Impartial Love

[Homer]

Hebrew poetry is often about parallel thoughts, in this case the lines appear to be an antithesis:

The LORD tests the righteous,
but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence. (Psalms 11:5)

At least I know now that not all Arminians believe God loves all people. I always thought that was a given for Arminians.

I never said that God is not benevolent to all, He makes the rain fall on all. Your contention is that He loves all equally.

And I do not claim to be an Arminian. I have never studied his teachings.

Imagine if Richard Dawkins was to have a Damascus road experience like Paul.

Why do you assume Dawkin's response would be the same as Paul's? Paul believed in God prior to his experience. Dawkins might well have chalked the experience up to an hallucination.

Would you explain Nahum the way you do David's Psalm?

New King James Version (NKJV), Nahum 1:2-3

2. God is jealous, and the Lord avenges;
The Lord avenges and is furious.
The Lord will take vengeance on His adversaries,
And He reserves wrath for His enemies;
3. The Lord is slow to anger and great in power,
And will not at all acquit the wicked.

[jeremiah]

hello rich,

you said:

What I want to focus on is the fact that God is a fair God who shows no partiality. The Scriptures say a couple times that God shows no partiality, and I think that is a universal principle of God's character.

The Scriptures also declare that God is loving, and that He Himself is love. So my logic is as follows:

A) God shows no partiality
B) God is perfect in love

Conclusion: To the extent that God expresses His love, He does so without partiality.

i think you're confusing catagories, or maybe conflating them, i'm not sure if that's the right way to put it.

i don't think God's impartiality is used that generally. as i understand it, God showing no partiality is a simple statement of fact that we can trust him not to consider our ranking in any given society for him to show more or less favor to us. he looks at everyone's heart, not their social status.

God's love on the other hand is used in a more general sense, so i wouldn't agree with this statement:

But in Arminianism, God loves every single person He created. And according to my logic from above, we'd have to say that God's love is equally distributed (due to His impartial love nature) towards every human being who has ever lived.

i don't consider myself reformed either, but i do agree with the calvanist to an extent when they deny that God's love is equally distributed. to me this is clearly false. i see God's love for the world of unbelievers not so much of a love or disgust dichotomy, but more shades of gray.

grace and peace...

[mattrose]

I think that the problems you voiced are solved by either 1 or both of these factors

1. People will only be judged by the light they've been given in this life
2. People will have opportunity to respond to fuller revelation after death

Is it your suggestion that these 2 factors are not compatible with Arminianism?

[jriccitelli]

Rich, welcome back, I think David’s aggression (in reference to Psalm 11, and the like) was addressed recently under the ‘Theodicy’ thead, note around pg. 4 and 5;

Someone said; ‘I'm not sure how Boyd would explain Psalm 5, but I suspect he might say David's thoughts and feelings that are expressed in songs and poems weren't spoken by God. (That's what I would say)

In response;

I have just read a number of passages in Scripture and this Psalm is more like Gods way of speaking than David’s. It reminds me of scripture where God says; ‘fine you want it this way, this is what you get, you love violence you will get violence. You rape and pillage you will get rape and pillage, you want a lying prophet you will get a lying prophet' (my condensed verse). This is a common theme in the prophetic books, and not much different than the effects of the curse when disobeying the Law.
(David is saying let them get what they like to do, that is what they like, maybe they will learn how it feels and consider)…. (Jan 6 pg.5)

Too many parallels here, but are not these words so similar to the curses and judgments that God Himself (Jesus) speaks against the nations throughout ‘all’ the prophets?...
I think we are putting our unfamiliarity with human evil and what is really in the hearts of others over what God knows is in man. I said ‘we’ are to forgive because we have been forgiven, and we trust God will justly judge the evil in man, eventually. God would be unjust to not demand justice or perform justice, it on the unrepentant and Godless. David is expressing Gods thoughts on sinners, just as God does from Genesis thru Malachi (Rev.) Note verse 6 in Rev.16 …
Doesn’t Psalm 109 sound like the same One who is speaking (below) through Malachi, and so many other Prophets?
“And now this commandment is for you, O priests. 2“If you do not listen, and if you do not take it to heart to give honor to My name,” says the LORD of hosts, “then I will send the curse upon you and I will curse your blessings; and indeed, I have cursed them already, because you are not taking it to heart. 3“Behold, I am going to rebuke your offspring, and I will spread refuse on your faces, the refuse of your feasts; and you will be taken away with it... 6“True instruction was in his mouth and unrighteousness was not found on his lips; he walked with Me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many back from iniquity. (Malachi 2:1-6)
If you didn’t have the page number it would be hard to tell if this chapter in Malachi wasn’t a continuation of psalm 109!

We are to love others, but God will Judge, and those who rejected Him will be rejected, I do not see why Love would 'not' allow God to give free moral beings a chance to decide, rather it seems the other way around; Love allows us freewill. it's a choice and a test. Gods love does not mean people will love God, truth or righteousness, or love being in God, or love being in His body, or love life, or love other people with whom they will be with forever, that may be alot to expect of every person who was created with their own mind and choice. God knows the heart and God makes decisions, not robots, I know we've heard that one before.

[steve]

I do not see why Love would 'not' allow God to give free moral beings a chance to decide

Me either. In fact, I do not see why Love would not give multiple—even unlimited—chances to decide. I have children for whose souls I have reason to be concerned. How many chances, do you suppose, I would allow them to repent? If I could extend their opportunities beyond the grave (if necessary), do you suppose I would not do so? Why would God be a less loving father than myself?

I was going to suggest Matt's answer that God will judge each one by the light he or she has received. God alone can distinguish between different shades of personal culpability. Obviously, I am open to the possibility of postmortem opportunities, but if they do not exist, I think those who are disadvantaged by ignorance in this life could be judged charitably in light of those disadvantages.

As for Paidion's Psalm and Homer's citation about God's anger and hatred, I believe this describes God's emotions toward a certain type of behavior, and toward that class of people who practice that behavior. I can get angry at my child's pursuit of self-destructive behavior as well, but without reflecting upon my desire and commitment to see the child restored.

Apart from God's emotional responses, however, I believe He is committed to redemption of all. If this were not the case, then Jesus paid for far more than God was committed to purchasing. These verses about anger and hatred do not reflect God's lack of desire that such people would be saved (after all, the grace of God has often been exhibited in His saving just such people as He is described as "hating" and being "furious" with in these passages).

[jriccitelli]

If I could extend their opportunities beyond the grave (if necessary), do you suppose I would not do so? Why would God be a less loving father than myself?

Why did God set a limit to mans life, it seems like a longer life would avail more opportunities wouldn’t it? Or would it not?
I expect my children to grow up and think for themselves, and they have, now it is their decision.

I think those who are disadvantaged by ignorance in this life could be judged charitably in light of those disadvantages.

You seem to be saying that no one, not anyone has received enough light, information or opportunity.
Why did he set a limit to ones earthly existence, and why does God hide Himself?
Why did God put people to death if He wants them to free of being disadvantaged?

I can get angry at my child's pursuit of self-destructive behavior as well, but without reflecting upon my desire and commitment to see the child restored.

Some adults just do not want to be restored, and this is clearly mans disposition in scripture. We still have to deal with the verses that speak of second death and destruction.

Anyways, thanks for engaging me on this Steve, i had a little free time and i respect the use of yours. it is a privilege to discuss it with you eitherway.

[steve]

You seem to be saying that no one, not anyone has received enough light, information or opportunity.

No, I think many of us have received enough light, which is why we are Christians today. I believe many people have received less light than we have, and bear less responsibility.

Why did he set a limit to ones earthly existence, and why does God hide Himself?

This would have to do with what God's overall plan was in making man, and in cursing man after the fall, and then redeeming man to participation in the original plan of ruling with Him. I believe that each of us gets one turn to live whatever lifetime God may choose to grant. In that lifetime, God has distributed varying benefits to different individuals. With those benefits comes proportionate responsibility. Everyone may do well, whether in turning five talents into ten or fifty talents into a hundred. Anyone also may do poorly. There will be some who graduate at the top of the class, and who will be entrusted with the rule over "ten cities." Others will rule over "five cities." Others still, it seems, will not rule cities but will live in cities under the rule of others.

God has put a limit on the length of time one has to get all the squares into the square holes. Having such time limitations in place was His choice. It apparently suits His purposes well. We have no grounds for taking Him to task over this. Of course, after school is over, He has not told us what He may ultimately do to those who failed every exam. Summer school, perhaps?

Why did God put people to death if He wants them to free of being disadvantaged?

Maybe for the very reason stated in your question?

[steve7150]

Hey guys, I've been away from the forum for some time but I wanted to put some thoughts out here for consideration. I've been wrestling with some of these questions for a long time and haven't been able to find classical Arminianism to give satisfactory answers to them. Only universal reconciliation appears to give answers to them.






I think you may have had an epiphany although i think that postmortem salvation opportunities which may or may not lead to UR is just. Anyway there are many interesting verses on this topic particularly if we take another look and not just accept the traditional understanding uncritically.

"And shall come forth, they that have done good , unto the resurrection of life and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of DAMNATION." John 5.29

This verse (John 5.29) covers everyone who has or will live so it can not be more important concerning the destiny of mankind. So the word the KJV translates as damnation which has shaped the thinking of Christians for hundreds of years is "krisis." In the NAS lexicon the definition of "krisis" is listed in this order,

a separating
a trial
contest
selection
judgment
opinion or decision
condemnation
damnatory judgment

So the KJV picked the eighth choice to translate "krisis" and other traditional bibles pick the seventh choice. What happened to the first six choices except that they don't give the same impression as the last two. The first six allow for the possibility of restoration IMHO, and the 7th less so and the 8th , i don't think so.
So why were the first six choices ignored for so long? Control the masses through fear of eternal hell? Really a manipulation probably for the sake of power?

Anyway the english word "crisis" comes from this greek word "krisis." People often make major changes from a crisis.

[RICHinCHRIST]

I think that the problems you voiced are solved by either 1 or both of these factors

1. People will only be judged by the light they've been given in this life
2. People will have opportunity to respond to fuller revelation after death

Is it your suggestion that these 2 factors are not compatible with Arminianism?

I was assuming that classical Arminianism doesn't accept point two. But yes, I think it's compatible, but Im not sure it's logically consistent unless we accept universal reconciliation. Let me explain why.

In fact, I do not see why Love would not give multiple—even unlimited—chances to decide. I have children for whose souls I have reason to be concerned. How many chances, do you suppose, I would allow them to repent? If I could extend their opportunities beyond the grave (if necessary), do you suppose I would not do so? Why would God be a less loving father than myself?

If God were willing to give one sinner a chance to repent postmortem, what makes Him decide to do that? Is it because the sinner didn't have adequate opportunity in his life to repent? Or does it flow out of the boundless love of God? Maybe it's both, but I'd like to think its the latter. If God were willing to give one sinner a second chance after death, why would He refrain from giving all people a second chance? What would distinguish one sinner from another? This leaves no room for annihilation. Unless, of course, God chooses to refrain from showing His love to some postmortem (But this sounds like Calvinism to me). This is why I see UR and Calvinism as more consistent. Either God wants to show His love to all or He does not.

Homer admits that He doesn't believe God loves all equally, but that God is benevolent to all. Perhaps my use of the word "equally" is confusing. The online free dictionary defines benevolence as the 'inclination to do kind and charitable acts'. When we think of love, is this not the same definition? If God is willing to do kind and charitable acts towards all of humanity, wouldn't the greatest act of kindness be to ensure they become reconciled to Himself? We could define love as "doing the best possible thing for another person". If God loves all people, or is benevolent to them, would He not want what is best for them? And is not the best thing for sinful humanity to become saved? If God is willing to give postmortem opportunities to some and not others, it seems less consistent for Him to do so. It seems that if we are willing to accept the possibility of postmortem repentance, the most logical conclusion is that God intends this for all people, not just a select few.

The only logical explanation I could find for annihilation is if the sinner still rejects God after death and is unwilling to yield his will to His creator. Anyone so stubborn would be classified as insane, in my opinion. Most people reject Christ out of pure ignorance. I don't think humans are so evil that they would know that Christ is Lord and yet still reject Him. those who reject Him really don't believe that He is Lord. If they were to come to the knowledge of Him being Lord and still reject Him, that would mean they are completely insane. So even the term "rejecting Christ" seems like it misses the mark. Sinners aren't rejecting Christ, they are ignorant of Christ. To reject Christ with full knowledge of who He is is beyond anything I think any rational human being is capable of.

[Homer]

steve7150,

John 5:29 appears to be another case of poetic expression, an antithetic parallel where opposites are contrasted as in "resurrection of life", "resurrection of damnation" (second death). It is listed as such in CF Burney's "The Poetry of Our Lord", a book not written about our subject of discussion. IMO the common translations are correct.

Here are some other simple examples of this kind of poetic antithetic parallelism:

So the last shall be first,
And the first last.

He that findeth his life shall lose it;
And He that loseth his life for My sake shall find it.

Whosoever exalteth himself shall be humbled;
And whosoever humbleth himself shall be exalted.

When you start looking for this way of expression that Jesus frequently used you will find it often.