Thread: Does God hate all who are not Christian?

Can someone help out with this please?

No. (That's a "no, he doesn't", not a "no, no one can help".)

Originally Posted by David FCC

Can someone help out with this please?

God is angry with the wicked every day. God hates all the workers of iniquity. Children of wrath, even as the others.

That said, God is without passions, and therefore, this language describes His judicial response. Until a man believes in Christ, He is under God's sentence of condemnation. Once justified, such a sinner is accepted in the Beloved.

Hope that helps!

Cheers,

Originally Posted by Skyler

No. (That's a "no, he doesn't", not a "no, no one can help".)

Any chance of some quotes to back that up?

It depends on what sense you intend:

1.) For instance, there are the elect who are not yet converted; these has God loved with an everlasting love, though they be not yet *actually* justified.

2.) There is a love which God has toward all his creatures as creatures; this is not salvific in anyway, nor is it related to or in anyway foundational to salvation. But it is a love which causes him to preserve all creatures in existence.

3.) But yes, in a more specific sense, God loves the elect and hates the reprobate. These are not emotions or passions in God, but are assigned to him based upon the acts of his will.

Psalm 5:5
"The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity."


Psalm 11:5
"The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth."


He does love the elect however. Even before their conversion.

Ephesians 1:4
"According 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."

So to answer your question. Yes, He hates the non-elect.

Something to ponder from the pen of Samuel Rutherford (Covenant of Life Opened, "The Elect non-converted are not under Law-wrath"):

Whether the Elect unconverted be under wrath is a doubt to many. It is true, they are servants of sin, Rom. 6. 17. Blind, and under the power of Satan as Reprobates are, Acts 26.18. By nature children of wrath, even as others, Eph. 2.3. Ans. Their sins committed before their Conversion, are according to the Covenant of Works, such as deserve everlasting condemnation, and they are jure and in relation to that Covenant, heirs of wrath, as well as others. 2. But we must distinguish between a state of election and everlasting, though unseen love, that they are under, as touching their persons: and a state of a sinfull way that they are born in, and walk in as others do, untill they be converted. As to the former state, it is true which is said, Ier. 31.3. I have loved thee with an everlasting love. See also, Rom. 9. 12,13. Eph. 1.4. so that God never hates their persons.

The key to answering the OP lies in distinguishing between eternal election and temporal administration of the covenant.

Originally Posted by David FCC

Originally Posted by Skyler

No. (That's a "no, he doesn't", not a "no, no one can help".)

Any chance of some quotes to back that up?

The answer is also yes. See all the quotes above.

Jacob I loved, Esau I hated.

Does God hate all who are not Christian? No, some are of His elect. But He also doesn't hate in the way that we hate (ours stems from a breaking of the sixth commandment).

Originally Posted by Romans922

Jacob I loved, Esau I hated.

Does God hate all who are not Christian? No, some are of His elect. But He also doesn't hate in the way that we hate (ours stems from a breaking of the sixth commandment).

This raises a related issue (perhaps off topic). Is hatred in us always a sin?

Cheers,

Here is an interesting video by Dr. Robert Morey about this topic.

It is safe to say that God loves everyone except for those whom He hates, and those are enumerated in Scripture: Esau, all who practice iniquity, the one who spreads strife.

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Originally Posted by Romans922

Jacob I loved, Esau I hated.

Does God hate all who are not Christian? No, some are of His elect. But He also doesn't hate in the way that we hate (ours stems from a breaking of the sixth commandment).

This raises a related issue (perhaps off topic). Is hatred in us always a sin?

Cheers,

We should burn with a righteous anger against iniquity. Eph 4:25-26

Dr. Lloyd-Jones speaks about here.

Originally Posted by Don Kistler

It is safe to say that God loves everyone except for those whom He hates, and those are enumerated in Scripture: Esau, all who practice iniquity, the one who spreads strife.

Meanwhile it is true that we are called to love those whom God hates, and to bring them the Gospel.

Originally Posted by BertMulder

Originally Posted by Don Kistler

It is safe to say that God loves everyone except for those whom He hates, and those are enumerated in Scripture: Esau, all who practice iniquity, the one who spreads strife.

Meanwhile it is true that we are called to love those whom God hates, and to bring them the Gospel.

We do not yet know exactly who is hated or loved by God . . .so meanwhile, prior to that Day when these very truths will be revealed, the commandment from God is for us to love our enemies who presently exhibit hatred of God by bringing them the Gospel of His grace.

If God's hate is unlike ours, in that he hates without passions and emotions, then how can we say that God hates, and how can we know what that hate is like?

We know what 'hate' means because of our human experience of it. How can we then know what it means for God to hate? Does it even have meaning?

I understand the necessity of anthropomorphic language, I just don't understand how that helps us know anything about the reality that lies behind it.

Originally Posted by steadfast7

If God's hate is unlike ours, in that he hates without passions and emotions, then how can we say that God hates, and how can we know what that hate is like?

We know what 'hate' means because of our human experience of it. How can we then know what it means for God to hate? Does it even have meaning?

I understand the necessity of anthropomorphic language, I just don't understand how that helps us know anything about the reality that lies behind it.

Truth is reality as perceived by God.

I believe like all anthropomorphisms of God in the bible he does what is done because that is what is correct according to his will.

He is not grieved involuntarily at the wickedness of men. He is not taken aback or surprised. He is grieved because it is righteous to be grieved so he is voluntarily grieved at the wickedness of man because he is the definer of good, thus his grief is the proper answer to wickedness.

Also with hate. God is love. But he hates what is proper to hate because it is righteous hatred because that is his will.

God is immutable and his emotions are the bluprint of propriety.

Originally Posted by steadfast7

If God's hate is unlike ours, in that he hates without passions and emotions, then how can we say that God hates, and how can we know what that hate is like?

It is impossible to know what God is like by unaided examination of our own emotional states. God does not have emotions, as, by definition, that would mean that He would be moved from without Himself (this is the meaning of the term emotion). God is always moved from within Himself: his good pleasure and purpose govern all that He does.

That said, the hatred of God is a term that Scripture uses to describe God per effectum, not per affectum. In other words, it is describing what is effected or accomplished, not God's emotional state. It is the same as referring to God's "wings"; it describes the effect, such as protection or shelter, vs. the affect, God flapping His pinions

Cheers,

That video was a real mixed bag for me... it seemed almost like a comedy sketch in its presentation. He seemed kind of sarcastic and cutting, yet at the same time it helped to deliver his point really well.

If some Christians saw that they'd be appalled by his delivery, saying it was unloving.


Edit: In fact I just looked up Morey on google, and there is a ton of stuff about him being involved in fraud cases etc, not to mention the way he speaks to people, calling homosexuals "fags" etc... I wonder if he is just misrepresented online, or if he genuinely needs to evaluate the way he represents Christ to the world.

God hates sin, as it is rebellion against His holy and loving governance, and His pure creation. When Adam fell / rebelled he consigned all his posterity into the condition which is called "children of disobedience...children of wrath" (Eph 2:2, 3). As said, God hates the sheer evil of rebellion against His good, and must destroy it to preserve His glory in a sinless creation (which is coming).

But He has compassion and mercy on His creatures' abject and utter ruination, and He saved some out of the lot deserving of and en route to Hell.

As an offense against the infinite God merits an infinite death, He sent His Son to bear that in our stead.

There are many things we cannot answer now about this, but it is clear God abhors evil, and for His glory and our good will destroy it.

P.S. I'm glad to see Robert Morey is still kickin'.

I followed the fraud allegation some years back, and decided that the alleger was in the wrong, and calumniated Morey (in other aspects as well).

Morey has a devastating critique of Islam (I used to air his tapes on a cable TV program in Woodstock (along with other cult-expose videos), and an Islam-promoting program shut down because of it. He is edgy, and sometimes crosses the line. Perhaps this is due to one of the calumnies against him by the aforementioned alleger being that Morey was effeminate. It could be Morey wants to make clear he is not (though I never thought he was anyway).

He would give public lectures against Islam and there would be folks (as one can imagine) very angry and threatening to him. He wasn't fazed.

He is a very good apologist, and cult refuter. I like him, even if he is a little rough - and no doubt I would not countenance everything he says.

All this just to counter the falsehoods promoted about him.

Poor Mr. Morey.
He's so shy and reserved.
He just needs to say what he really thinks.

He makes some very good points that I had never considered.

But, what is to prevent God from extending grace to those He hates?
If He hates them, they are undeserving of His love, but grace is not deserved nor earned. God hates the ungodly, but Christ died for the ungodly. One can be gracious to someone that one does not love.

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
LUK 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for He is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.


The Lord can be good even to those He in some fashion "hates." This in no way negates His anger or wrath.
Also, Jesus commands to "love" our enemies because we will "be children of the Highest" who does the same Himself. This does not imply the huggy-huggy kissy-kissy idea of love, but the idea of being gracious to show forth the goodness of God Himself.
All things are possible with God, and that includes His ability to be good and gracious to those He hates.

Does God delight in the pouring out of his hate and wrath?

Does he delight in it as much as he delights in his electing grace?

God loves his elect in Christ. He hates all sin, and anything that opposes his holy will--and all evil either has been unutterably judged, or will be. No one "in Adam" (remaining under the Covenant of Works) can have any assurance of God's love.

I think the Rutherford quote above is quite helpful (as is most anything from Rev. Winzer).

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Until a man believes in Christ, He is under God's sentence of condemnation. Once justified, such a sinner is accepted in the Beloved.

Hope that helps!

Cheers,

Adam, can you please unpack this a tad? Prufock appears to disagree with this assessment. And I agree with him, so I am leaning to disagree with you on this one point. In what sense can the elect every be under the judicial hatred condemnation of God? I know Ephesians 2 is used to show this, but if you look at it closely it doesnt say what some want it to say. Children of wrath does not equal children under God's wrath. The word 'orge' in the greek speaks of the natural disposition of the children. The anger of the children, the character of the children not God. Linguistically this cannot refer to God's disposition towards man. This is inline with the HC Q & A # 5.

Question 5. Canst thou keep all these things perfectly?

Answer: In no wise; (a) for I am prone by nature to hate God and my neighbour.(b)

I will say the scripture can literally be taken to mean we, the elect, were wrathful children Godwards. Because if you look at Paul's whole argument, he consistently say God loved us.

1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,

This is love not hate to me

2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.


4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),

Again, while we hated Him, He certainly loved us


6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

Again this is all love while we hated Him.

Yea it does seem Morey comes off very sarcastic. We have to be straight forward with truth 100%, and correct false doctrine absolutely! But, we have to be wise, considerate, and loving. When we do it sarcastically we're just begging for contention and strife, we have to be considerate towards other positioning, and then bring correction. Every one who believes what he's saying doesn't react like that. Address it, point them to The word of God to correct the error in love and that's it. Him calling people sloppy thinkers and all is not very considerate; I'm sure he wasn't reformed all his life, and held to such doctrine fresh out of the womb..remember the work that God did in your heart to open your eyes to this wondrous truth and be considerate of others who are once where u were; while also teaching them sound doctrine in Love, Patience and respect.

P.S:I do beleive everything He said, and all his points were on point though..most definitely..just the way they were presented I disagree with.

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Until a man believes in Christ, He is under God's sentence of condemnation. Once justified, such a sinner is accepted in the Beloved.

Hope that helps!

Cheers,

Adam, can you please unpack this a tad?

The elect are not justified until they believe. Therefore, they are under the wrath of God until they are justified by faith. We believe in order that we may be justified. Faith is the instrument of justification, not election. Therefore, when we did not believe, we were not justified.

I hope that helps.

Also, eternal justification is an error which tends to eliminate the means, and therefore has been an allied doctrine to antinomianism. Not that it has to be, but it tends in that direction.

Hope that's unpacked enough

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Until a man believes in Christ, He is under God's sentence of condemnation. Once justified, such a sinner is accepted in the Beloved.

Hope that helps!

Cheers,

Adam, can you please unpack this a tad?

The elect are not justified until they believe. Therefore, they are under the wrath of God until they are justified by faith. We believe in order that we may be justified. Faith is the instrument of justification, not election. Therefore, when we did not believe, we were not justified.

I hope that helps.

Also, eternal justification is an error which tends to eliminate the means, and therefore has been an allied doctrine to antinomianism. Not that it has to be, but it tends in that direction.

Hope that's unpacked enough

If you don't mind, I'd prefer a bit more unpacking:

Does election imply that God always sees the elect united to Christ?

If so, does our eternal election in Christ imply God disposes his love to us from eternity? (i.e. is it true that God's love is expressed in uniting us to Christ?)

Is the wrath of God a disposition arising from His eternal nature?

If so, can you please explain to me how you reconcile God's love for us in election (an eternal disposition) can be compatible with God's wrath upon us (an eternal disposition) prior to our regeneration?

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Originally Posted by David FCC

Can someone help out with this please?

God is angry with the wicked every day. God hates all the workers of iniquity. Children of wrath, even as the others.

That said, God is without passions, and therefore, this language describes His judicial response. Until a man believes in Christ, He is under God's sentence of condemnation. Once justified, such a sinner is accepted in the Beloved.

Hope that helps!

Cheers,

I'm shocked at all the kudos this post received. Given the question it was trying to answer, it is quite misleading. The question was does God hate all non-Christians.

God loves his elect prior to their conversion, hence God does NOT hate all non-Christians. God so loved the world (the elect!) that he gave his only begotten son.

Ron

-----Added 11/7/2009 at 09:30:57 EST-----

Originally Posted by Prufrock

It depends on what sense you intend:

1.) For instance, there are the elect who are not yet converted; these has God loved with an everlasting love, though they be not yet *actually* justified.

2.) There is a love which God has toward all his creatures as creatures; this is not salvific in anyway, nor is it related to or in anyway foundational to salvation. But it is a love which causes him to preserve all creatures in existence.

3.) But yes, in a more specific sense, God loves the elect and hates the reprobate. These are not emotions or passions in God, but are assigned to him based upon the acts of his will.

I hadn't read down the thread when I posted. I'm delighted with all the kudos this post got! Let me add my name to that set of kudos!

Ron

Originally Posted by JTB

If you don't mind, I'd prefer a bit more unpacking:

Does election imply that God always sees the elect united to Christ?

Yes.

Originally Posted by JTB

If so, does our eternal election in Christ imply God disposes his love to us from eternity? (i.e. is it true that God's love is expressed in uniting us to Christ?)

Yes. However, we are not justified by election, but by faith. Contrarily, we are not elected by faith. They vary widely one from another.

Originally Posted by JTB

Is the wrath of God a disposition arising from His eternal nature?

I think the question is directed incorrectly. The question of whether or not God's wrath abides on non-Christians is not essentially a question about the essence of the Godhead, but of God's judicial relationship to people in history, space and time.

Originally Posted by JTB

If so, can you please explain to me how you reconcile God's love for us in election (an eternal disposition) can be compatible with God's wrath upon us (an eternal disposition) prior to our regeneration?

Again, I think the question is misdirected. If God did not judicially condemn us prior to our justification, He would be unjust. Election and justification are not the same thing.

I don't think I can improve on our Confession's statement on this point:

IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:[12] nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.[13]

Again, we are not justified from all eternity; we are justified by faith. We do not believe from eternity, and therefore, we are not justified from eternity.

Cheers,

Adam

-----Added 11/7/2009 at 10:03:36 EST-----

Originally Posted by Ron

I'm shocked at all the kudos this post received. Given the question it was trying to answer, it is quite misleading. The question was does God hate all non-Christians.

I am shocked that you are shocked! Two can play at this game :-)

Originally Posted by Ron

God loves his elect prior to their conversion, hence God does NOT hate all non-Christians. God so loved the world (the elect!) that he gave his only begotten son.

Ron

My point was regarding the wrath of God as His judicial response to those that are not justified (those that are non-Christians).

Are you affirming that those that have not believed are justified from eternity?

Cheers,

Adam

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Originally Posted by steadfast7

If God's hate is unlike ours, in that he hates without passions and emotions, then how can we say that God hates, and how can we know what that hate is like?

It is impossible to know what God is like by unaided examination of our own emotional states. God does not have emotions, as, by definition, that would mean that He would be moved from without Himself (this is the meaning of the term emotion). God is always moved from within Himself: his good pleasure and purpose govern all that He does.

That said, the hatred of God is a term that Scripture uses to describe God per effectum, not per affectum. In other words, it is describing what is effected or accomplished, not God's emotional state. It is the same as referring to God's "wings"; it describes the effect, such as protection or shelter, vs. the affect, God flapping His pinions

Cheers,

Not sure I am convinced that God does not have emotions. Emotions are also derived from, and flow out of, personality and dispositions as well. Thus, they do not have to be viewed as from outside of, unconnected to, or inconsistent with his attributes as God. I don't see why His hatred, zeal, love, compassion, wrath, must be seen as emotionless if they are indeed perfect in their manifestation. Perhaps there is some Scripture that addresses this directly?

Originally Posted by BertMulder

Originally Posted by Don Kistler

It is safe to say that God loves everyone except for those whom He hates, and those are enumerated in Scripture: Esau, all who practice iniquity, the one who spreads strife.

Meanwhile it is true that we are called to love those whom God hates, and to bring them the Gospel.

Not sure I agree with the statement (at least the first part).

Do I not hate those who hate You, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?
I hate them with the utmost hatred; They have become my enemies.

I would allow the Psalmist to not be sinning in what he says.

While I agree that we are to love our enemies, we are to hate the enemies of God.

-----Added 11/7/2009 at 10:15:48 EST-----

Originally Posted by mvdm

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Originally Posted by steadfast7

If God's hate is unlike ours, in that he hates without passions and emotions, then how can we say that God hates, and how can we know what that hate is like?

It is impossible to know what God is like by unaided examination of our own emotional states. God does not have emotions, as, by definition, that would mean that He would be moved from without Himself (this is the meaning of the term emotion). God is always moved from within Himself: his good pleasure and purpose govern all that He does.

That said, the hatred of God is a term that Scripture uses to describe God per effectum, not per affectum. In other words, it is describing what is effected or accomplished, not God's emotional state. It is the same as referring to God's "wings"; it describes the effect, such as protection or shelter, vs. the affect, God flapping His pinions

Cheers,

Not sure I am convinced that God does not have emotions. Emotions are also derived from, and flow out of, personality and dispositions as well. Thus, they do not have to be viewed as from outside of, unconnected to, or inconsistent with his attributes as God. I don't see why His hatred, zeal, love, compassion, wrath, must be seen as emotionless if they are indeed perfect in their manifestation. Perhaps there is some Scripture that addresses this directly?

WCF[quote]1. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal, most just, and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

The question of whether or not God's wrath abides on non-Christians is not essentially a question about the essence of the Godhead, but of God's judicial relationship to people in history, space and time.

It is a question that bears upon the essence of the Godhead, however. Either God's wrath is something He eternally confers (as his electing love) or it is something he temporally administers (as a particular, terminating consequence). You seem to indicate that you think it only to be the latter, but I'd like to see, if you are willing, support for that conclusion.

If God did not judicially condemn us prior to our justification, He would be unjust. Election and justification are not the same thing.

You are begging the question here. If you assume that justification is temporal, then it would make sense that God would first have to condemn us. But if justification has an eternal aspect, God's is the logical consequence of our election. We don't experience it because our minds are darkened by sin, but our subjective apprehension need not impact the objective reality.

I'm assuming the footnote 12 in the Confession is citing Romans 4:25? The "for" is translated "because" in the NASB, and the greek is an accusative "dia," which bears the function of a result clause, "[Christ] was raised because of our justification."

Again, we are not justified from all eternity; we are justified by faith. We do not believe from eternity, and therefore, we are not justified from eternity.

Believing, or faith, is not the cause of our justification. If that we so, our justification would be synergistic rather than the sole work of God. As an instrument, faith is more like the eye that receives the light of the sun than it is the hammer than strike a blow. Our faith apprehends what God has done--it does not accomplish it. Imagine, for instance, a courtroom where the judge pronounces the defendant innocent. The decision of the judge was made prior to his striking the gavel (or pronouncement of the sentence, if you will)--to the judge, the accused was justified as soon as his decision to acquit the defendant was made because it is the judge's role to determine the defendant's righteousness. When the gavel is struck, or the pronouncement made, the accused recognizes he has been justified by the judge's decision, and so too the world of onlookers who have ears to hear and eyes to see. The defendant's hearing and seeing are the instruments by which he understands what has already occurred for the judge--namely, justification.

Originally Posted by JTB

Believing, or faith, is not the cause of our justification. If that we so, our justification would be synergistic rather than the sole work of God.

Brother, please consider these verses. Eternal justification is a tenet of hyper-Calvinism.


Romans 5
1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Galatians 2
16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Galatians 3
11 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”...
28 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Ephesians 2
1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

John 3
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

-----Added 11/7/2009 at 11:11:58 EST-----

On the emotivity of God issue, I think D. A. Carson has a great point when he says surely we are not to think that Paul prays that we "may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height of an anthropomorphism!"

Originally Posted by JTB

Believing, or faith, is not the cause of our justification.

I did not say it was. However, we believe in order that we may be justified by faith.

Adam

See these articles by Bob Gonzales here:

“There Is No Pain, You Are Misreading”: Is God “Comfortably Numb”? | RBS Tabletalk

?There Is No Pain, You Are Misreading?: Is God ?Comfortably Numb?? Part 2 | RBS Tabletalk

?There Is No Pain, You Are Misreading?: Is God ?Comfortably Numb?? Part 3 | RBS Tabletalk

Does God Have Feelings? Twelve Theses on Divine Emotivity and Impassibility | RBS Tabletalk

Originally Posted by MarieP

See these articles by Bob Gonzales here:

“There Is No Pain, You Are Misreading”: Is God “Comfortably Numb”? | RBS Tabletalk

?There Is No Pain, You Are Misreading?: Is God ?Comfortably Numb?? Part 2 | RBS Tabletalk

?There Is No Pain, You Are Misreading?: Is God ?Comfortably Numb?? Part 3 | RBS Tabletalk

Does God Have Feelings? Twelve Theses on Divine Emotivity and Impassibility | RBS Tabletalk

Again, emotions are involuntary responses caused by outside forces. Does God feel regret? Is he sad? Depressed? That time of the month? No. Never.

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Again, emotions are involuntary responses caused by outside forces.

Then I don't agree with your definition, brother. God holds us responsible for our emotions. They aren't involuntary. And they don't always come from outside forces.

Seems the thread is moving towards the emotion/volition, does God feel anything; is God other or wholly other; etc, debate.

This has been brilliantly discussed in Neo-Orthodoxy Pt1 R.C. Sproul most notably by Rev. Winzer.

and God's sadness for the reprobate .

Perhaps those who are new to this issue can visit the older threads so as to be relatively on par with what everyone is talking about, if indeed we go down this path in this thread.

I don't think it makes any sense to say of God that he loves reprobates (or desires their salvation).

I think the same holds true in Arminian theology, too, interestingly enough. Steve Hays at Triablogue has briefly posted on this. If God knows some person S is never going to be saved and will go to hell, then he can hardly be said to love or have good intentions for that person in creating him.