Things My Calvinist Pastor Said #13: God Doesn't Love Everyone

(This "Things My Calvinist Pastor Said" series is a breakdown on this much longer post: "We Left Our Church Because of Calvinism," which was written last year but updated July 2020.  They are almost exact quotes.  All memes were created with imgflip.)

13.  "The Bible says God loves people.  But the Bible is clear that God does not love all people and He doesn't love everyone equally.  He elected some sinners to salvation, and He predestined some for eternal damnation."
            Find me the verse that says God does not love everyone the same way!  Or a verse about how God's love is shown by whether or not He elects you to heaven.  Find me an actual verse that clearly says something like that, not just a mish-mash of verses, taken-out-of-context, about how God loved Jacob and hated Esau (the passage my pastor was using).  
            Because in my Bible, I see God's love clearly spelled out in this verse ... "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" (John 3:16).  
            I see "But God demonstrates his love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).  
            And unless I misunderstand the Bible, we are all sinners: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).  
            And if that isn't clear enough: "He is the atoning sacrifice for all sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2).  
            Where is there room for misunderstanding here?  
            How is this not clear?
            "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous [Jesus] for the unrighteous [mankind]..." (1 Peter 3:18).  
            Yet Calvinists say that God really loves only the elect and that Jesus died only for the elect.  So then is God lying when He says He loves the whole world?  Is He lying when He says Jesus died for the sins of the whole world?  And if this verse says that Jesus died for the unrighteous, does that then mean, according to Calvinism's own theology, that only the elect are unrighteous?  Since Jesus died for the unrighteous?  What then does that make the non-elect?  Righteous?

            Do you want to know how my Calvinist pastor explained away "For God so loved the world ..."?  
            He said that "world" means "cosmos."  
            So, am I getting this right ... that God sent Jesus to die not because He loved people, but because He loved the universe?  Interesting!  
            So then would my pastor also be willing to change "world" to "cosmos" in the next verse, which also has the same Greek word meaning as John 3:16?  Let's see how that would sound: "For God did not send his Son into the cosmos to condemn the cosmos, but to save the cosmos through him."
            I bet not.
            But Strong's concordance (with Vine's expository dictionary) says that "world" has several different meanings, one of which is "mankind, the human race," which it says is the correct interpretation of "world" in John 3:16-17.
            So which one makes the most sense?  
            "For God so loved mankind, the human race" or "For God so loved the cosmos"?  
            "Jesus was sent to save mankind" or "Jesus was sent to save the cosmos"?  
            Does this pastor's redefinition of "world" fit at all with the overall, plain, easily-understood message of the Bible?
            No!  It does not!

            [And since we're on the topic of John 3:16, Calvinists also say that "whosoever" ("whosoever believes shall not perish") doesn't mean that anyone can accept Christ.  They say "whosoever" means the "elect," as in "those who believe."  They will say that John 3:16 means "For God so loved the elect (or "cosmos," as some say), that He sent His one and only Son, that the elect would believe in Him and shall not perish but have eternal life."
            Interesting!  Because the concordance says that "whosoever" is made up of two Greek words, which are essentially "all/any/every/whole" and "the/who."  There is nothing about the "elect" or "believe" here.  "Whosoever" simply means exactly what we think it does: "Any who" or "All who" etc.
            And ... if "whosoever" in John 3:16 is talking about the elect, then "whosoever" (sometimes translated as "anyone" or "everyone") in these verses also has to mean "the elect" because the concordance says they all use the same Greek word meaning:

"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement ..." Matthew 5:22

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."  Matthew 5:28

"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery ..."  Luke 16:18

"Everyone who falls on that stone [Jesus] will be broken to pieces ..."  Luke 20:18

" ... a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God."  John 16:2

"Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father ..." 1 John 2:23

            Does it sound like it means "the elect" in these verses?  No?  
            Then it can't be said that "whosoever" in John 3:16 means "the elect" either.  "Whosoever" means exactly what we think it does - "anyone/everyone who."

            "Oh, but wait," says the Calvinist, "you have to include the 'believes.'  'Whosoever believes' means 'all the believing/believers' - the elect, those predestined to believe."
            Well, that wouldn't work either because "believe" in this verse is not a noun, as in "the believers, the people who believe."  Nor is it an adjective, as in "all the believing people."
            It is a verb, as in "to be persuaded by something and, consequently, to commit to it, to put your faith in it" (as the concordance defines it).  And since it is a verb, we can't use "the" before it.  "The" only comes before a noun or an adjective preceding a noun.  So the Calvinist's "all the believing/believers" is wrong.  They deceptively say "believing" to make it sound like they are using it correctly, as a verb, but putting "the" in front of it makes it a noun or adjective.  "Who" - not "the" - can come before a verb.  Therefore, Calvinists are wrong to say "all the."  Since "believes" is a verb, it needs to be "all/any who."
            "Whosoever believes" means exactly what the Bible says ... "Anyone who believes shall not perish but have eternal life."  But since this sounds like an invitation to all people to believe and be saved (which is exactly what it is), they insist on "all the believing people" which is simply a statement about the destiny of the elect.  Big difference! 

            And yet no matter how much you correct them on this, Calvinists will still go, "Yeah, it might say 'whosoever believes,' but only the elect can and will believe."  And then they'll bring up all sorts of other verses that don't say that at all.
            Why ... WHY! ... must Calvinists keep twisting Bible verses and altering the clear, consistent, rational teachings of Scripture!?!  Why must they keep reading into it things that are not there!?!  Are they that desperate to think they are elected, that they are saved without any responsibility on their parts!?!]     

            Calvinists choose their own rambling, unclear, mish-mash theology over the clear, plain, consistent, easily-understood teachings of the Bible.  (For more about how the concordance disproves Calvinism, see this post.)  
            In fact, about John 3:16, Calvinists might further argue that "mankind, the human race" doesn't necessarily mean all of mankind, all humans, just some out of the whole human race.  Just like they say that "God loves all people" means "God loves all kinds of people, some from all nations, but not all people."  Or they'll say, "Sure, God loves all people, but He shows His love in different ways, by saving the elect and by giving the non-elect food and water while they are alive on earth (before sending them to hell for being the unbelievers He caused them to be - Oh yeah, that's some amazing love!)."  
            They'll claim anything else - any other nonsensical and contradictory idea - just so they don't have to claim that God truly loves all people, that Jesus died for all people, that salvation is available to all people, that they were not elected to salvation, and that it's our responsibility to choose to accept or reject Christ!

            [Update, added March 2021: I just read a post from a strong Calvinist who tried to demonstrate how Calvi-god "loves everybody" by comparing a parent's love with Calvi-god's love.  Her point was basically that Calvi-god loves everybody, just differently, with a different kind of relationship.  Just as she "created" all her children and loves all her children as a parent, she loves the saved ones differently than she loves the unsaved ones, because she relates to them differently and has a different kind of bond with them, based on whether or not they are saved.  And she claims this is similar to Calvi-god's love for the elect and the non-elect.  (She calls him "God" but I call him "Calvi-god" because Calvinism's god is NOT the God of the Bible.  And fyi, I am simplifying and paraphrasing her opinions.)  

            Calvi-god created everyone and so has loving feelings towards everyone, but his love for the elect is different than his love for the non-elect, because they share a different kind of bond.  His love for the elect is seen in the fact that he chose to save them, that he shares a deeper "family" bond with them because they repented and are on his side, and that he's full of joy because they are saved.  But he shows love to the non-elect (those predestined for hell) by still having loving feelings for them because he created them, by desiring that they would repent and be saved, and, ultimately, by punishing them for their unrepentant sins.  

            (According to her, Calvi-god is like a parent who has to turn their sinful, unrepentant, law-breaking kid into the police because of the crimes they commit.  The parent still loves the rebellious, lawbreaking child, and it's precisely because they love them so much that they have to turn the child in to the cops, even though it breaks their heart.  Likewise - according to her reasoning - Calvi-god still loves the non-elect even though he has to punish them for their sins in hell.)

            I ignored this post for several days, but it kept eating at me.  A Calvinist's illustrations of God's character are always so deceptive, so unfinished, only sharing the "good" parts and never the bad ones, never the terrible, inevitable, fundamental-to-Calvinism conclusions that show what a horrible monster Calvi-god is.  I had to comment on her post, or else it would keep eating at me.  But since she clearly states that she will not post comments that debate Calvinism, I know she won't post it.  But I will.  And so to get it off my mind, here it is:

            "The difference between your example of God's love and a parent's love is that, in Calvinism, God preplanned and caused the non-elect to be lost, to be unrepentant, to be forever damned to hell (supposedly for his glory), never giving them a chance to be saved , and yet he still claims he "loves" them and wants them to be saved.  You, as a parent, did not "create" your non-believing children to be rebellious, unrepentant, hell-bound non-believers for your glory, and so when you grieve for them, it's genuine, with a real desire for them to be saved.  Therefore, Calvi-god's love is horribly twisted and deceptive, far worse than your love for your kids as a parent.

            If you're going to use your "parent love" as an example of Calvi-god's love for all people, then go all the way and at least have the guts to give an accurate picture: Calvi-god doesn't simply punish unbelievers for their sin while still loving them.  No!  He created the non-elect specifically so he could hate them and send them to hell.  He preplanned and caused them to be unrepentant, never giving them a chance to be saved.  And yet he claims to "love" them and want them to be saved.  Even in your example, you basically say that punishing the non-elect for their sins (sending them to hell for being the unbelievers he caused them to be) is a result of Calvi-god's love for them.

            If that's love, I'd hate to see hate!

            And who cares what kind of "loving feelings" Calvi-god has towards the non-elect if the end result is still that he predestined them for hell!  What kind of comfort is it to the non-elect to basically tell them 'Don't worry, God still has loving feelings for you, even though he created you for hell.'

            The God of the Bible is both loving and just, but Calvi-god is not!  (I don't expect you to post this.  I just had to say it.)"

            Phew, now my mind can rest!  And yes, I intended it to sound harsh, because she is very active in pushing Calvinism and other Calvinists.  It's sickening!]

            If you listen to them closely, you'll notice that when it comes to every easily-understood Bible verse/concept, Calvinists say "Yes ... but ..."
            "Yes, the Bible says God loves people ... but He meant all kinds of people, not all people."
            "Yes, God loves all men ... but He has two different kinds of love, a save-your-soul one for the elect and a give-you-food-and-water one for the non-elect."
            "Yes, the Bible says God calls to all people ... but He has two different kinds of calls, one for the elect that they have to respond to and one for the non-elect that they can never respond to."
            "Yes, God tells us to seek Him ... but He didn't mean we can seek Him, on our own.  He only makes it possible for the elect to seek Him, but the non-elect can never seek Him.  But God commanded them to seek Him and believe in Him anyway so that they would be guilty of rejecting Him and end up in hell, just like He predestined.  For His glory.  We can't understand it; we just have to accept it."
            "Yes, it says Jesus died for all sins and that whoever wants to can believe in Him ... but only the elect can and will want to believe in Him because God regenerates only their hearts.  But the non-elect will never be able to want to believe in Him because God didn't give them the regenerated nature.  The non-elect have to keep the unrepentant nature that can only and will only reject Him."
            "Yes, the Bible says God wants all men to be saved, that He wants no one to perish ... but God can want one thing while causing the opposite, for His glory and mysterious plans.  God will still be sad about people being in hell, even though He predestined them to be there."
            "Yes, the Bible says God never causes sin ... but God simply prevents the non-elect from being able to obey Him, leaving them, by default, as sinners who can only always want to sin and choose to sin.  So He doesn't 'cause their sin,' per se.  He just prevents them from being able to not sin.  Because He won't regenerate them.  Because He predestined them to hell."

            If you have to add "Yes ... but ..." to everything God says, then maybe you need to consider that your theology is WRONG!  
            I mean, seriously, does this sound like what God meant to say when He wrote the Bible!?!  Does God need the help of Calvinist theologians to "clarify" when He meant to say?

(Read about John Calvin's treatment of  Michael Servetus online, such as in this post.)

            The Bible is very clear and easily-understood.  God doesn't hide His Truth under layers of contradictions and double word-meanings that only the "super-intelligent" people can understand (or more accurately, think they can understand).  God doesn't play games with us.  
            The Bible is clear, makes sense, and is for all people.
            When read plainly and simply, the Bible clearly says that Jesus died for all, that we are all sinners, that salvation is available to all, and that we are responsible for whether we accept Jesus as Lord and Savior or not.
            But it's the Calvinists who do all sorts of Scripture-twisting, smoke-and-mirrors, double-layered, song-and-dance in order to make the Bible fit their theology, to make it say the exact opposite of what the Bible clearly says.
            They can't find verses that clearly say what they believe, such as "God does not love all sinners equally" and "Jesus died only for the elect" and "God has two Wills that contradict each other, one that wants all to be saved and one that predestines most people for hell" and "God has two different kinds of love for people, one that saves some people and one that just gives food and water to the rest" and "God has two different kinds of calls He gives people, one that is irresistible and one that is resistible" and "God causes people to sin but punishes them for it," etc.
            No!  They can't find verses that clearly teach their theology.  And this is why they have to take verses out of context, apply multiple layers to verses, mash other verses together, change the meanings of words, shame and manipulate people into not questioning them, and make up truths based on what a verse doesn't say (such as if I said I went shopping and bought chocolate ice cream because I love chocolate ice cream, Calvinist reasoning would infer that I must necessarily be saying that I didn't buy vanilla ice cream because I clearly must hate vanilla ice cream.  But no ... all I said was I bought chocolate because I love chocolate.  I said nothing about what I didn't buy or don't love.  But this is one of the kinds of backwards reasoning Calvinists use to get a verse to say something it isn't saying, such as when they say that "Jesus died for His sheep" means that Jesus died only for His sheep and not for anyone else.), etc.
            It makes me sick!
            And besides, the whole Jacob/Esau thing has nothing to do with salvation, with electing some to heaven and the rest to hell.  It's about God choosing one race of people over the other to be the bloodline that brought Jesus into the world.  Big difference!

            [And for the record, the Bible itself tells us why God is kind to the unrighteous, and it's not just so that He can show them some love before sending them to hell like He supposedly predestined.  
            It's because of this:
            "Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?"  (Romans 2:4, emphasis is mine)  
            God intends for His kindness to lead the unrighteous to repentance, not just to show them a little love before He sends them to hell.  And this message isn't just for "elected" sinners.  It's for those who are stubborn and unrepentant and who are storing up wrath against themselves (vs. 5).  
            God intends His kindness to be what leads them to repentance.  He doesn't intend to save people through some sort of mysterious "election/predestined before time began/regenerated by the Holy Spirit so they can believe" thing.  He intends for unrepentant people to see His kindness and, consequently, to turn to Him, repent, believe in Him, and go to heaven.
            This is His intention for those who are unrepentant.  He does not intend for them to go to hell.  He has not predestined them for hell.  How can the Bible be more clear!?!]