God's Hatred

Status
Not open for further replies.
What the Bible does say though is that God does hate people who perform iniquity/sin.

Although I'm not sure of this explanation, the Psalms often refer to the elect as "the righteous" and reprobates as "the wicked"; therefore I am inclined to interpret Psalm 5:5 as referring to reprobates only. But I would appreciate others' input on that.

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.

That's what makes grace grace. God does not love us as a result of anything good in us, but only because He has freely chosen to do so. There is absolutely nothing in us that would prompt God to love us. It is His choice.
 
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.

You might not be able to see how God can love a person who is nothing more than wicked and sinful... but Scripture plainly says that he loves his elect with an everlasting love. One reason you can't understand this is because you're finite, just like me and you have never elected anyone, something God did before the foundation of the world. I can't understand it, either, but Scripture is clear about the relationship between God and His elect, and that he LOVES them prior to their being regenerate. When Scripture speaks, we must listen, whether our finite brains can wrap themselves around the concept or not.

Furthermore, you're not quite correct when you say there is nothing more to an unregenerate than sin. If that unregenerate is elect, then there IS more to him than simply sin... there is election... and calling... and justification...and sanctification...and glorification - all fruit of the eternal electing love of God. FAR MORE than sin - God's mark was placed on that unregenerate prior to the foundation of the World. To say that there is nothing more than sin to that unregenerate elect person is to denigrate God's eternal purpose and miss a fundamental truth about God's redemptive work.
 
That's what makes grace grace. God does not love us as a result of anything good in us, but only because He has freely chosen to do so. There is absolutely nothing in us that would prompt God to love us. It is His choice.
And I agree, and I believe that because of grace which declares us righteous in the eys of God which permits God to love us fully and unconditionally. I'm just suggesting that before justification such a pure act of love is not conceivable for it creates a separation from God judicially, at least until justification occurs.

Then what does it mean when the Bible says that God loved Jacob, yet hated Esau, before either were born or had done good or bad? What does it mean when the Scriptures say that God has loved us with an everlasting love? When has God's disposition changed toward His elect?
I am not aware of the "before the birth" aspect being recorded, I (quickly) just skimmed Malachi 1 and Romans 9. And for what reason did God love Jacob? My answer would be a form of justification which would enable this. But that's actually getting a little too technical for me to strongly stand and debate.

You might not be able to see how God can love a person who is nothing more than wicked and sinful... but Scripture plainly says that he loves his elect with an everlasting love. One reason you can't understand this is because you're finite, just like me and you have never elected anyone, something God did before the foundation of the world. I can't understand it, either, but Scripture is clear about the relationship between God and His elect, and that he LOVES them prior to their being regenerate. When Scripture speaks, we must listen, whether our finite brains can wrap themselves around the concept or not.

Furthermore, you're not quite correct when you say there is nothing more to an unregenerate than sin. If that unregenerate is elect, then there IS more to him than simply sin... there is election... and calling... and justification...and sanctification...and glorification - all fruit of the eternal electing love of God. FAR MORE than sin - God's mark was placed on that unregenerate prior to the foundation of the World. To say that there is nothing more than sin to that unregenerate elect person is to denigrate God's eternal purpose and miss a fundamental truth about God's redemptive work.
And I do believe God loves the elect with an everlasting love, simply from the point at which that love was out poured in a personal way, which is at the moment of regeneration/justification. Not to confuse the two, they're just so instantaneous and close in the happening.

I would also like Scripture supporting as to where God has a personal love for the elect before the point of justification. I am only aware of demonstrations of love, but not a true personal love.

And where as you're technically correct regarding your second paragraph. I would still suggest that even though there are elect reprobates, before the moment of conversion of the reprobate occurs, there is no justification or glorification. Justification being the required act for a true personal love from God the Father, in my opinion.

I'm trying to remain open minded in this, so if I seem difficult I apologize. I am trying hard to explain my points in clarity.
 
I am inclined to believe that God does not love the reprobate. They have clearly turned their backs on him, spit on him, and disregarded his commands, though they carry authority in themselves.

One common objection I receive from various friends when discussing the subject is: what about the fact that God doesn't just destroy the reprobate upon creating them? He lets them live, enjoy life, have children, have earthly pleasures, and so on.

My response is that it is not love nor grace to allow a desperately wicked person to live on, continuously breaking God's commands and bringing more and more hell upon himself.

1 John 4:19 says "We love because he first loved us." From this we can draw the principle that there are persons that God does not love:

1. If S loves, then God first loved S.
2. S does not love. (Think of any person who is not loving.)
3. Therefore, God did not first love S.
 
That's what makes grace grace. God does not love us as a result of anything good in us, but only because He has freely chosen to do so. There is absolutely nothing in us that would prompt God to love us. It is His choice.
And I agree, and I believe that because of grace which declares us righteous in the eys of God which permits God to love us fully and unconditionally. I'm just suggesting that before justification such a pure act of love is not conceivable for it creates a separation from God judicially, at least until justification occurs.

Then what does it mean when the Bible says that God loved Jacob, yet hated Esau, before either were born or had done good or bad? What does it mean when the Scriptures say that God has loved us with an everlasting love? When has God's disposition changed toward His elect?
I am not aware of the "before the birth" aspect being recorded, I (quickly) just skimmed Malachi 1 and Romans 9. And for what reason did God love Jacob? My answer would be a form of justification which would enable this. But that's actually getting a little too technical for me to strongly stand and debate.

You might not be able to see how God can love a person who is nothing more than wicked and sinful... but Scripture plainly says that he loves his elect with an everlasting love. One reason you can't understand this is because you're finite, just like me and you have never elected anyone, something God did before the foundation of the world. I can't understand it, either, but Scripture is clear about the relationship between God and His elect, and that he LOVES them prior to their being regenerate. When Scripture speaks, we must listen, whether our finite brains can wrap themselves around the concept or not.

Furthermore, you're not quite correct when you say there is nothing more to an unregenerate than sin. If that unregenerate is elect, then there IS more to him than simply sin... there is election... and calling... and justification...and sanctification...and glorification - all fruit of the eternal electing love of God. FAR MORE than sin - God's mark was placed on that unregenerate prior to the foundation of the World. To say that there is nothing more than sin to that unregenerate elect person is to denigrate God's eternal purpose and miss a fundamental truth about God's redemptive work.
And I do believe God loves the elect with an everlasting love, simply from the point at which that love was out poured in a personal way, which is at the moment of regeneration/justification.

On what basis do you believe this? Where in Scripture is this kind of thing spoken of? (I don't mean regeneration/justification, but this "turning on" of love).

Not to confuse the two, they're just so instantaneous and close in the happening.

I would also like Scripture supporting as to where God has a personal love for the elect before the point of justification. I am only aware of demonstrations of love, but not a true personal love.

And where as you're technically correct regarding your second paragraph. I would still suggest that even though there are elect reprobates, before the moment of conversion of the reprobate occurs, there is no justification or glorification.

There is no such thing as an elect reprobate. Reprobation is the diametric opposite of election. You meant unregenerate, of course, but your confusion of terms makes discussing this very challenging.

Justification being the required act for a true personal love from God the Father, in my opinion.

Justification is a fruit of God's love, not the other way around. God's love is as true and as personal as it can be - he knows his elect from conception, as Jeremiah says.

I'm trying to remain open minded in this, so if I seem difficult I apologize. I am trying hard to explain my points in clarity.

I would suggest taking a look at something like Sproul's "What is the Reformed Faith" and/or other books before going too much further on in this conversation. There are a lot of places wherein statements you've made conflict with themselves, or with important fundamentals of the Reformed Faith.
 
That's what makes grace grace. God does not love us as a result of anything good in us, but only because He has freely chosen to do so. There is absolutely nothing in us that would prompt God to love us. It is His choice.
And I agree, and I believe that because of grace which declares us righteous in the eys of God which permits God to love us fully and unconditionally. I'm just suggesting that before justification such a pure act of love is not conceivable for it creates a separation from God judicially, at least until justification occurs.

Then what does it mean when the Bible says that God loved Jacob, yet hated Esau, before either were born or had done good or bad? What does it mean when the Scriptures say that God has loved us with an everlasting love? When has God's disposition changed toward His elect?
I am not aware of the "before the birth" aspect being recorded, I (quickly) just skimmed Malachi 1 and Romans 9. And for what reason did God love Jacob? My answer would be a form of justification which would enable this. But that's actually getting a little too technical for me to strongly stand and debate.

You might not be able to see how God can love a person who is nothing more than wicked and sinful... but Scripture plainly says that he loves his elect with an everlasting love. One reason you can't understand this is because you're finite, just like me and you have never elected anyone, something God did before the foundation of the world. I can't understand it, either, but Scripture is clear about the relationship between God and His elect, and that he LOVES them prior to their being regenerate. When Scripture speaks, we must listen, whether our finite brains can wrap themselves around the concept or not.

Furthermore, you're not quite correct when you say there is nothing more to an unregenerate than sin. If that unregenerate is elect, then there IS more to him than simply sin... there is election... and calling... and justification...and sanctification...and glorification - all fruit of the eternal electing love of God. FAR MORE than sin - God's mark was placed on that unregenerate prior to the foundation of the World. To say that there is nothing more than sin to that unregenerate elect person is to denigrate God's eternal purpose and miss a fundamental truth about God's redemptive work.
And I do believe God loves the elect with an everlasting love, simply from the point at which that love was out poured in a personal way, which is at the moment of regeneration/justification. Not to confuse the two, they're just so instantaneous and close in the happening.

I would also like Scripture supporting as to where God has a personal love for the elect before the point of justification. I am only aware of demonstrations of love, but not a true personal love.

And where as you're technically correct regarding your second paragraph. I would still suggest that even though there are elect reprobates, before the moment of conversion of the reprobate occurs, there is no justification or glorification. Justification being the required act for a true personal love from God the Father, in my opinion.

I'm trying to remain open minded in this, so if I seem difficult I apologize. I am trying hard to explain my points in clarity.

The very source of divine love abides within the Godhead; specifically consisting of the love the Father has for the Son. The elect chosen by the Father are loved only because they are "accepted in the Beloved." Thus, this love and this election is completely unconditional upon the elect's actions or decisions or any virtues or merit. The "reason" God loves us is because He loves His Son, and has willed to bless us, in Him.

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him, in love having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved." Ephesians 1:3-6

-----Added 6/30/2009 at 05:19:24 EST-----

I am inclined to believe that God does not love the reprobate. They have clearly turned their backs on him, spit on him, and disregarded his commands, though they carry authority in themselves.

God does not love the reprobate, because they are not blessed and chosen in the Son. They remain rejected by God, and are not "accepted in the Beloved," as are the elect sons of God. (See Ephesians 1:3-6)

One common objection I receive from various friends when discussing the subject is: what about the fact that God doesn't just destroy the reprobate upon creating them? He lets them live, enjoy life, have children, have earthly pleasures, and so on.

God has purpose for allowing reprobates to live; namely, the salvation of His people, and making a full "measurement of sin" in order to forever eliminate all sin:

". . The Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment . . .the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation . . ." II Peter 2:9; 3:15

". . Who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost." I Thessalonians 2:15-16

"Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?" Matthew 23:32-33


My response is that it is not love nor grace to allow a desperately wicked person to live on, continuously breaking God's commands and bringing more and more hell upon himself.

Correct. In actuality, God is heaping coals upon their heads! (e.g. Romans 12:20)
 
On what basis do you believe this? Where in Scripture is this kind of thing spoken of? (I don't mean regeneration/justification, but this "turning on" of love).
I do not have a verse in particular. Although I can not off the top of my head think of instances where God has personally loved those whom He has neither "found favor in," nor justified by some instance.

There is no such thing as an elect reprobate. Reprobation is the diametric opposite of election. You meant unregenerate, of course, but your confusion of terms makes discussing this very challenging.
I apologize, I have never used the term "reprobate" prior to this forum. I always assumed it was synonymous with just unregenerate, so I apologize for my misuse of the terms. I simply have always seen people as saved or sinner, reprobate has never been a term I've needed to use I suppose.

Justification is a fruit of God's love, not the other way around. God's love is as true and as personal as it can be - he knows his elect from conception, as Jeremiah says.
I would agree to a sense. That justification is an act of God's love and grace, although I would still adhere to that because people are justified as a fruit/act of God's love it does provide a more real way for God to love man to a more full extent.

I would suggest taking a look at something like Sproul's "What is the Reformed Faith" and/or other books before going too much further on in this conversation. There are a lot of places wherein statements you've made conflict with themselves, or with important fundamentals of the Reformed Faith.
Would you please send me a PM with a few examples of these? I am not always the best communicator on paper, when I verbally debate I am more collected and I can explain things more. I'm sure for every seemingly confliction I have a means to clarify it by some manner.

The elect chosen by the Father are loved only because they are "accepted in the Beloved." Thus, this love and this election is completely unconditional upon the elect's actions or decisions or any virtues or merit. The "reason" God loves us is because He loves His Son, and has willed to bless us, in Him.
I think this is what I am saying... That we're only loved at the point of justification/regeneration because at that point we are adopted into the family and accepted in the Beloved, where as formerly while in our transgressions we are not.
 
That's what makes grace grace. God does not love us as a result of anything good in us, but only because He has freely chosen to do so. There is absolutely nothing in us that would prompt God to love us. It is His choice.
And I agree, and I believe that because of grace which declares us righteous in the eys of God which permits God to love us fully and unconditionally. I'm just suggesting that before justification such a pure act of love is not conceivable for it creates a separation from God judicially, at least until justification occurs.

...that means you don't agree. :) Jake, it's fairly simple: God loves us and therefore acts towards our good. Countless times in Scripture is the love of God the reason, the cause, why God helps us. There is simply no Scripture anywhere that supports the notion that God loves us as a result of our putting faith in Him. It's not as if He grudgingly regenerates us so He can get a good "payoff" at the end.

Otherwise, if you want to keep refusing the points being made here, please provide Scriptural evidence why God cannot love an unregenerate -- why something in the sinner must prompt God's love. (And if you can do that, please explain how you're still a Calvinist. :cool:)

I am not aware of the "before the birth" aspect being recorded, I (quickly) just skimmed Malachi 1 and Romans 9. And for what reason did God love Jacob? My answer would be a form of justification which would enable this. But that's actually getting a little too technical for me to strongly stand and debate.

No, the text says that it was "in order that God's purpose in election might stand" and it was irrespective of any good or bad they had done (which would include putting faith in a coming Messiah and being justified thereby). The reason was wholly within Himself; His grace was completely and utterly free.

I would also like Scripture supporting as to where God has a personal love for the elect before the point of justification. I am only aware of demonstrations of love, but not a true personal love.

There can be no distinction between "demonstrations of love" and a "true personal love." God does not have non-volitional dispositions. There is no such thing as God acting lovingly without actually loving.

-----Added 6/30/2009 at 05:41:13 EST-----

1 John 4:19 says "We love because he first loved us." From this we can draw the principle that there are persons that God does not love:

1. If S loves, then God first loved S.
2. S does not love. (Think of any person who is not loving.)
3. Therefore, God did not first love S.

I think you meant to have 1. be "If God first loved S, then S loves." Otherwise you'd be denying the antecedent.

If I say that I do X because of Y, then I am saying that Y is the sufficient cause of X; i.e. "if Y then X." Therefore 1 John 4:19 should teach "If God first loved S, then S loves."

That being said, God's first loving us is also a necessary cause of our loving Him, and therefore your 1. is not false. But nonetheless that's not the premise you want for your argument.
 
I would also like Scripture supporting as to where God has a personal love for the elect before the point of justification.

It would appear that verses 4 & 5 are just what the doctor ordered.

Eph 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins
Eph 2:2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience--
Eph 2:3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
Eph 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,
Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved--
 
Also, I'd like to correct what I previously said about Psalm 5:5. It is not the case that Psalms generally refer to the elect as "righteous" and the reprobates as "wicked"; rather, they refer to regenerates as "righteous" and unregenerates as "wicked." You were right about this, Jake, and in retrospect it seems foolish for me to say that "righteous" comprises both regenerate and unregenerate elected individuals. (I know I wasn't righteous in any sense before conversion!)

In this case, it would mean that God loves the unregenerate elect in some sense (Romans 5:8 etc.), yet He hates the unregenerate elect in another sense (Psalm 5:5). My distinction between actions and persons does not do justice to the text.

So then, in what respects does God love the unregenerate elect? Well, ultimately, He brings them to repentance and justification. In what respects does He hate them? Prior to their conversion, wrath still looms over their heads (they are "children of wrath") and legally speaking they are the ones who have to pay for their own sins -- i.e., until they put their faith in Christ. I think the foremost aspect of God's hatred for the unregenerate elect is that He punishes them for their sin, perhaps "breaking their jaws" (cf. Psalm 3:7) as a means of bringing them to repentance. And ultimately, that is what I would say God's "hatred" of the unregenerate elect is referring to.

But of course, this does not mean that there is some ambivalence or dissonance in the Godhead; it merely entails that the sense in which God hates unregenerates (as noted in the Psalms) is that He brings punishment upon them. His eternal love of the elect and His eternal hatred of the reprobates are different from the "hate" mentioned in Psalm 5:5.

At least, that is the best way I see that avoids contradiction. Again, though, I am up for correction if I am in error.

-----Added 6/30/2009 at 06:02:09 EST-----

:welcome: Nomad!
 
Also, I'd like to correct what I previously said about Psalm 5:5. It is not the case that Psalms generally refer to the elect as "righteous" and the reprobates as "wicked"; rather, they refer to regenerates as "righteous" and unregenerates as "wicked." You were right about this, Jake, and in retrospect it seems foolish for me to say that "righteous" comprises both regenerate and unregenerate elected individuals. (I know I wasn't righteous in any sense before conversion!)

In this case, it would mean that God loves the unregenerate elect in some sense (Romans 5:8 etc.), yet He hates the unregenerate elect in another sense (Psalm 5:5). My distinction between actions and persons does not do justice to the text.

So then, in what respects does God love the unregenerate elect? Well, ultimately, He brings them to repentance and justification. In what respects does He hate them? Prior to their conversion, wrath still looms over their heads (they are "children of wrath") and legally speaking they are the ones who have to pay for their own sins -- i.e., until they put their faith in Christ. I think the foremost aspect of God's hatred for the unregenerate elect is that He punishes them for their sin, perhaps "breaking their jaws" (cf. Psalm 3:7) as a means of bringing them to repentance. And ultimately, that is what I would say God's "hatred" of the unregenerate elect is referring to.

But of course, this does not mean that there is some ambivalence or dissonance in the Godhead; it merely entails that the sense in which God hates unregenerates (as noted in the Psalms) is that He brings punishment upon them. His eternal love of the elect and His eternal hatred of the reprobates are different from the "hate" mentioned in Psalm 5:5.

At least, that is the best way I see that avoids contradiction. Again, though, I am up for correction if I am in error.

-----Added 6/30/2009 at 06:02:09 EST-----

:welcome: Nomad!
This is something I can agree with you on.

What are your thoughts concerning this and reprobates?
 
Welcome, Nomad. As a new PB member (first post!), you will need to add a signature to your posts. If you click on the link in my signature below, you will see how to do that (it's easy). Please do so, so that we can find out more about you!
 
This is something I can agree with you on.

What are your thoughts concerning this and reprobates?

First, as I implied above, I would say the hatred spoken of in the Psalms is towards unregenerates indiscriminately (i.e. towards both elect and reprobate unregenerates). Therefore the eternal love and hatred of the Father towards the elect and reprobate, respectively, is not really in the scope of such passages as Psalm 5:5. And, lastly, I would say that every single event on earth, every action in God's perfect providence, proceeds to further the glory of the elect (including unregenerates) and the destruction of the reprobate, and in that sense are God's eternal love and hatred manifested.
 
Now excuse me as this is my first "real" thread and I did not take the time to search for anything regarding this, but I would care to ask the question:

Does God hate unrepentant sinners?

My answer resides as yes.
This is why:

What does God hate?
Wickedness
Sin
Those who perform iniquity. (Psalm 5:5)
(I am assuming) The suppression of truth and His righteousness (Romans 1)

Now, what do unrepentant sinners do?:
Wickedness
Sin
All things against God
Iniquity
Suppress the truth and His righteousness.

Furthermore:
What more is there for God to live in the individual? What good is there to an unrepentant sinner? Absolutely nothing, nothing but wickedness and everything God hates. What can God possibly personally love towards a person who is nothing short of everything He hates?

For purpose of my arguments, as I see that I am perhaps the youngest poster on this forum, you all seem to be in seminary and college and far wiser and intelligent than me. I suppose I don't have to bring up the Greek text of John 3:16 which is only a demonstration of God's love towards ill deserving sinners such as you and me, and the same goes for Romans 5:8.

I have never seen a verse in the Bible suggesting God has a personal love for unrepentant sinners.

And this "hatred" I am attempting to debate is not one of our comprehension for any such hatred would be pure, perfect, righteous, and just in every way beyond ways our fallible, sinful selves and comprehend.

Thoughts?

I'm not going to get sidetracked into the discussion of common grace. But I should point out to you that the elect, before their conversion, are everything you describe above. You must be careful of positing an impossibility in God personally loving a sinner (I realize you said unrepentant, but until the moment we repent we are all unrepentant), because the elect are sinners. And so Paul, the chief of sinners, can say that Christ loved him, personally. Our predestination springs from God's love, and it is because God loves sinners that Christ died for them.
 
Jake,

He's not. He may give them gifts, but God does it only for the purpose of their destruction. I believe it was John Gill who likened it to fattening cattle for the slaughter.
 
Jake,

He's not. He may give them gifts, but God does it only for the purpose of their destruction. I believe it was John Gill who likened it to fattening cattle for the slaughter.

Er.. I guess I am a little confused. Are you saying God loves them to destroy them?
 
There were/are many reprobates in the Covenant. Does God not love them in any sense?

God expressed His love for Old Covenant Israel many times, of which many were reprobate. Christ wept over Jerusalem (circa A.D. 30); how many of them were elect?

Someone might say that in His human nature Christ loved the regenerate, while in His divine nature He had nothing but hatred for them. But surely His human nature reflects and reveals something of the divine?

Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? (John 14:8-9).

Van Til wrote a book defending Common Grace, "Common Grace and the Gospel". In the light of the present discussion, I hope to get a copy. Gary North disagreed with Van Til and said that God had nothing but hatred for the reprobate from all eternity.

Just because we can't understand how God can hate the wicked elect in some sense before they are converted, and love the wicked reprobate in some sense before they are punished in Hell, does not mean that such love and hate in God is not possible.

Are we trying to put God's love/hate in theological boxes?
 
Van Til could offer no cogent argument to support his notion that God loves reprobates in some sense. As regarding the well-meant offer, it is an outright contradiction to say that God desires that which He has decreed will not occur. It is likewise a contradiction to say that God has benevolent intentions when He adds to reprobates' condemnation.

Otherwise, if you think Scripture teaches it in places, please cite the verses.
 
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.

Being as we were Elect before the foundations of time I do not worry about when God placed His undeserving love upon me. I am always remided though that God loves me for no reason of my own. Anything a personal God does is by definition personal.
 
Reformed Christianity weak in evangelism. Ever hear of Judson, Carey, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones? How 'bout MacArthur, Mohler, Piper, Duncan, etc.?

Yep. And Carey is considered to be the Father of Modern Missions.

-----Added 6/30/2009 at 10:59:35 EST-----

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."?

:deadhorse:

Romans 9 Young's Literal Translation

10 And not only so, but also Rebecca, having conceived by one -- Isaac our father -- 11 (for they being not yet born, neither having done anything good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to choice, might remain; not of works, but of Him who is calling,) it was said to her -- 12 'The greater shall serve the less;' 13 according as it hath been written, 'Jacob I did love, and Esau I did hate.'

It seems to me to get into the whole counsel of God. If I may sum it up without the intention of rewriting the Scripture: He hates those (unelect) who perform iniquity.

Is that over simplifying it guys?
 
Sorry to backtrack a bit, and I don't mean to sidetrack either, but I don't understand how the rain on the just and unjust can be counted as grace (proponents of easy grace seem to constantly point to this example).

That both prosper due to the rain is not common grace; many a man has drowned with his pockets full of gold - the rain on the unjust may easily be a judgment in that it both fulfills and causes him to focus on his temporal goals. He follows that rabbit trail to its end in damnation. Where's the grace? To me, it's an odd example, and denigrates what 'grace' really conveys.

Mr. Henry's opinion on the matter:

v. 45. Note, First, Sunshine and rain are great blessings to the world, and they come from God. It is his sun that shines, and the rain is sent by him. They do not come of course, or by chance, but from God. Secondly, Common mercies must be valued as instances and proofs of the goodness of God, who in them shows himself a bountiful Benefactor to the world of mankind, who would be very miserable without these favours, and are utterly unworthy of the least of them. Thirdly, These gifts of common providence are dispensed indifferently to good and evil, just and unjust; so that we cannot know love and hatred by what is before us, but by what is within us; not by the shining of the sun on our heads, but by the rising of the Sun of Righteousness in our hearts. Fourthly, The worst of men partake of the comforts of this life in common with others, though they abuse them, and fight against God with his own weapons; which is an amazing instance of God’s patience and bounty. It was but once that God forbade his sun to shine on the Egyptians, when the Israelites had light in their dwellings; God could make such a distinction every day. Fifthly, The gifts of God’s bounty to wicked men that are in rebellion against him, teach us to do good to those that hate us; especially considering, that though there is in us a carnal mind which is enmity to God, yet we share in his bounty. Sixthly, Those only will be accepted as the children of God, who study to resemble him, particularly in his goodness.
 
Sorry to backtrack a bit, and I don't mean to sidetrack either, but I don't understand how the rain on the just and unjust can be counted as grace (proponents of easy grace seem to constantly point to this example).

That both prosper due to the rain is not common grace; many a man has drowned with his pockets full of gold - the rain on the unjust may easily be a judgment in that it both fulfills and causes him to focus on his temporal goals. He follows that rabbit trail to its end in damnation. Where's the grace? To me, it's an odd example, and denigrates what 'grace' really conveys.

Yep! Should this thread have been called, "What is Grace?" :lol:

many a man has drowned with his pockets full of gold

A death row inmate may have steak and lobster as a last meal but it may as well be sardines and crackers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top