Wait, God Doesn't Love Everyone?

Fate, part 2

Read part 1 of this series if you haven’t yet. It will establish that God does intervene in individual lives and override their natural path in life:

God Manipulates Humans and History

---

In this post I will be replying to two comments left on my previous post. Both of them discuss the apparent contradiction between God loving all of humanity and yet giving people destinies. They also bring up whether that entails manipulating them into being evil. I cherish the ability to have a sincere exchange with readers about the controversies of God, so I hope you will be willing to read this in-depth reply, and I hope to respond to everyone else who has questions.

Comment 1:

I always come up against a brick wall when I'm asked to believe that God, who loves everyone, without exception, picks certain people from before they were born and CAUSES them to fail (not be part of the Elect) after which he will punish and torture them for that failure.

Is God manipulating the minds of the global oligarchy who practise hideous cruelties on children?

Comment 2:

I feel the same way! I question why would a loving God that claims to love us allow children, who are pure souls, be sex trafficked, abused and tortured!?

Rather than trying to biblically debunk the idea of fate (which would be impossible), or creating some warped logic for why it’s actually loving to give people a bad fate, I will instead test the doctrine of whether God loves everyone in the world. If this doctrine is shown to be false (or implausible) then the paradox would resolve another way: God gives negative fates to people He hates and good fates to people He loves. How we should feel about that possibility is another question.¹

---

Does the Bible teach that God loves everyone?

Having done some research on this subject, I can’t find any Bible verses which explicitly state that God loves every human in history. As far as I can tell, there are also no verses which explicitly state that God considers all humans to be of equal value, or that He deems us innately valuable. It is the evolution of Humanist philosophy which decrees that every life has sanctity, should be treated with dignity, and deserves equality. Christians like to take credit for this evolution, but the Bible might actually disagree.

On the contrary, there are several Bible verses equating human life to dust, vapor, or the grass of the field. This is meant to show how our lives are meaningless and fleeting in the cosmic big picture. It is our Christian New Testament which teaches that, in addition to being worthless by nature, we are also individually condemned due to our sins and incapable of redeeming ourselves. I’m sorry, but that’s a pretty cynical view of humanity compared to all the Humanist rhetoric.

But a few verses did come to mind during my study. For example, Jesus said that whoever harms a child would be better off being drowned in the sea (Luke 17:2), and that children have angels who always face the Father in heaven:

(Matthew 18:10) See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.

Now, we don’t know what that part means exactly, but it sounds loving. Every human was once a “little one,” which would imply that every human had an angel assigned to them who faced the Father, right? It’s bizarre, but there must be some sort of divine advocacy going on up there, specifically on behalf of children.

I thought this could mean that God loves everyone when they’re children, but that at some point they lose this special blessing. However, this doesn’t help much, because the fate of a person is decided before they’re born, not after they grow up. It also does nothing to address the horror of child abuse, which happens every day around the world. Something is still missing. Something important. Then I noticed something else which bothered me: technically, Jesus does not extend this statement to include all children throughout history. The way it’s phrased in both Luke 17:2 and Matthew 18:10, he refers to “these” little ones specifically, which could mean only those who are directly around him. Is that crazy? Did he mean those Jewish children who were lucky enough to him during his ministry?

We know that Jesus did actually emphasize the unique situation of those who were physically present with him in his earthly life, since they were witnessing the most important event in history and had the opportunity to interact with God in the flesh. It’s not inconceivable that Jesus was telling his followers to take special precautions when dealing with the children who came out to hear his message. Perhaps most children do not have angels who face the Father.

God’s nature

Since I couldn’t find verses saying that God loves or values all humans, I tried to find verses about whether God calls Himself fair. Another verse came to mind regarding the general character of God:

(Deuteronomy 32:4) He is the Rock, His work is perfect; all His ways are just. A God of faithfulness without injustice, He is righteous and upright.

God is always just, according to the Bible. So even if God doesn’t love everyone, shouldn’t He still treat them fairly out of a sense of justice? Shouldn’t He allow them to have a natural life and then hold them accountable on the Judgment Day? Interfering during a person’s life to withhold knowledge or cause them to fail seems very unjust.

I thought of another verse which suggests that divine wisdom requires impartiality:

(James 3:17) But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, accommodating, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial, and not hypocritical.

It seems to me that predestining a soul for eternity is the epitome of partiality. It seems arbitrary and unjustified. Therefore, for God to claim that He is impartial could very well be considered hypocritical as well.²

In other places, we are told that “God is love” (1 John 4:17-21), and that He does not wish for anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9), and even that His desire is for everyone to repent and be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-4). These teachings promote the concept of a universal love, but again, how are we supposed to reconcile this with the reality of fate? Can it be possible that God literally wants every single human to be saved, but that He can’t accomplish this goal despite being the one who assigns fates? It makes no sense. If He really wanted everyone to be saved, He could make that happen!

Consistency

God is Almighty and free from any obligation or restriction. He is fully in control of the Universe, including the spiritual dimension. Therefore, if He does indeed predestine people, then it is purely for His own pleasure, not because of some outside factor that is obligating Him to do so. He makes the rules, He set up the scenario, and He is carrying out His plans. God never fails.

And again, the key phrase from the reader’s comment is “without exception,” since even a single example of God not just dooming a person whom He loves (in whatever way that would matter,) but actually hating a human before they’re born, would prove that there are exceptions. And if there is even one exception, then it is arbitrary. Suddenly, the principle of universal love would become a principle of selective love; and if this is the case, then there may as well be any number of exceptions. At that point, it might even be more logical to say that God generally hates mankind, and only loves a few. Is this more consistent with the story and teachings of the Bible?

Perhaps you can see why consistency is so important. If God draws a line in the sand randomly, and then chooses entire populations to disregard based on this, then their doomed fates are doubly unfair: not only are they doomed, but they are doomed based on something that has nothing to do with the individuals. The bad luck of being born in the wrong region, time period, or race turns a tragedy into a cruelty, since they were hated without reason. If God does choose whom to love or hate before they’re born, we would hope that He at least does so by some other system; some method of choosing that is fair in a different way.

God so loved the world…

All of that is troubling. But now let’s get to the famous John 3:16 verse, since it ought to establish God’s universal love for mankind, right? Let’s look at the King James:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

(KJV)

Seems very straightforward. However, did you notice that there is a comma after the word “world” in that sentence? In Elizabethan English this comma is significant, and functions more looks a colon, directing the reader’s attention to the next part. The word “so” also carries a different connotation than modern English. When we hear “God so loved the world,” we automatically think it means, “God loved everyone in the world so much…” but that’s not correct. The real rendering is closer to “God loved the world like so…”. Notice the difference?

This verse is so popular that almost all English translations, including quite modern ones, dare not update the wording from the KJV to something more accurate; they even make the confusion worse by removing that critical comma. I have to give credit to the New English Translation (NET), which is willing to depart from convention in order to be more accurate. Here’s how they translated it:

For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

(NET)

Therefore, it’s not that God loves everyone in the whole world “so much,” but that He loves the world in a very specific way, “like so.” This verse was never intended to teach that God had a strong and universal love for every human, but rather that He had a very particular way of showing His love for the world.³

One could even argue, based on the accurate translation of John 3:16, that the Bible is trying to emphasize how odd God’s way of loving the world is. And it leaves open the possibility that He does not love the world per se, but rather that, to the extent that He does love the world, He does so by offering up His Son as an opportunity to be saved from the judgment and damnation that is coming for most of mankind. That’s a very different connotation: most will perish in judgment, but some will be saved by this strange solution God has chosen.

Division

Okay, but what about the rest of the verses in the New Testament, which remind “us” about the loving nature of God toward “us”? For the sake of brevity, I hope I don’t have to go through the examples, but simply point out that these are directed toward the followers of Christ, which, because of the open-ended nature of the gospel, had to include everyone who would convert in the future as if they were already integrated into the Body of Christ. It’s is a strange fact about Christianity: it is totally open, and yet incredibly exclusive. It welcomes everyone blindly, but yet it is aware that the teachings are only true for those who are chosen by God. For most “Christians,” faith ends up being a fraud as a result. In turn, this can make the New Testament seem as though it must be exaggerating, or that the teachings aren’t to be taken so literally.

By contrast, think of how the Bible defines “antichrist”: not as a single unique evil person who comes at the end of history, but as everyone who denies Christ. These are the people Paul referred to when he said that light can have no fellowship with darkness (2 Corinthians 6:14). That is more than just a difference of personal belief, don’t you think? I think the Holy Spirit categorizes humans based on their affinity with Jesus Christ, and those categories are stark. We may see a million shades of gray, but God sees those whom He chose before the beginning of the world, and those who are destined to be servants of darkness.

Application

What if God doesn’t love everyone? It makes Him no less holy, no less righteous, and no less just. We may not understand it, but we should try. For my part, at least, I will struggle with it in the hope of attaining some wisdom.

To state the obvious, e’re still instructed to love everyone, including our enemies. When they hate us, we are supposed to bless them. This is another paradox of Christianity: our love for those who are likely to be damned is supposed to be compassionate, pure, and unfeigned, and yet we are never supposed to be delusional. We are supposed to be wise as serpents, and yet harmless as doves. We know the world is doomed, but we are not bitter. We should be highly aware of the difference between us and others, yet not let that diminish our generosity. We are supposed to love the very people the Bible labels as antichrists, but still remain separated from them and untainted by them. We should consider them servants of darkness, and yet proceed as if God may transform them to join our side—because it turns out He likes to do that a lot. Love is somehow not fondness of character; it is not approval of actions; it is not acceptance of nature. Love is compelling. Love is transformative. Love is condemning. Love is dividing. Love is a warning to be better.

In that sense, perhaps, God loves the world with a fullness that I had never considered before. God’s Creation is full of warnings to be better, if one cares to notice them. Evil is a warning, too. Those who are used for evil end up sending a message to those who will listen to it, inadvertently. Once again, it reminds me that humans are supposed to be paying attention to the stories around them, and learning from it all. We’re all supposed to be philosophers. We are supposed to reach conclusions based on the fates we witness. The world is a stage, and we’re too distracted by the scenery and sound effects to pay attention to the plot. God has always been teaching the world, and then Jesus Christ was the twist that changed the meaning of everything that came before, and everything that would happen after. God is love, not in that He does what we want, or even what we think is right, but in that, without His manipulation and help in turning reality into a story worth learning from, everything would be chaos, desolation, and hopelessness. God uses the meaningless, the fleeting, and the unworthy to create pure light, surrounded by endless darkness.

Once we acknowledge that we are all nothing, and that we do not deserve God’s love, and that He is the transformative power that gives value to everything in Creation, we can begin to let go of our sense of entitlement. It is always a process of redeeming the unworthy, not starting with rights and automatic sanctity. It is always selection, purification, and separation from the rest. Do you understand? Everything is trash, but it is shown love. Yes, love is wasted on most of it; very few have ears to hear God. Ultimately, the cynical reality is that we are all too trashy to be worthy of eternal life, no matter what kind of free will we are given. The only process that can redeem us is going to be tantamount to divine intervention, which is why it cannot be the general rule, and certainly not automated. Only the chosen few can ascend enough to join God, because God is too high above us to accept our own measly efforts. Therefore, if it will always be His selection and His transformative manipulation anyway, then this selection can happen at any time, earlier or later.

---

Reader, I am not finished replying to these two comments! They brought up more points that need to be addressed. However, having written this much already, I think it’s best to save the rest for another post. This may be a lot to consider already. The Bible does not teach God’s universal love for mankind, but scolds mankind for thinking highly of themselves. Perhaps this can at least remove some of the sting of fatalism.

Your feedback is everything. Help me to understand your thoughts and feelings, because when we discuss these things, God uses us to help each other. Let’s all edify the Body of Christ with love and passion for the truth. May God bless you for your support and your interest in the mysteries of His will.

1. As for myself, I know that it is not our role to judge God, but His role to judge us. No matter what He does or for what reason, the proper response is to fall down and worship Him in fear and reverence. The intellectual believer—the one whose concept of worship is contingent on some argument—has one foot in hell. It is my irrational devotion that allows me to recognize when God does (or allows) things that confuse and shock my sensibilities. For you see, rather than rejecting Him, I reject myself. I can admit when I am offended by God, because I also admit that I am inferior; I am the fool; I am the child, wondering at his Father’s mysterious ways. Submission is not agreement. My relationship to God is not one of concordance, but slavery; and a slave may be dismayed by his master, but he honors him twice as much in his dismay. God forbid that my horror becomes rebellion, but let it always lead to sanctification.

2. Granted, these traits are describing wisdom that comes from above without saying God always demonstrates these traits Himself; that’s just a deduction.

3. The KJV did not mistranslate this verse, but our own way of reading it has changed, and churches ignorantly ran with a bad understanding of it, and ended up making it their central doctrine.