Does God Love Everyone?

[biblicalthought]

As Calvinists, this question isn't one we generally struggle with. But for the unbeliever or non-Calvinist, it is. Here's a short youtube video that deals with the question in an uncompromisingly bold, and biblically faithful way.

Does God Love Everyone?

 

[Seb]

Thanks for the link Stephen,

What a great video - and full of classic Dr. Bob attitude.

I'm a huge fan of Dr. Bob and his ministry. I always like his direct and to-the-point way of teaching.

His messages were instrumental to my early steps into the Reformed Faith. I just started listening to his series on Romans. I'm glad see he's been busy lately.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Yes, I too greatly enjoyed that video!

 

[Gryphonette]

It's marvelously refreshing on multiple levels to hear such a clear, uncompromising stating of Biblical fact, not the least of which is how it absolutely feeds the FV's theological theories into the shredder.

He's also dead-on that it's preferable to be an avowed atheist such as my eldest son (prayers for him would be appreciated when you read this) than a faux-believer such as my Episcopalian mother (prayer also requested!), who thinks the ECUSA is doing just fine, sees no particular value in Scripture ("that was then...this is now!"), has been a regular attendee at her church for decades, yet is no more a Christian than the aforementioned son.

I have far more hope for him ("One thing I know is I'll never be is a Christian") than for her ("Of course we're not all good...we haven't finished evolving yet"), though naturally I pray earnestly for them both.

 

[panta dokimazete]

He's also dead-on that it's preferable to be an avowed atheist such as my eldest son (prayers for him would be appreciated when you read this) than a faux-believer...

funny you should post this - a discussion group I attend had as one of the potential topics - "What religion would you be if there were no Christianity?"

I am prepared to answer that I would be an atheist, because I have examined all other religions and found them to be so inconsistent as to be un-followable.

 

[Poimen]

it absolutely feeds the FV's theological theories into the shredder

How so?

 

[Gryphonette]

The "two people" aspect, which is wholly Biblical yet smudged by the FV with its insistence that simply being baptized makes one a "child of God", along with its teaching that Christ's death "purchased blessings" for the "non-elect covenant member." (AAPC Position Paper on Baptism, etc.: "8. God has decreed from the foundation of the world all that comes to pass, including who would be saved and lost for all eternity. Included in His decree, however, is that some persons, not destined for final salvation, will be drawn to Christ and His people only for a time. These, for a season, enjoy real blessings, purchased for them by Christ's cross and applied to them by the Holy Spirit through Word and Sacrament.")

 

[Davidius]

Thanks for posting this! I sent it to my unbelieving classmate.

 

[biblicalthought]

Davidius, that's cool. The fact that it's on youtube also helps because you can embed it into myspace, blogs, etc. Keep us posted, let us know how he responds (your unbelieving friend).

 

[BobVigneault]

I like Dr. Morey a LOT! My only two complaints about him are 1, he's a dispensationalist and 2, his hair is just too dark. If someone can prove THAT color isn't out of a bottle then I apologize. Hey, I got my standards.

Not color!

 

[Seb]

I like Dr. Morey a LOT! [...] he's a dispensationalist [...]

Aw man! I keep forgetting about that part of him. Other than that (and his hair dye), wouldn't you agree that he's usually spot-on?

 

[Raj]

I am new to Dr. Bob teachings.

I enjoyed watching His arguements, Oh how serious is the man!!!!!

"God is the measure of all things". I agree.

Thanks for the link.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello JD,

"What religion would you be if there were no Christianity?"

I am prepared to answer that I would be an atheist, because I have examined all other religions and found them to be so inconsistent as to be un-followable.

I know this is off topic and a little pedantic (forgive me - I am just having a little fun), but in what sense is atheism consistent? At one time in history there was no Christianity. My guess is that we would affirm (along with Paul and Jesus) that Judiaism had something going for it prior to Christianity coming on the scene. Wouldn't being a Jew be better than being an atheist? Also, have you really examined all other religions? I have not. Plus, even if there is no Christianity, all of reality declares the existence of God. As such, atheism is not more rational than theistic positions.

I will now go and duck.

Brian
P.S. God loves the world.

 

[Mushroom]

Hello JD,

"What religion would you be if there were no Christianity?"

I am prepared to answer that I would be an atheist, because I have examined all other religions and found them to be so inconsistent as to be un-followable.

I know this is off topic and a little pedantic (forgive me - I am just ahving a little fun), but in what sense is atheism consistent? At one time in history there was no Christianity. My guess is that we would affirm (along with Paul and Jesus) that Judiaism had something going for it prior to Christianity coming on the seen. Wouldn't being a Jew be better than being an atheist? Also, have you really examined all other religions? I have not. Plus, even if there is no Christianity, all of reality declares the existence of God. As such, atheism is stupid.

I will now go and duck.

Brian
P.S. God loves the world.

If there were no Christianity, I might have to be an Arminian. Or was that an Animist? Oh, nevermind. The point is moot.

 

[Civbert]

As Calvinists, this question isn't one we generally struggle with. But for the unbeliever or non-Calvinist, it is. Here's a short youtube video that deals with the question in an uncompromisingly bold, and biblically faithful way.

Does God Love Everyone?

Very good. And very clearly reasoned from Scripture. Too bad he got the "rationalist" wrong at the beginning. No rationalist would say "Well I think so!" in answer to the question. He would reason it clearly and deductively from what he considers true premises.

The rationalist would say: If it ain't deductive, you don't know it. And he would have a well reasoned answer to the question - and laugh at anyone who said "well I think so" as being ir-rational.

Dr. Bob used clear deductive thinking to say "No, God does not love everyone". His true premise was God's Word is true. His clear deduction was if Scripture says God does not love someone, then God does not love everyone. So Dr. Bob, God bless him, is a Christian rationalist. He should take care not to undermine the "reason" which underlies his reasoning.

 

[biblicalthought]

I like Dr. Morey a LOT! My only two complaints about him are 1, he's a dispensationalist and 2, his hair is just too dark. If someone can prove THAT color isn't out of a bottle then I apologize. Hey, I got my standards.

Not color!

(Buzzer sound!)

He's not a dispensationalist. Not by the furthest stretch of the imagination (within Reformed circles that is) can Morey be confused for a dispensationalist. You may have a point with the bottle, but I got to step up and defend my pastor for all things theological.

 

[biblicalthought]

As Calvinists, this question isn't one we generally struggle with. But for the unbeliever or non-Calvinist, it is. Here's a short youtube video that deals with the question in an uncompromisingly bold, and biblically faithful way.

Does God Love Everyone?

Very good. And very clearly reasoned from Scripture. Too bad he got the "rationalist" wrong at the beginning. No rationalist would say "Well I think so!" in answer to the question. He would reason it clearly and deductively from what he considers true premises.

The rationalist would say: If it ain't deductive, you don't know it. And he would have a well reasoned answer to the question - and laugh at anyone who said "well I think so" as being ir-rational.

Dr. Bob used clear deductive thinking to say "No, God does not love everyone". His true premise was God's Word is true. His clear deduction was if Scripture says God does not love someone, then God does not love everyone. So Dr. Bob, God bless him, is a Christian rationalist. He should take care not to undermine the "reason" which underlies his reasoning.

When he's referring to reason, he means "R"eason. Since he is a primary objector to Natural Theology, his main thrust is to get people to look to Scripture rather than feelings, faith, experience, or reason - as the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty. He's lumping all of humanism together and contrasting it with "biblicism," or "exegetical theology." This is to defend Revealed Theology and get Christians shaken up to the point that they throw out their JP Moreland, Craig, Geisler, et al, books, and ask: what does God have to say about...

He's not a rationalist. He frequently reminds us young guys studying under him that reason is a handmaiden to revelation. In fact, perhaps playing off of Luther's famous saying on reason (she's a whore), he once said "When reason is the handmaiden to revelation, she's a good little girl. But when she gets out on that street corner and acts as the Origin of theology..." and the rest can't be said here (maybe over some beers - or at a men's retreat)!

 

[BobVigneault]

Stephen,
I am only too happy to be wrong. Perhaps I'm confused. Is he pre-trib, pre-millennial? Is that what I'm thinking of? I used to listen to his radio program and I thought I remembered him speaking of the rapture and how all Israel would be saved.

I like Dr. Morey and I want his theology to be as perfect as the rest of us.

 

[Wannabee]

I like Dr. Morey and I want his theology to be as perfect as the rest of us.

 

[BobVigneault]

That was tongue in cheek Joe. See the little winky guy at the end. However, do remember that, generally speaking: For the fundamentalist, your behavior is never good enough and for the reformed, your theology in never good enough. <----winky guy again.

I like Dr. Morey and I want his theology to be as perfect as the rest of us.

 

[biblicalthought]

Stephen,
I am only too happy to be wrong. Perhaps I'm confused. Is he pre-trib, pre-millennial? Is that what I'm thinking of? I used to listen to his radio program and I thought I remembered him speaking of the rapture and how all Israel would be saved.

I like Dr. Morey and I want his theology to be as perfect as the rest of us.

Bob, maybe you tuned in while he was explaining disp.

I can assure you that he isn't and never was.

I have a book that he wrote back in the 1970's that makes amil-sounding arguments. Given that he was fresh out of Westminster at that time - it fits! So lets go celebrate! He ain't!

 

[Wannabee]

That was tongue in cheek Joe. See the little winky guy at the end. However, do remember that, generally speaking: For the fundamentalist, your behavior is never good enough and for the reformed, your theology in never good enough. <----winky guy again.

I like Dr. Morey and I want his theology to be as perfect as the rest of us.

Thanks Bawb. I knew that. My rolleyes was in jest as well. I guess I shoulda used the winky guy too. Sorry. And, for the record, I know I ain't got nothin' good enough. But, if one were a reformed fundamentalist; or a fundamental reformist; would that make one perfect? Eh, more than likely just confused.