a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
Alleluia. Isn't it overwhelmingly wonderful to know, and to hope in eternally knowing, this God.
Gods love towards those in hell?
- Thread starter earl40
- Start date
- Status
Alleluia. Isn't it overwhelmingly wonderful to know, and to hope in eternally knowing, this God.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Amen.
But after I cited the above text, I thought that it doesn't really apply to the subject of the OP.
It's a very deep and mysterious thought (the OP), and I would have to contemplate it more, in order to speak about it at all. I'd rather bow out, until I have something to genuinely say about it.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Two more threads? I wonder if these things have been discussed on the PB before?
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
It has been quelled by Rev. Wintzer stating that satan is not a man. No offence meant to one my favorite teachers here. The problem is that satan is part of God's creation and His mercies are over all He creates. "The LORD is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made." So In my most humble opinion it is a fair question in that the answer would have to be that God "loves" satan. Now that sounds strange even if we say it is only a "love" considered as satan being a creation.
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
Richard, it is one of my favorite verses. I think the verse is applicable in a somewhat roundabout fashion (though I would wish to be corrected if I'm wrong). As to covenant administration, the things that are met at the cross are distinguishable and even seemingly opposed. It such a transcendent joy that they are reconciled on the cross because they are not distinct or opposed in God (who is as you cited above, simple and one). Indeed, if they were, there would be no hope of salvation for any of us.
The question in the OP seems to me to have the greatest difficulty in that I don't think people understand the ramifications to our hope when they attack the goodness and love of God in creation, and in His essence. And those ramifications do have impact, perhaps on some more than others.
Earl, it requires an inference based on a major and minor premise to come to the conclusion that God's goodness, mercy, love, etc., is extended towards Satan. The major is, God's mercy is over all His works. The minor is, Satan is one of God's works. The conclusion is that God's mercy is over Satan. It would be a perfectly valid conclusion if it could be guaranteed that the statement in the Psalm was intended to reflect an absolute state of affairs and was not written within the context of God's moral government in relation to men. As it stands, however, we know very little about this being which Scripture calls "Satan." Most of our understanding is already based on inferences. So I think it is wisest if we keep silent where Scripture is silent. As this thread has demonstrated, there are biblical principles at stake when we speak of God's relation to men in hell. These principles have no bearing on God's relation to Satan because the Scriptures were not written for him.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
I agree indeed the inference that men are sustained in hell for eternity can be predicated on God's "love" of the the unelect based on His mercy. Is this not also assuming that the psalmist is speaking of the person in hell? In other words, could this not also be a minor leap to assume the psalmist was speaking of the state of men in hell also?
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
I had to re-read the thread, but no where in this entire thread have I seen a solid definition of God's love toward the reprobate in Hell. What does it mean when someone says God "loves" those in hell?
I think it's interesting that in Psalm 5, David uses a contrast of Hate/love. "You hate all who do iniquity (v. 5)... but as for me, by your abundant lovingkindness I will enter your house(v. 7)". He does the same thing in Psalm 11 with verses 5 and 7, as well as, Psalm 45:7. Now you might say that it's God's Judicial hate/love. However, how do you separate one attribute for your own understanding with another attribute of God? (Honest question)
Also, what about passages in Genesis where it clearly shows a side of God (anthropomorphically) where He shouldn't have created men in the first place (Gen. 6:5-7)? Some could say that was before the flood, yet, those men too, were created in the image of God. We are still human, just as they were. And according to some, "What is hell that God's love should not be manifested there?" Yet, the presence of God doesn't always mean love. Scripture is clear of this.
So, like I asked, what is the definition of God's "love" toward those in hell? His presence wouldn't necessarily be the case, since He's executing judgment/wrath upon them.
I think it's interesting that in Psalm 5, David uses a contrast of Hate/love. "You hate all who do iniquity (v. 5)... but as for me, by your abundant lovingkindness I will enter your house(v. 7)". He does the same thing in Psalm 11 with verses 5 and 7, as well as, Psalm 45:7. Now you might say that it's God's Judicial hate/love. However, how do you separate one attribute for your own understanding with another attribute of God? (Honest question)
Also, what about passages in Genesis where it clearly shows a side of God (anthropomorphically) where He shouldn't have created men in the first place (Gen. 6:5-7)? Some could say that was before the flood, yet, those men too, were created in the image of God. We are still human, just as they were. And according to some, "What is hell that God's love should not be manifested there?" Yet, the presence of God doesn't always mean love. Scripture is clear of this.
So, like I asked, what is the definition of God's "love" toward those in hell? His presence wouldn't necessarily be the case, since He's executing judgment/wrath upon them.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
I believe it was Rev. Winzer who provided this insightful quote:
From the Scottish reformed tradition, Samuel Rutherford, Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himself (1803), p. 550:
There is a second love and mercy in God, by which he loves all men and angels, yea, even his enemies; makes the sun to shine on the unjust man, as well as the just, and causeth dew and rain to fall on the orchard and fields of the bloody and deceitful man, whom the Lord abhors; as Christ teacheth us, Mat. 5:43, 44, 45, 46,47, 48. Nor doth God miscarry in this love; he desires the eternal being of damned angels and men; he sends the gospel to many reprobates, and invites them to repentance, and, with longanimity and forbearance, suffereth pieces of froward dust to fill the measure of their iniquity; yet does not the Lord's general love fall short of what he willeth to them.
rbcbob
Puritan Board Graduate
I have been following this thread and considering the line of argument which posits that God loves the damned in hell because they are His image bearers. I am constrained to say that I find this argument problematic.
If nothing is added to the assertion to distinguish, in any way, the heart of God towards those whom He sent his Son to die for from those whom He passed over in their like sins then it cannot but diminish the glory due unto Him who so loved us that He gave his only begotten Son for our salvation.
As Reformed Christians we rightly assert that the Father saw nothing in us more than others which drew forth his redeeming love. It is only as He viewed us in Christ that we become the object of His distinguishing love. Such is the meaning of Αγαπη in the New Testament.
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),
(Eph 2:4-5 NKJ)
19 “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. …” (Rev 3:19 NKJ)
Calvin himself said-
“But it is indisputable that no one is loved by God apart from Christ”
-Calvin, Inst. 3.2.32
28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?
32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written: "For Your sake we are killed all day long; We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter." 37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
(Rom 8:28-39 NKJ)
Concerning the word love – Αγαπη The T.D.N.T. says-
“Particularly characteristic are the instances in which agapan takes on the meaning of “to prefer,” “to set one good or aim above another,” “to esteem one person more highly than another.” Thus agapan may be used of the preference of God for a particular man. The hgaphmenoj upo tou Qeou has a position of preference before God. He is blessed before God. He is blessed by God with particular gifts and possessions.
The specific nature of agapan becomes apparent at this point. Erwj is a general love of the world seeking satisfaction wherever it can. Agapan is a love which makes distinctions, choosing and keeping to its object. Erwj is determined by a more or less indefinite impulsion towards its object. Agapan is a free and decisive act determined by its subject.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol 1 pp. 36-37 [Trench, in his Synonyms of the New Testament brings out much the same distinctions]
That this distinguishing love of God is peculiar to elect angels and elect men seems more consistent with the language of our Confessions.
WCF 3.5 Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perserverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace. (WCF 3:5 WCS)
WCF 17.2 This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them; and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof. (WCF 17:2 WCS)
WLC 13 What hath God especially decreed concerning angels and men? A. God, by an eternal and immutable decree, out of his mere love, for the praise of his glorious grace, to be manifested in due time, hath elected some angels to glory; and in Christ hath chosen some men to eternal life, and the means thereof: and also, according to his sovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of his own will, (whereby he extendeth or withholdeth favour as he pleaseth,) hath passed by and foreordained the rest to dishonour and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice. (WLC 1:13 WCS)
WLC 30 Doth God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery? A. God doth not leave all men to perish in the estate of sin and misery, into which they fell by the breach of the first covenant, commonly called the Covenant of Works; but of his mere love and mercy delivereth his elect out of it, and bringeth them into an estate of salvation by the second covenant, commonly called the Covenant of Grace. (WLC 1:30 WCS)
WLC 67 What is effectual calling? A. Effectual calling is the work of God's almighty power and grace, whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto) he doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his word and Spirit; savingly enlightening their minds, renewing and powerfully determining their wills, so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein. (WLC 1:67 WCS)
If nothing is added to the assertion to distinguish, in any way, the heart of God towards those whom He sent his Son to die for from those whom He passed over in their like sins then it cannot but diminish the glory due unto Him who so loved us that He gave his only begotten Son for our salvation.
As Reformed Christians we rightly assert that the Father saw nothing in us more than others which drew forth his redeeming love. It is only as He viewed us in Christ that we become the object of His distinguishing love. Such is the meaning of Αγαπη in the New Testament.
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),
(Eph 2:4-5 NKJ)
19 “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. …” (Rev 3:19 NKJ)
Calvin himself said-
“But it is indisputable that no one is loved by God apart from Christ”
-Calvin, Inst. 3.2.32
28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?
32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written: "For Your sake we are killed all day long; We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter." 37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
(Rom 8:28-39 NKJ)
Concerning the word love – Αγαπη The T.D.N.T. says-
“Particularly characteristic are the instances in which agapan takes on the meaning of “to prefer,” “to set one good or aim above another,” “to esteem one person more highly than another.” Thus agapan may be used of the preference of God for a particular man. The hgaphmenoj upo tou Qeou has a position of preference before God. He is blessed before God. He is blessed by God with particular gifts and possessions.
The specific nature of agapan becomes apparent at this point. Erwj is a general love of the world seeking satisfaction wherever it can. Agapan is a love which makes distinctions, choosing and keeping to its object. Erwj is determined by a more or less indefinite impulsion towards its object. Agapan is a free and decisive act determined by its subject.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol 1 pp. 36-37 [Trench, in his Synonyms of the New Testament brings out much the same distinctions]
That this distinguishing love of God is peculiar to elect angels and elect men seems more consistent with the language of our Confessions.
WCF 3.5 Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perserverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace. (WCF 3:5 WCS)
WCF 17.2 This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them; and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof. (WCF 17:2 WCS)
WLC 13 What hath God especially decreed concerning angels and men? A. God, by an eternal and immutable decree, out of his mere love, for the praise of his glorious grace, to be manifested in due time, hath elected some angels to glory; and in Christ hath chosen some men to eternal life, and the means thereof: and also, according to his sovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of his own will, (whereby he extendeth or withholdeth favour as he pleaseth,) hath passed by and foreordained the rest to dishonour and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice. (WLC 1:13 WCS)
WLC 30 Doth God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery? A. God doth not leave all men to perish in the estate of sin and misery, into which they fell by the breach of the first covenant, commonly called the Covenant of Works; but of his mere love and mercy delivereth his elect out of it, and bringeth them into an estate of salvation by the second covenant, commonly called the Covenant of Grace. (WLC 1:30 WCS)
WLC 67 What is effectual calling? A. Effectual calling is the work of God's almighty power and grace, whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto) he doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his word and Spirit; savingly enlightening their minds, renewing and powerfully determining their wills, so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein. (WLC 1:67 WCS)
Last edited:
Can you provide a 'definition' of God's love toward sinners on earth?
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
Andrew, the definition of God's love towards those condemned in hell is simply that he keeps them in being: he sustains their existence.
Earl's original question revolves around how it is an effect of love to keep them in existence, if it were better that they had not existed. That's a good question; but the answer is that (if the text is taken to speak to the matter at all, which it might well not) this is only true from their perspective. But why would we accept the perspective of the reprobate as valid? They have rebelled against God; they have despised his forbearance; they have ignored his longsuffering; they have hated him, and have done what they could to reject good -- are they really a credible source? Is their preference to be made the insight by which we interpret reality? They can't reject all good; it is good that they exist; it is an effect of goodness that they exist; and it is God in his goodness who keeps them in existence. No one who believes in simplicity, or who has paid attention to Exodus 34 and Nahum 1, can possibly believe that goodness and wrath do not or cannot coexist.
Bob, I think it's quite a stretch to suggest that anyone has said that the heart of God towards elect vs. non-elect can't be distinguished in any way. That distinction has been repeatedly made. On the other hand, it bears pointing out that if it is not better to exist than not to exist, then creation itself could be an evil. But the representation of Genesis, and the consensus of Christian theology, is that God communicated existence to his creation because he is good. Any other view runs the risk of casting the corrosive of doubt onto our apprehension of God's goodness.
The argument is very simple: God stands related to everyone as Creator to creature. Whatever other relationships may also obtain, that relationship always exists. In that relationship, as Creator, it is asserted that God's tender mercies are over all his works; in that relationship also it is asserted that his mercy endures for ever. And this is seen to be true from the fact that this creation is never dissolved. God does not uncreate what he has made.
Those who hold to classical covenant theology and locate the covenant of works (with the Westminster Standards) under the heading of providence, rather than creation, have the tools at their disposal to make this distinction, because we know that God had a relationship to man before the introduction of the covenant: and that relationship can continue to exist, even when the covenant penalty is enforced to its fullest extent. The covenant of works never provided for the penalty of annihilation: things exist only because God wills them to. Since existence is a good, since it is a good that is the object of God's will, Rutherford does not hesitate to call it love.
Earl's original question revolves around how it is an effect of love to keep them in existence, if it were better that they had not existed. That's a good question; but the answer is that (if the text is taken to speak to the matter at all, which it might well not) this is only true from their perspective. But why would we accept the perspective of the reprobate as valid? They have rebelled against God; they have despised his forbearance; they have ignored his longsuffering; they have hated him, and have done what they could to reject good -- are they really a credible source? Is their preference to be made the insight by which we interpret reality? They can't reject all good; it is good that they exist; it is an effect of goodness that they exist; and it is God in his goodness who keeps them in existence. No one who believes in simplicity, or who has paid attention to Exodus 34 and Nahum 1, can possibly believe that goodness and wrath do not or cannot coexist.
Bob, I think it's quite a stretch to suggest that anyone has said that the heart of God towards elect vs. non-elect can't be distinguished in any way. That distinction has been repeatedly made. On the other hand, it bears pointing out that if it is not better to exist than not to exist, then creation itself could be an evil. But the representation of Genesis, and the consensus of Christian theology, is that God communicated existence to his creation because he is good. Any other view runs the risk of casting the corrosive of doubt onto our apprehension of God's goodness.
The argument is very simple: God stands related to everyone as Creator to creature. Whatever other relationships may also obtain, that relationship always exists. In that relationship, as Creator, it is asserted that God's tender mercies are over all his works; in that relationship also it is asserted that his mercy endures for ever. And this is seen to be true from the fact that this creation is never dissolved. God does not uncreate what he has made.
Those who hold to classical covenant theology and locate the covenant of works (with the Westminster Standards) under the heading of providence, rather than creation, have the tools at their disposal to make this distinction, because we know that God had a relationship to man before the introduction of the covenant: and that relationship can continue to exist, even when the covenant penalty is enforced to its fullest extent. The covenant of works never provided for the penalty of annihilation: things exist only because God wills them to. Since existence is a good, since it is a good that is the object of God's will, Rutherford does not hesitate to call it love.
Last edited:
I come back to what I asked earlier -- does God change? Surely not! As has been noted again and again, the Creator-creature relationship is not dissolved in hell. If there is a cessation of this goodness, mercy, love, etc., it must entail a change in God. The only way to avoid this conclusion is to deny that there is something "common" in the first place. This, of course, will only entangle one in the more fundamental problem as to how one can treasure up "wrath" where there is no despising of "goodness." If one grants this common element of "goodness" towards man as the creation of God, one is obliged to explain how it ceases on God's part.
Sermons on Deuteronomy, 1189: "God then doth love all people. Yea, but not in comparison of his Church. And why? For all the children of Adam are enemies unto God by reason of the corruption that is in them. True it is that God loveth them as his creatures: but yet he must needes hate them, because they be perverted and given to all evill. And that is the cause why the Scripture telleth us that God repented him that he ever made man, considering that he is so marred." See also the earlier quotation from Calvin's Calvinism.
Considered in themselves, as creatures related to the Creator, there is "love." But, in comparison to the love which is shown to the church, it is difficult to call it "love." This is what was noted earlier -- there is no real affinity in the use of the term "love;" nevertheless there are theological principles which demand a place for the concept of love, otherwise there is no way to explain the continuation of their creation or the expression of wrath towards them.
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
No, God doesn't change but he can withdraw his common love from ppl just as he withdraws his common grace from ppl. We see it done with Pharaoh when God soften and hardened his heart over and over again. God withdrew his grace from Pharaoh to reveal his hardened heart and then God would place grace on him to soften his heart. We see it now all over the world where God gives much common grace to all and then withdraws it in acts of natural disasters. We see it on those in hell where he has forever withdrawn his common grace from them and has poured upon them his full wrath. He then has withdrawn his love from them also. Why? The answer is below
yes there is and Romans 9:19 gives us that answer: You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—.
But there is no withdrawal of their "being." Their "being" is from God. While the "being" remains, you must propose a change in God in order to conclude that God no longer bears the same relation to the same "being."
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
There is no withdrawal of their being here on earth when he withdraws love or grace and yet their being remains intact without God changing.
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
I think what is missing here is that God's wrath which is perfect, just, and holy is quite capable of sustaining those in hell upon which he can pour his wrath. Romans 9 tells us this and no where in Scripture does it say that his love sustains them. David tells us in Psalms that he indeed hates the wicked which is his final (hell) expression towards them. He bears with them in patience/love while upon this earth in order to pour upon them his wrath in hell.
But you agreed earlier there is "common love" here on earth. Hence your argument of "withdrawal" is no argument against "common love" to their "being."
However you define the love of God toward the reprobate here on earth, will be the same way you define the love of God toward the reprobate in hell. The essence of the reprobate does not change after death, and God certainly does not change either. The love of God is not a 'feeling' that comes and goes.
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
yes i agree that there is common love to those here on earth but I explained why. I'll repost it:
I think what is missing here is that God's wrath which is perfect, just, and holy is quite capable of sustaining those in hell upon which he can pour his wrath. Romans 9 tells us this and no where in Scripture does it say that his love sustains them. David tells us in Psalms that he indeed hates the wicked which is his final (hell) expression towards them. He bears with them in patience/love while upon this earth in order to pour upon them his wrath in hell.
His final withdraw of his common grace/love isn't just their suffering here on earth as it would be if he only partially withdrew those things. His complete withdraw of common grace/love is shown in their death. Now I know what you will say: that if his final withdraw of his love results in their death then this would naturally follow that it would end in their complete existence being extinguished. However, as Romans states it is his wrath which keeps them sustained in hell to show the glory of his riches towards the vessels of mercy.
The fact is, their "being" is not withdrawn. Their "being" depends upon God. "Being" is better than "non-being," as is clear in the ontological argument. If "being" is a gift, and it is a gift of God, then the object of this "common love" remains. The only way "common love" could cease is if God Himself underwent a change.
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
I agree that their "being" is better than "non-being" for one reason: "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory." So their being is good for God's wrath to be displayed, however, ask any man or woman if they would rather not "be" in order to not bear under his wrath, and I'm quite sure they would rather not "be". But hell has nothing to do with mankind's wants it has to do with God wanting to show a side of his glory through wrath.
I don't think you are working through the implications of what you are saying. In your quotation of Romans 9, the "being," clay, is already presupposed as the common element of both vessels. The purpose of God pertains to the vessel made from that clay, not to the "being" of the clay itself.
The idea of "being" might touch on a metaphysical point which goes over most people's heads. But it is simply impossible to "rather" not "be" when the ability to choose the "rather" depends on the fact that there is a "being" who can choose. As an expression, to "rather not be" could only refer to the condition of "ill-being" in contrast to "well-being."
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
I think the metaphysical point of "being" is established on what mankind knows from his experience of observation on this earth. Most ppl fight tooth and toenail to stay alive or to keep their "being" (there are those exceptions). However, the ideology of metaphysics is based completely on mankind's rational thinking about the world around them which can extend to abstract thinking. However, abstract thinking is still based on what mankind has observed and learned this side of heaven/hell. Mankind knows very little about hell, and therefore, his desire to "be" cannot be extended to that which he knows very little about. He has not experienced hell, and therefore, cannot say definitively that he would rather "be" than to "not be" without Scriptural support. Jesus does tell us that it would have been better if Judas had not been born. That does give us a small insight into the definitive of those in hell not wanting "to be".
The point was that there could be no "thinking" or "choice" on whether they wanted to be or not be unless they already had being, and so it is metaphysically impossible to speak of a person wishing they had no being. Their very act of wishing, whatever it is they wish for, shows that they want to have being. However the choice is expressed, it could only refer to "ill-being," and could never refer to "being" in and of itself.
Back to the original point, if "being" is good, and those in hell have "being," then those in hell have something that is good. They have this from God. If it is an expression of "common love" on earth, and God does not change, then it must still be an expression of common love in hell.
I don't think this is complicated to think through. Perhaps the conclusion is startling at first, but a little open thought should help us to see how it accords with the analogy of faith.
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
Again, this is based on mankind's limited and earthly abstract thinking. Metaphysics is solely based upon logical thinking which stems from mankind's observation and learning upon this earth. Metaphysics is quite incapable of allowing ppl to think and come up with any type of ideology beyond that which he knows or has learned here on earth. For example, we are complete incapable of understanding the Trinity in its fullness no matter how much of an abstract thinker one is. That is bc the Trinity is beyond earthly reasoning. So to state that mankind could not wish or choose to "be" or "not to be" without having a "being" which leads to the point that they want a being in order to choose to "be" or "not to be", is grounded firmly in mankind's earthly, rational thinking. The ideology of metaphysics is incapable of allowing mankind to think outside of this concept. Christ tells us something different: it would have been better if Judas had not been born. Christ tells us that. Christ who is God and can think outside of our rational thinking. [/QUOTE]
- Status
Similar threads
