody.
Going back to One: If God commands us to love our enemies, it is obvious, that God did not 'hate' Esau, like we might think, but we learn an important truth. If one despises God, His love is ineffectual. The only thing left is God's wrath and disdain, because Love has been rejected.
patman
Active member
Hey Lon,
Your answers always seem to skate right on the edge of what we want you to realize by giving a direct answer or by tackling the problem head on. It is interesting to hear what you think, but sometimes I have no other way of conveying what I want you to hear from me other than to have you "face" the issue I am getting at.
I am not the best at communication anyway, but let me try this again.
It is a lie to tell someone something will happen when you know it will not happen. I guess that is pretty black and white, and there aren't any exceptions to the rule.
If I tell a child that I will give them a cookie if they can reach it. If I then put the cookie on top of the fridge, I deceived the child. I knew he couldn't reach it, I knew before I even made the promise that he couldn't meet the conditions to it. that makes it a lie too.
That is why it is impossible to say God isn't lying when you attach absolute foreknowledge to conditional promises.
You argue he does this conditional promise thing to get a people to strive to do right. True, but how many times did that not go according to plan? If God knew they wouldn't meet the conditions whether he said something or not, then why lie like that?
- Status