God's Hatred

[ChariotsofFire]

I've thought about this subject before when I've heard friends of mine say, "God hates the sin, but not the sinner." It's sounds like a nice cliche, but I don't know if it's Biblical. Any thoughts?

PSALM 5

4 For you are not a God who delights in wickedness;
evil may not dwell with you.
5 The boastful shall not stand before your eyes;
you hate all evildoers.
6 You destroy those who speak lies;
the Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.

It seems clear to me that God hates evil and evildoers. It also seems clear, he grants evil doers some measure of grace in this life. God restrains them from utter depravity, let's their conscience work, and gives temporal blessings in this life.

So while I disagree with the Arminian who says "God loves you", I also disagree with someone who would say there is no common grace. It seems quite possible that God hates wicked people in his justice, but still allows some measure of his grace to enter their lives, although they are doomed for destruction.

This also leads me into thinking about the free offer of the gospel, which is also a "common" grace.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

Such things are providential, earthly blessings. Even the reprobate enjoy food, houses, books, clothes, etc.

Ultimately, what are acts of provision and blessings?

And what would you define grace as?

I ultimately see all things from God as an act of Grace for He does not have to do anything, but graciously, lovingly, and mercifully does.
I believe my food is a provision, given to me as an act of grace ultimately. I don't know of any theological reason as to suggest otherwise.

God's providence sustains temporal life for all.

God's grace brings eternal life through faith in Christ for the elect only.

I don't mean to be difficult, so I am sorry if I seem to be, but I don't see it that way.
I see God's providence as gracious, I see everything I have is God being gracious, and by gracious I mean displaying grace.

God's grace is enough for this life and the life to come. Grace need not always be defined as God's gift imputed upon us.
Paul proclaims "His grace is sufficient for me" in fact there are fourteen points of saving grace listed in the New Testament. Those being:
1. Electing grace
2. Preached grace
3. Regenerating grace
4. Converting grace
5. Justifying grace
6. Adopting grace
7. Ministry grace
8. Sanctifying grace
9. Empowering grace
10. Provisional grace
11. Financial grace
12. Miraculous grace
13. Persevering grace
14. Glorifying grace

Jesus proclaimed I have come to bring "grace upon grace."

I suppose we define grace differently, and I don't see anything sinful regarding that, so that's as far as I am concerned okay. What I see as grace, you see as provision. What you see as provision, I see as an act of grace which is something we don't deserve. Grace is abused in the instances we sin by commission, and Grace is cherished when we choose righteousness over infidelity.

And I hope you never take my posts as authoritative or demanding, I mean them all gently, lovingly, and humbly because I do not know all. And perhaps one day I will see things the way you do, or perhaps not. But that's okay we disagree on this, I don't know of any Scripture suggesting that what I'm suggesting is heretical, wrong, fallacious, or anything. No need to reconcile friends, Spurgeon says.

 

[toddpedlar]

Such things are providential, earthly blessings. Even the reprobate enjoy food, houses, books, clothes, etc.

Ultimately, what are acts of provision and blessings?

And what would you define grace as?

I ultimately see all things from God as an act of Grace for He does not have to do anything, but graciously, lovingly, and mercifully does.
I believe my food is a provision, given to me as an act of grace ultimately. I don't know of any theological reason as to suggest otherwise.

Was God's provision of the tent peg for Jael to use an act of grace toward Sisera?

Not everything God does is grace for everyone or loving toward everyone. We have to be careful not to take "God is love" to be THE quality of God that drives our interpretation of everything.

Mere provision of food and water is not "grace" in any sense of the word - I know this is disputed among some, but I just cannot see how or why the word "grace" needs to be used in that place, when "providence" is perfectly legitimate and more appropriately reflects the truth of the situation.

 

[Peairtach]

Such things are providential, earthly blessings. Even the reprobate enjoy food, houses, books, clothes, etc.

Ultimately, what are acts of provision and blessings?

And what would you define grace as?

I ultimately see all things from God as an act of Grace for He does not have to do anything, but graciously, lovingly, and mercifully does.
I believe my food is a provision, given to me as an act of grace ultimately. I don't know of any theological reason as to suggest otherwise.

Was God's provision of the tent peg for Jael to use an act of grace toward Sisera?

Not everything God does is grace for everyone or loving toward everyone. We have to be careful not to take "God is love" to be THE quality of God that drives our interpretation of everything.

Mere provision of food and water is not "grace" in any sense of the word - I know this is disputed among some, but I just cannot see how or why the word "grace" needs to be used in that place, when "providence" is perfectly legitimate and more appropriately reflects the truth of the situation.

Surely the good things which the reprobate receive from God are undeserved and therefore of God's grace.

 

[toddpedlar]

Surely the good things which the reprobate receive from God are undeserved and therefore of God's grace.

If everything that is undeserved is from God's grace, that's a very strange definition of "grace", indeed.

If something given by God hardens his heart, and causes that person to become more and more deeply entrenched in his hatred of God (and obviously that is God's intent, since God is Sovereign and nothing comes to pass that is not his decree), can that thing, though undeserved, truly be called a gift of God's "grace"?

 

[Ivan]

This is an issue that I'll soon being dealing with at my church. The recent annual meeting at the SBC has brought up a lot of questions concerning the Doctrines of Grace. Some of my church members are still reforming in these areas but they are more than willing to listen and have open hearts.

 

[Marrow Man]

Much of the disagreement here is over the use of the term "grace" when discussing what has come to be called "common grace." While I agree whole-heartedly with the concept (as stated above by brothers Josh and Jim) of God's general and providential goodness, the term "grace" itself is misleading and I would shy away from its usage because it can imply something that was not intended by the term. A term such as "common goodness" might actually be more helpful.

The problem is that the Scripture sometimes uses the term "grace" (or "favor" as it is sometimes translated -- both are based upon the Hebrew hen and the Greek charis) -- is applied to specific individuals in Scripture in contexts where the normal understanding of "grace" (i.e., salvific grace) is not applicable (e.g., Joseph in Genesis 39:4 and Jesus in Luke 2:52). If anyone is interested, I posted a paper on this issue at my blog here.

 

[Jeff Allen]

I'm beginning to see why reformed Christianity is weak at evangelism.
To a sinner of most any stripe:" God probably hates you but because I don't know for sure, Jesus might love you."

Meanwhile the pentecostal preacher says to the riff raff, I don't care who you are or what you have done. God want to save you now.

 

[Marrow Man]

I'm beginning to see why reformed Christianity is weak at evangelism.
To a sinner of most any stripe:" God probably hates you but because I don't know for sure, Jesus might love you."

That sounds more like a straw man. I don't know of anyone who is really Reformed who says that. I suppose you might have a few nutcases like Fred Phelps who might say something like that, but I am not speaking of fringe folks but the historic Reformed faith.

I do see two dangers that may come forth -- a hyper-Calvinistic tendency that puts up too many roadblocks for the proclamation of the gospel (but I don't think hyper-Calvinism should be confused with Reformed Christianity), and neo-Arminian tendency that might lead to a false assurance of salvation (or worse: if God loves me anyway, why do I have the need to come to Christ and repent?). Both are dangerous and both are distortions of the gospel.

 

[toddpedlar]

I'm beginning to see why reformed Christianity is weak at evangelism.
To a sinner of most any stripe:" God probably hates you but because I don't know for sure, Jesus might love you."

Meanwhile the pentecostal preacher says to the riff raff, I don't care who you are or what you have done. God want to save you now.

As Josh noted, no Reformed person in his right mind would say what you have asserted. Cut it out.

As for your quotation from the pentecostal preacher, it's certainly true that they often say such things, and it's a misleading statement for him to do so, because he is not endued with knowledge about who is or is not elect. Since he doesn't, he shouldn't assert such things as he does in your above quote.

Rather, what both should say is that all mankind are born in a state of brokenness and there is only one way to heal the breach and come to a right relationship with God - Jesus Christ, who gave His life to save His people from their sins.

We must never avoid difficult conversations (like "well you say He died to save His people - what about me?") by twisting or misrepresenting the truth. We should, rather, be prepared to trumpet the grace of God to save men and women like you and me, and be willing to engage in the difficult conversations that can come about when the truth is faithfully presented.

 

[toddpedlar]

Success in evangelism, by the way, Johnny, comes not through gaining professions of faith, but by faithfully professing the truth, no matter HOW many come.

 

[Jeff Allen]

I was using hyperbole and didn,t not mean to offend and I was speaking mainly of myself. I lived in the gay ghetto of Long Beach for many years and saw horrible behavior. It was very easy to write these people off. I wondered why a earthquake did not swallow up the gay pride parade. I know this was a sinful attitute on my part to assume that their sin was worst than mine in God's sights.

Lets be honest? How many of us have written people off?

 

[Ivan]

Reformed Christianity weak in evangelism. Ever hear of Judson, Carey, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones? How 'bout MacArthur, Mohler, Piper, Duncan, etc.?

Weak? Hardly.

BTW, Todd nailed it in post #55.

-----Added 6/30/2009 at 12:18:49 EST-----

Lets be honest? How many of us have written people off?

Not one.

 

[Prufrock]

I was using hyperbole and didn,t not mean to offend and I was speaking mainly of myself. I lived in the gay ghetto of Long Beach for many years and saw horrible behavior. It was very easy to write these people off. I wondered why a earthquake did not swallow up the gay pride parade. I know this was a sinful attitute on my part to assume that their sin was worst than mine in God's sights.

Lets be honest? How many of us have written people off?

If we have done so, it has nothing to do with (or rather, is wholly opposed to) our Reformed theology which from scripture assumes the total depravity of man, God's free election and Christ's irresistible grace. I would submit its the preacher of free-will that has the greater propensity to "write people off."

The gospel the Reformed preach is "See here Christ offered for sinners, freely and graciously -- though you be the most vile sinner on earth, here stands Christ ready to receive and save if you but turn and place your faith in him." This is a far cry from "God probably hates you."

 

[Jeff Allen]

More honesty: When I think that as a foolish Christian I went into Mormonism and engaged in horrific temple ceremonies making fun of the biblical God ( As time goes by it just seems worst and worst) I can't tell if I,m elect. I would not choose myself. Actually it is eating me alive.

 

[Prufrock]

Johnny, do not try to speculate as to whether you are elect: there is only one question to ask yourself -- is Christ mine? Do you cling to him? If you do, beholding that free promise in Christ, then you see as it were the mirror of your election. I would recommend talking to your pastor about this.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

I'm beginning to see why reformed Christianity is weak at evangelism.
To a sinner of most any stripe:" God probably hates you but because I don't know for sure, Jesus might love you."

Meanwhile the pentecostal preacher says to the riff raff, I don't care who you are or what you have done. God want to save you now.

In my opinion, reformed thoughts and theology generally provide the strongest converts because it reveals a more complete Gospel as opposed to some youth conference where we talk down and aisle and say a prayer.

You must understand why the just and righteous hatred God has exists, and why it must be corrected. God hates sinners, but for what purpose? Because you're evil. Seriously, we're wicked. God hates us for our sin, and for suppressing the truth. Who upon realization of their depravity is going to want to know that an omnipotent God who has a furious, perfect and immense hatred for everything you are wants to stay that way?

We are saved from the wrath of God. If I was not a Christian and someone put it to me that God hates me amending that would be on the first of my list, at least I would assume if I was still my same persona.

Sinners in the hands of an angry God, anyone?

 

[VilnaGaon]

Getting back to the original topic, would one say that the Hatred of God towards the Reprobate is different from human hatred in that it is devoid of passions, whereas our hatred(s) are tainted with sinful passions?

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

Getting back to the original topic, would one say that the Hatred of God towards the Reprobate is different from human hatred in that it is devoid of passions, whereas our hatred(s) are tainted with sinful passions?

Absolutely.
God's hatred is one that is just, perfect, pure, and righteous. He being perfect, must hate imperfection, He being righteous, must hate unrighteousness.
This is something beyond our comprehension for we are not to attain this status of perfection or pure righteousness, for us to hate this way would be impossible.

It also further goes to show the graciousness of God's towards His elect.

 

[Spinningplates2]

I think it could be said that God hates the "non-Elect" only. Because we were all sinners and scripture is clear that "While we were still in our sins He loved us first; then Called us, then changed us." ( I know this is a mix of two verses.)

God loving the elect is nothing to be proud or a reason to boast. He has every right to hate me. I hate myself when I think how unpure and imperfect I am when compared to Him and His example of love.

That is why we can say, "I know that God hates the wicked, I thank God for Grace because without it He would hate me too."

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

I think it could be said that God hates the "non-Elect" only. Because we were all sinners and scripture is clear that "While we were still in our sins He loved us first; then Called us, then changed us." ( I know this is a mix of two verses.)

God loving the elect is noting to be proud or a reason to boast. He has every right to hate me. I hate myself when I think how unpure and imperfect I am when compared to Him and His example of love.

That is why we can say, "I know that God hates the wicked, I thank God for Grace because without it He would hate me too."

To clarify, are you saying that before the elect are regenerated, they are not hated by God?
If this is what you are saying, I would disagree. Regardless if one is elect, before one is regenerated, they are everything God hates.

And I believe you are mixing Romans 5:8 with Ephesians 1:3-7 in multiple parts.
God performed an act of gracious love towards us, yet the question was does God personally hate unregenerated people? And I answered with a yes.
At least that's my take on this.

 

[toddpedlar]

I think it could be said that God hates the "non-Elect" only. Because we were all sinners and scripture is clear that "While we were still in our sins He loved us first; then Called us, then changed us." ( I know this is a mix of two verses.)

God loving the elect is noting to be proud or a reason to boast. He has every right to hate me. I hate myself when I think how unpure and imperfect I am when compared to Him and His example of love.

That is why we can say, "I know that God hates the wicked, I thank God for Grace because without it He would hate me too."

To clarify, are you saying that before the elect are regenerated, they are not hated by God?
If this is what you are saying, I would disagree. Regardless if one is elect, before one is regenerated, they are everything God hates.

Maybe you should show some Scriptural support for your position?

 

[Peairtach]

I'm in a bit of a hurry, but would those of you who believe that there is no common grace, say that the Gospel comes to the non-elect in hate?

Also if the elect can be objects of God's wrath in some sense before their conversion, surely the reprobate can be objects of God's grace in some sense in this life.

 

[toddpedlar]

I'm in a bit of a hurry, but would those of you who believe that there is no common grace, say that the Gospel comes to the non-elect in hate?

How is it "grace" when all the gospel does for the unregenerate is stumble them and cause them to more deeply trust in themselves and their own autonomous status?

Also if the elect can be objects of God's wrath in some sense before their conversion, surely the reprobate can be objects of God's grace in some sense in this life.

We can debate what it means for the elect being objects of God's wrath before conversion in a different thread.

However, in regard to this particular situation, if the Bible said the reprobate were objects of God's grace in some sense in this life, then we'd have to agree. But it doesn't. You can't argue from the existence of statements which seem to call the unregenerate elect objects of God's wrath prior to conversion that the contrary must therefore be true. That's a simple logical fallacy.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

I think it could be said that God hates the "non-Elect" only. Because we were all sinners and scripture is clear that "While we were still in our sins He loved us first; then Called us, then changed us." ( I know this is a mix of two verses.)

God loving the elect is noting to be proud or a reason to boast. He has every right to hate me. I hate myself when I think how unpure and imperfect I am when compared to Him and His example of love.

That is why we can say, "I know that God hates the wicked, I thank God for Grace because without it He would hate me too."

To clarify, are you saying that before the elect are regenerated, they are not hated by God?
If this is what you are saying, I would disagree. Regardless if one is elect, before one is regenerated, they are everything God hates.

Maybe you should show some Scriptural support for your position?

There is only so far as I can go, it does extend into philosophy as I stated in my original post.

What is an unregenerate Christian but everything God hates? A worker of iniquity, wicked, sinful, a person who commits deeds as good as menstrual cloths, self righteous, a person who walks in the flesh.
THese are all things God hates, and this is all an unregenerate Christian is, what is there for God to love in a person who is everything He hates and has nothing of Himself in there?

The main source of this statement is based in Psalm 5:5 "You hate those who perform iniquity."

 

[toddpedlar]

To clarify, are you saying that before the elect are regenerated, they are not hated by God?
If this is what you are saying, I would disagree. Regardless if one is elect, before one is regenerated, they are everything God hates.

Maybe you should show some Scriptural support for your position?

There is only so far as I can go, it does extend into philosophy as I stated in my original post.

If you've not got Scriptural support for such a position, then you'd probably better examine whether you can rightly hold that position, all philosophical gerrymandering to the contrary.

What is an unregenerate Christian but everything God hates? A worker of iniquity, wicked, sinful, a person who commits deeds as good as menstrual cloths, self righteous, a person who walks in the flesh.

THese are all things God hates, and this is all an unregenerate Christian is, what is there for God to love in a person who is everything He hates and has nothing of Himself in there?

The main source of this statement is based in Psalm 5:5 "You hate those who perform iniquity."

But again, you need to deal with the clear statement that has already been quoted - that is, that God loved us even while we were still in our sins (i.e. unregenerate). The clear places in Scripture need to hold sway over the not-so-clear, and help you interpret the other places.

 

[Confessor]

To clarify, are you saying that before the elect are regenerated, they are not hated by God?
If this is what you are saying, I would disagree. Regardless if one is elect, before one is regenerated, they are everything God hates.

If this were the case -- if God has nothing but hatred for all unregenerates (without discriminating between elect and reprobate) -- then no one would be saved.

A distinction must be made between God's love of persons and of their actions. Yes, the "God hates the sin but loves the sinner" statement rears its ugly head.

God loves the elect as persons from eternity, but hates all their evil actions. God hates both the reprobates' persons and actions from eternity. This, and this alone from what I have seen, accounts for all the Scriptural evidence. But if I am mistaken I would appreciate correction.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

To clarify, are you saying that before the elect are regenerated, they are not hated by God?
If this is what you are saying, I would disagree. Regardless if one is elect, before one is regenerated, they are everything God hates.

If this were the case -- if God has nothing but hatred for all unregenerates (without discriminating between elect and reprobate) -- then no one would be saved.

A distinction must be made between God's love of persons and of their actions. Yes, the "God hates the sin but loves the sinner" statement rears its ugly head.

God loves the elect as persons from eternity, but hates all their evil actions. God hates both the reprobates' persons and actions from eternity. This, and this alone from what I have seen, accounts for all the Scriptural evidence. But if I am mistaken I would appreciate correction.

God's righteous and just hatred towards reprobates is deserved.
I am not speaking if God can act lovingly towards us, God does act lovingly towards us, that's why we have Christ, obviously. However, I am speaking of a personal hatred of sinners. Romans 5:8 and John 3:16 are only expressions of gracious undeserved love towards sinners but does not constitute a personal deep affection and love for the reprobate.

In my opinion, God did send Christ for the sinners, in order that He might be able to fully love us completely for our sin is justified by the blood of Christ and we are no longer seen before the Father as what we formerly were which enables untainted pure love for He willingly sees not our sin because it has been justified.

Scripture supports that God does do thing in and out of love, because God simply is love, but God is also more than love. I need not lecture you on this subject, however I am not aware of God loving an unregenerate person in a personal deep affection as He does a regenerate. I don't think it can continue to fit the nature of God to personally love an unregenerate because if God were to personally love that person, He is personally loving all that He hates.
And I emphasize the word "personal" for a reason.

There is no such creature. There may be one who is elect, but not regenerate, but there is no unregenerate Christian, in the proper sense of the word.

This is correct, I did not mean to say unregenerate Christian. I know there is no such thing, this is the proverbial Freudian slip.

 

[Confessor]

In my opinion, God did send Christ for the sinners, in order that He might be able to fully love us completely for our sin is justified by the blood of Christ and we are no longer seen before the Father as what we formerly were which enables untainted pure love for He willingly sees not our sin because it has been justified.

Here's the problem: the Bible nowhere says that God does all these things for us so that He might love us, but because He loves us. God's love for all His elect, regenerate and unregenerate, is the cause of His actions, not the effect.

Romans 5:8 -- but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

God cannot show His love to us thusly unless love is the cause.

-----Added 6/30/2009 at 04:13:12 EST-----

Also, for the record, I deny common grace. I like to term it "providential benevolence" as John Gill says; it's merely fattening the cattle for destruction.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

In my opinion, God did send Christ for the sinners, in order that He might be able to fully love us completely for our sin is justified by the blood of Christ and we are no longer seen before the Father as what we formerly were which enables untainted pure love for He willingly sees not our sin because it has been justified.

Here's the problem: the Bible nowhere says that God does all these things for us so that He might love us, but because He loves us. God's love for all His elect, regenerate and unregenerate, is the cause of His actions, not the effect.

Romans 5:8 -- but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

God cannot show His love to us thusly unless love is the cause.

-----Added 6/30/2009 at 04:13:12 EST-----

Also, for the record, I deny common grace. I like to term it "providential benevolence" as John Gill says; it's merely fattening the cattle for destruction.

What the Bible does say though is that God does hate people who perform iniquity/sin.

I can not comprehend God righteously and justly maintaining His position as perfect, just, holy, and righteous while having a personal love and affection for those whom are as Christ said "Children of Satan", objects of His wrath, and are everything He is not. The reason this does not function in my mind is because God is partaking and loving something contrary to Himself because there is nothing more to the object He would be loving than everything He isn't.
There is nothing more to an unregenerate than sin. I don't see how God can love a person who is nothing more than wicked and sinful. I can understand God has done evidences of love and grace towards that person in order that He might love them to create unity, but I do not theologically understand what you are attempting to hold to.