Did God really hate Esau?

[Dante]

I cannot imagine anything good coming out of an argument about how inspired various parts of the bible are, at least on CAA. Take this as the second official warning not to go into that topic.

EDIT: Apologies, I seem to have missed your post - my opinions still stand, but to avoid accidentally bringing the topic in that direction, I'll edit this out.

[Rusty Claymore]

Well, if we're going to go in that direction lets make a sepperate thread for it. n.n'

[TopazRaven]

Why do I have a feeling this might not end well?

[Midori]

I cannot imagine anything good coming out of an argument about how inspired various parts of the bible are, at least on CAA. Take this as the second official warning not to go into that topic.

[USSRGirl]

On Cardiche's post;

UM. I disagree big time... for one thing; the Bible states Jacob basically wanted Rachel because she was prettier than her sister. His character is vastly different from Abel... he disobeyed his parents far more dramatically than Esau. The key is that Esau took FOREIGN wives - not to say that it was a racial issue (Moses and Zipporah prove that that is not the case according to the Bible) but an issue of having wives who worshipped different gods, similar to Solomon. This shows more that he not only sold his birthright but that he sold his beliefs and his identity as a child of God and married into the world in a way.

Jacob was far from obedient most of the time... he is given the name Israel meaning "struggles with God" to illustrate this. Of course there's a greater overview of that name, but I do not believe there is evidence that God blessed Jacob for the sake of Jacob. He blessed him because out of Jacob's line would com the messiah - the entire OT is not about arbitrary blessings and curses. It is about God working through people - people you wouldn't always expect who aren't always the best role models - for His plan and purpose. Not to say He doesn't also show concern for the individual but I think saying "Jacob obeyed (he didn't)" gets into the question of why not all obedient, godly people who were far more godly than Jacob were not blessed so. Ultimately, it's not about me or you in the sense of God giving us blessings - it's about how we fit into the scheme of His plan. Basically... the Bible's a big story in which we're all characters, but Jesus is the MC. XD

So yeah... that's my take on it. Sorry if that sounded harsh, but I absolutely cannot say Jacob did anything to merit being blessed. His family was a mess at least in the short term and he certainly wasn't the model father, husband, or son. And in a way, that's why he's there as an example for us; we did nothing to merit God's grace either, yet we got it because it's part of God's plan and will for us.

[Shao Feng-Li]

Now has E-Sword XD... If I go back to the original Malichi 1:3, the word love is aw-hab' or to have affection for, while hate is saw-nay' or to hate (personally). Or so claims e-sword (maybe Peanut can tell me if I'm reading this thing right if he happens to be scanning through this). I don't want to say it, but it appears that he does indeed "hate" the one and at least "has affection" for the other. At least according to what the text states there in the original language.

I don't agree with that passage either, and really had trouble with it when I heard it. I had even more trouble with it when pastors told me that it was good because anything God does is good because it is God... >_< circular logic is an epic way to fail. After all]

But you gotta ask, why should God love any of us, or, in other words, save any of us? If he did love everyone, Hell wouldn't exist. Justly we'd all go to Hell and it would be righteous on God's part. He decided of his own good will to save some of us.

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Then...

19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

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

21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

[Nate]

If he did love everyone, Hell wouldn't exist.

Um, not really correct. Hell was created for Satan and the rebellious angels, not humans. Humans would of course eventually be destined for there, but it's not why Hell was made.

EDIT: The rest of your post is of course about Predestination, which I don't believe in and is a debate I don't think any of us are qualified to have on this board, since I mean...people with actual degrees in theology who have studied the Bible for years still argue over it. I don't think a bunch of barely college educated anime fans on the internet are going to bring anything new to this debate or even be able to fully settle it.

[Yuki-Anne]

I really like the explanation that the link provides, Mx.

I just want to add to this discussion one thing: Many times, when the Bible uses language that has to do with thought or emotion, it is inextricable from some form of action. For example, God is said to have "remembered Noah" (Gen. 8:1-3). Did God somehow forget that Noah was floating there on a huge boat with a ton of animals, just like God had pre-arranged?

No. When the Bible says "God remembered," they merely mean that He took action to fulfill a promise or a statement he had previously made. Or in Heb. 8:12 "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." It doesn't mean that suddenly God doesn't know about our sin anymore. It means that he will no longer take the action he was going to take as a result of our sin (judgement), but will grant forgiveness in spite of the sin (grace).

So when the Bible says, "Jacob I have loved, and Esau I have hated," I don't think of that as the emotional aspect that English gives it, but rather as the type of action. Love = blessing, hatred = violence and destruction.

Also consider that many of the Canaanite cultures of the day had degenerate practices such as child sacrifice and temple prostitution. When you look at Canaanite religion in terms of this:

Tophet is Moloch, which was made of brass; and they heated him from his lower parts; and his hands being stretched out, and made hot, they put the child between his hands, and it was burnt; when it vehemently cried out; but the priests beat a drum, that the father might not hear the voice of his son, and his heart might not be moved.

...then it is perfectly understandable why God would bring destruction on a nation. And when Israel began participating in idol worshiping practices such as these, God allowed Israel to be invaded and conquered.

Did Edom practice this? I'm not sure, but I think it's quite likely. Further study is warranted.

[Shao Feng-Li]

Um, not really correct. Hell was created for Satan and the rebellious angels, not humans. Humans would of course eventually be destined for there, but it's not why Hell was made.

EDIT: The rest of your post is of course about Predestination, which I don't believe in and is a debate I don't think any of us are qualified to have on this board, since I mean...people with actual degrees in theology who have studied the Bible for years still argue over it. I don't think a bunch of barely college educated anime fans on the internet are going to bring anything new to this debate or even be able to fully settle it.

Ok, then there would be no threat of Hell. That's more what I meant.

Then... don't debate it...?

[That Dude]

you can choose to believe this or not i found it at this site:http://www.gotquestions.org/Jacob-Esau-love-hate.html : )

I go to church with one of the main guys that runs this site.

[kairo14]

In context of the Romans 9, which is where the text in question comes from, God said He hated one and loved the other, "before" they were born or had done any actions, whether obedience or sin. Then the text mentions the individual called Pharaoh. The text (ch.9) indicates no such thing referring to nations, but only individuals. This is seen clearly when the rhetorical question is asked in verses 19-20 about who can resist God's will if He makes up His mind what to do with an individual before they are born or have done anything or even sinned or done good. Paul says who are "you oh man." The question is both asked and answered on the individual level, uses the examples of Jacob, Esau, Moses and Pharaoh are thus about individuals. Yet, even if it is about nations, because the question is asked on the individual level this doctrine applies to the individual: to you and I.

If you notice, Paul does not answer the question in the way it was asked! The question was asked on a moral level. It was asked in the moral since of--if God is love how can He do this. Paul skips that and answered the question with God's sovereignty. What Paul shows us is that it is irrational and wrong thinking to suppose, thus just because we have a soul, that this diminishes the freedom, in what God as a creator, can do with us.
Thus, the scriptures portray that there are some things that God does that we will not be able to fully reconcile to God's moral attributes, thus, it is foolish to say God cannot do this because He is love, when the scripture show that we will not be able to reconcile all of God's actions to His moral attributes. It other words we cannot hold God accountable to moral standard; rather, its the opposite.
In these cases because Paul appealed to God's sovereign right, as a creator to do what He wants with the things He created, we should also appeal to it with Paul. Is it not moral goodness for a Creator to have the freedom to do what He wants with His own creation; is it not wrong --as Paul demonstrates-- to question this freedom of our Creator? It is not hypocritical to allow anime writers all the freedom to write their stories, but complain when God exercises His rightful freedom as The Almighty Creator?

[TopazRaven]

And people wonder why I'm afraid of me and those I love burning in hell? I know it's God's every right to do with us what He pleases, that doesn't mean it scares me any less.

[Nate]

I'm going to express my distaste, though it is a pretty big point of debate I'm sure. Still, I feel like I can't let this go by without commenting on it. I'll comment on one of the last statements first, because I think it flows better this way.

It is not hypocritical to allow anime writers all the freedom to write their stories, but complain when God exercises His rightful freedom as The Almighty Creator?

No, it isn't hypocritical. The characters in a story aren't real. They are fabricated, fictional, not living beings. It isn't hypocritical at all to say that a writer has the freedom to do what they want with their characters that do not exist and are not alive, and complain about a being toying and playing with actual human lives. It's not hypocritical because you're talking about two different things. That's like if I said "You say murder is wrong but you eat meat that's hypocritical." Killing an animal for food is not the same thing as killing another human being out of anger.

Is it not moral goodness for a Creator to have the freedom to do what He wants with His own creation

I say no, it isn't. A God who is good and loving cannot control a person like a puppet on a string and then hold them accountable. It's like if I grabbed your fist, started punching you in the face with your own fist and said "Why are you hitting yourself? Why are you hitting yourself?" You're not hitting yourself, it's not your decision. I can't frame it as if it is. If I put a gun in someone's hand, grab their hand, and force their finger to pull the trigger, I can't say "Hey man it was suicide, he shot himself."

So how then can you possibly say if God purposely makes someone do evil or reject Him, that it is righteous for Him to say "You rejected me so to Hell you go." It wasn't their decision! If I program a robot to break vases and take him into an antique shop, I can't get mad at the robot for breaking those vases. It's what I told it to do!

If God created certain people that were not "alive," that didn't have souls, to act as evil and reject Him and do whatever, I would agree God would have the right to do that, because as they weren't alive, they would suffer no torment. But for God to actively say "I want you to reject me and deny me" and then when that person dies say "You rejected me so now you will be tormented eternally in Hell," that can't be portrayed as anything but evil, sorry.

In other words, there must be a better explanation, a more intelligent, logical explanation than what Paul seems to be saying. The Bible isn't lying, the Bible isn't false, so if something seems to not make sense, the answer is that we're reading it wrong.

[MxCake]

I go to church with one of the main guys that runs this site.

i really like that web site i go there when ever i cant talk to my pastor

[That Dude]

i really like that web site i go there when ever i cant talk to my pastor

I'll let them know that!

[Nate]

I want to expound on my previous post a bit more, so we don't get into a nastier debate that could arise.

I don't think God picks and chooses who to save. That sounds out of character for God. I think Paul is more illustrating a point, that is, "Whoever God decides is saved, that's His business and His right to do." Paul isn't saying God actively says "I'm going to let this person be saved but oh man not this guy I don't want him to be saved." I think Paul is likely trying to cut off the argument of "But how could God let the Gentiles be saved when the Jews are His chosen people!" Paul is just saying hey, if God says they're saved, they're saved. He's God, you don't get to choose.

That makes a lot more sense to me. It also prevents contradiction with 2 Peter 3:9 which says "Instead he [God] is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." If God actively chose people to not be saved, that would be contradictory to this verse which states that God wants everyone to be saved. Not everyone WILL be saved, obviously, but He wants everyone to be. That would be impossible if God was actively saying "This person will not be saved," because that obviously would prevent Him from wanting everyone to come to repentance.

So just figured I'd clarify that.

[kairo14]

topaz: - you are suppose to be afraid, that's the point of this type of doctrine.

Nate: you say first that Bible is false by saying its "not" what "Paul seems to be saying" then turn around and say the Bible doesn't lie. Well, which is it? What Paul says is what he means to say that's the point language. If not, you will reduce the Bible to a total collapse of skepticism. But skepticism ultimately denies of the law-of-noncontradictions, which even Jesus adhered to (Mark 12:37).

You said: "The characters in a story aren't real. They are fabricated, fictional, not living beings."

In the same context and chapter as our original question regarding Esau and saying God choose to hate or love living people, "before" they had sinned, obeyed or done anything Paul says: ..20...who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?"

This is why Paul call us "pots" or as you put it "not living things" in regards what He is allowed to do with us and it still be a morally good thing. The bible is easy to understand, but not always easy to except. In this Chapter Paul gives is direct explanation and an illustration that says the same thing.

The question is asked in the since that you just denied it. The question in this chapter asks how can God do this to me if I am a Living "man." Paul responds by calling this living man (and so all of us living people) when compared to what God is righteously allowed to do with us as "pots." What Paul shows is that the same rights that a living human has over a clay pot, or a living anime writer over a story is the same rights God as over us living things. This might be hard to except but the illustration is crystal clear.

Nate, you keep comparing God's rights with illustrations of human to human rights, but this is a mistake. God is not like us and rebukes inductive logic to figure Him out (Psalm 50:21, " You thought that I was altogether like you; But I will rebuke you.") Human to human illustrations are of no use in understanding who God is, for the world by its wisdom did not know God. We know God and about His Nature purely by what He divinely reveals to us. Take for example your understanding of human responsibility.

You said: "A God who is good and loving cannot control a person like a puppet on a string and then hold them accountable."
First, I deny that the bible says God controls us like a puppet; rather, the bible says God's control over us is much stronger than of a person over a puppet, for God controls our hearts and "actually" turns them ( or control as you put it) Proverbs 21:1.
But back to the point consider Romans 8:7 when it says, " the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so."
Despite not not having the ability (or not having the freedom, that is) to obey God in our sinfulness (no can it do so!), yet, God will punish these same persons for their sinful actions.
See, Relative from human to human freedom has a large part to play in responsibility, but not so relative God to human according to scripture. Thus, God does not judge us relative to our freedom; rather, what this passage shows us is that we are accountable precisely because we are not free and because God is sovereign or an authority over us.
And if you notice Romans 9:19-22 does the same thing. When asked how can God hold us living people "responsible" when He has already chosen to hate one person and love the other "before they were born" or had "done anything" this scriptures answers and appeals with God's sovereignty: "does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?"


Lastly you said: "But for God to actively say "I want you to reject me and deny me" and then when that person dies say "You rejected me so now you will be tormented eternally in Hell," that can't be portrayed as anything but evil, sorry"
But this is exactly what the passage says. It does not say God "allowed" these pots or (living people) of wrath to "chose" their destruction; rather the passage says "God" himself"prepared" them for destruction.
The scriptures are simple, coherent, logical and intelligent, but not always easy to except. To be honest I still find trying to daily rest in Christ's total forgiveness of all my sins and failures more of a challenge to except the doctrines found in Romans 9. I say this to show that excepting the scriptures at face value is a fight of the flesh vs. the spirit, and hard fight at times. We must take the kingdom of heaven by violence, and press hard into it. (Matt.11:12)

[TopazRaven]

Am I supposed to be afraid all the time though? I didn't think God would want me to fear Him like this...I thought he would want me to love. I can't love like I should when I'm afraid. This is the part of Christanity I can't seem to get passed. I'm sorry about it, but it's true.

[Nate]

topaz: - you are suppose to be afraid, that's the point of this type of doctrine.

Topaz is saying that she's afraid that if God can do whatever He wants then she might be going to Hell anyway because God could just say "Whatever, even though you believed in me you're gonna burn anyway just because I'm God." That's not the kind of fear we're supposed to have of God, but that's the kind of fear you're putting in her by saying this stuff.

Nate: you say first that Bible is false by saying its "not" what "Paul seems to be saying" then turn around and say the Bible doesn't lie.

I never said the Bible was false. I said if it says something that doesn't seem to make sense, it's because we're interpreting it wrong. It's kind of like the example about Jesus saying "Cut off your arms and legs and gouge out your eyes to flee from sin!" Well, none of us here have done that, right? Because it sounds stupid. Until you realize "Oh, Jesus isn't really saying to mutilate ourselves, He's just saying to do whatever it takes to flee sin and that it's so bad we should be willing to do anything to avoid it."

What Paul says is what he means to say that's the point language.

The point of language is to express ideas and thoughts. Those aren't always what we express. For example.

Kairo, you seem like a cool dude.

"Cool" means having a low temperature. Am I saying that you have low body heat? Am I saying that you perhaps should put on more clothing? No, I'm not. The word "cool" in that sentence means something other than its literal meaning. Taking it at face value is the wrong way to read it. I'm expressing an idea, but I'm not actually meaning the literal definitions of the words I say.

This is why Paul call us "pots" or as you put it "not living things" in regards what He is allowed to do with us and it still be a morally good thing.

But we are living things, that's the point. Otherwise why help people avoid Hell? If they're not really living things, it shouldn't matter. They wouldn't feel pain, right? If I break a pot, it doesn't hurt. It doesn't feel pain.

We're talking about actual, human lives who feel pain and will be tortured. To say "God doesn't even care about that" would paint God as an evil tyrant, something to be rebelled against, to be fought, rather than submit to.

Fortunately, God DOES care, that's why He doesn't pick and choose which people to save, and why He doesn't control us. God loves us so much He wants to see none of us perish, He deeply cares about every living person and loves them. He does not do as He wishes with us, but instead treats us as children...along with the punishment and reward that comes with.

We know God and about His Nature purely by what He divinely reveals to us.

Yes, that's why we have the Bible.
[quote]But this is exactly what the passage says. It does not say God "allowed" these pots or (living people) of wrath to "chose" their destruction]
Preparing people for their destruction does not mean God chose to destroy them. If I have a sick relative in the hospital close to death and I prepare for their funeral, does it mean I'm going to kill them? Does it mean I chose to kill them? No, it means that I know what is going to happen to them and am getting ready for when it happens. It in no way portrays me having anything to do with their death. Your statement is faulty, and as I said, I believe the verse has more to do with the complaint of God saving the Gentiles over His chosen people, and not actively endorsing God choosing which people to save. As I said, this would directly and explicitly contradict 2 Peter 3:9 if He did that.

[Shao Feng-Li]

Keep in mind Nate, man's natural state since Adam's sin is one that is evil, dead. Man is already condemned and God chose some to save out of the lot. You know, Jesus came to save, not condemn- it was already condemned and didn't need to be again. Perhaps the "anyone" in 2 Peter 3:9 are those he "loved first" (1 John 4:19). Maybe 2 Peter 3:9 is the verse that's not be correctly understood.

God tells us in very plane, simple language that He created some for honor and some for dishonor- before anyone was ever born. I don't know what else there can be. I'm not saying I understand everything completely, I haven't studied as a scholar, but it's just what it says. We can't twist and turn the scriptures to say what we, in our little mud minds, to say to make it feel better. They're simple and God wants us to understand Him. We have to lay aside our flawed, sinful, not-as-reasonable-as-we-think-minds aside. (I'm not accusing you of doing so, just saying.)

That being said, yeah, the idea of God rejecting anyone and anyone going to Hell is terrible. But He's also under no obligation to care about anyone of us. The question isn't "Why does he said people to hell?" but rather, "why would he save any of us." And if I ever be wrong in doctrine, someone show me plainly in scripture.

[Nate]

Keep in mind Nate, man's natural state since Adam's sin is one that is evil, dead. Man is already condemned and God chose some to save out of the lot.

Yes, I agree that man's natural state since Adam's sin is that of evil. However, God didn't send Jesus to save "some" people, He sent Jesus to save ALL people. Now again, as I said, not everyone will be saved. That much is clear. But God didn't choose to not save some people. Jesus didn't die for "only a few." Jesus died for everyone. Jesus defeated sin AND death on the cross, and that kind of necessitates that he defeated all sin. He couldn't have defeated sin if He only died for some sins. He had to die for every single one.

That being said, yeah, the idea of God rejecting anyone and anyone going to Hell is terrible. But He's also under no obligation to care about anyone of us.

True, but He does anyway, because He's God. And God is love. Or so I hear. :p You can't love someone if you say "Well you're going to Hell because I said so. Nope, no reason behind it, I'm just God and I can do whatever I want, and you're not saved because I said so. No logic behind it, I just don't want you to be." God's love is deep and eternal. It pains Him to send anyone to Hell. It grieves Him. Why would God make Himself sad? That'd be kinda dumb. That's like if I started punching myself in the stomach and was like "IT HURTS SO BAD" someone would just go "Then don't freaking do that?"

The question isn't "Why does he said people to hell?" but rather, "why would he save any of us."

John 3:16 I think answers this pretty well? XD Because God so loved the world. Pretty plain to me. He saved us because He loves us. And if He didn't want to save some people, well, that wouldn't really be love, now would it? Seems pretty clear. :3

[TopazRaven]

Yes, so if God just choses to put people in hell because He wants to how am I to know if I am one He loves or one He hates? Should I be afraid my whole life that God hates me then? Will all this struggling I'm doing to aviod sin be for nothing? I as a sinful human know I don't deserve heaven, but if I'm just going to be sent to hell anyway then why should I even try? I'm not saying I'm going to stop being a Christian or following Jesus, but I think I'm asking a legitiment question here.

[MxCake]

Keep in mind Nate, man's natural state since Adam's sin is one that is evil, dead. Man is already condemned and God chose some to save out of the lot. You know, Jesus came to save, not condemn- it was already condemned and didn't need to be again. Perhaps the "anyone" in 2 Peter 3:9 are those he "loved first" (1 John 4:19). Maybe 2 Peter 3:9 is the verse that's not be correctly understood.

God tells us in very plane, simple language that He created some for honor and some for dishonor- before anyone was ever born. I don't know what else there can be. I'm not saying I understand everything completely, I haven't studied as a scholar, but it's just what it says. We can't twist and turn the scriptures to say what we, in our little mud minds, to say to make it feel better. They're simple and God wants us to understand Him. We have to lay aside our flawed, sinful, not-as-reasonable-as-we-think-minds aside. (I'm not accusing you of doing so, just saying.)

That being said, yeah, the idea of God rejecting anyone and anyone going to Hell is terrible. But He's also under no obligation to care about anyone of us. The question isn't "Why does he said people to hell?" but rather, "why would he save any of us." And if I ever be wrong in doctrine, someone show me plainly in scripture.

what do you mean by God picking some to save out of the "lot"?

[Shao Feng-Li]

How come John 3:26 means that God loves everyone but Ephesians 1:4,5 doesn't mean that we're predestined for Heaven or Hell? We have a problem here.

what do you mean by God picking some to save out of the "lot"?

Out of all the people on earth?

[MxCake]

How come John 3:26 means that God loves everyone but Ephesians 1:4,5 doesn't mean that we're predestined for Heaven or Hell? We have a problem here.



Out of all the people on earth?

well ephisians does mean we are predestined to be with him in heaven and i think hes talking about fallowers of christ are predestianed to go to heaven and be holy and perfect but that dosint mean that everyone is predestianed just who with the FREE WILL that we have CHOOSE to be fallowers of christ.

God loves everyone and everyone can choose to be fallowers of christ in heaven God wants everyone in heaven but the thing is everyone has free will and as jesus died for are sin. he asked us to fallow him and if we dont we dont go to heaven its as simple as that.

[Nate]

How come John 3:26 means that God loves everyone but Ephesians 1:4,5 doesn't mean that we're predestined for Heaven or Hell? We have a problem here.

I don't see a problem. Paul is saying "God picked us to be the first people to proclaim the Gospel" is what it looks like to me, which is different from choosing people for salvation. Since Ephesians 1 says later "in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory."

So Paul is saying "Yeah God predestined us to be the first people to accept Christ so we can praise Him and do other cool stuff for Him," not "God predestined people to go to Heaven and Hell." That's what it looks like to me anyway. It's like God choosing Moses to lead His people out of Egypt. God predestined Moses for that, which is different from saying "These are the people I'm gonna let into Heaven and screw these other guys they suck."

[Midori]

Let's add predestination vs. free will to the list of things we probably don't want to go into. We'll make a formal list of these once we get that subforum implemented.

EDIT: In fact, I don't think there is really much fruit to be had on this topic anymore. Would anybody mind if this thread was closed at this point?

[MxCake]

yea i agree midori i think this should actualy end i dont even think its part of the main topic lol

[Furen]

well Ephesians does mean we are predestined to be with him in heaven and i think hes talking about followers of Christ are predestined to go to heaven and be holy and perfect but that dosing mean that everyone is predestined just who with the FREE WILL that we have CHOOSE to be followers of Christ.

God loves everyone and everyone can choose to be followers of Christ in heaven God wants everyone in heaven but the thing is everyone has free will and as Jesus died for are sin. he asked us to fallow him and if we don't we don't go to heaven its as simple as that.

Agreed with Mx, I really don't think God pre destined people to go to Hell, yes he knows the end result, but that doesn't mean when he created us he went "Awww, you're cute, you're going to have black hair, green eyes, be called Matt and be destined to hell, won't that be exciting" (any relation to anybody is purely coincidental and was made on the spot) Because God wanted us all to be with him, He is love, He wouldn't want someone to spend all eternity in hell, so I'm more with Cake here.

Edit, wow lots of people when I clicked respond, yeah Ri, I think it's all been figured out

[TopazRaven]

I'd rather this thread just be closed and done with anyway. I don't know what more can be said that hasn't been already.