Does God hate sinners

[christintime99]

Im impressed by everyones knowledge of scripture, I am humbled to offer my 2 cents.

When he says 'thou hatest all workers of iniquity', it makes me think the 'workers' are the evil deeds, ie, the evil works themselves. Not neccisarily the person.

[Reuben Hick]

Rueben Hicks:

You might as well ask them why God hated Esau. (Ro 9:13) Without reading any of the other posts I can pretty much say that "hatred" will devolve into something that is not hatred. In fact, they will completely turn around the passage and say that God really loves them. I honestly don't know how folks can live with that kind of cognitive dissonance unless they just flat out reject those difficult passages in Scripture. And when I mean "difficult" I am talking about those many passages that argue against their bogus Free Will soteriology.

God hated Esau the same way Jesus told his listeners that they should hate their father, mother, sister and brother

I thought we went over this already. Your soteriology has been declared by an endless parade of councils, synods and debates throughout history to be heretical. You don't like God's character? Fine. You don't respect God's holiness? Fine. You find fault in God's dealing with the reprobate? Fine. You project your moral relativism on to God? Fine. The Creator is not defined by your personal tastes and values. I'm sorry. He isn't a Post Modernist.

"It means to give them second place, not to actually despise them"

(sigh) Maybe your friends are real simple minded and fall for this shameless bait-and-switch, but it doesn't play out here. There is zero connection between "Esau I hated" and "..and hate not his father, mother, wife and children..." (Lk 14:26) for many reasons, here are a few that immediately come to mind:

(1) "Esau I hated" and "Hate doers of iniquity" is talking about God's position, and is consistent with His role as Almighty Creator God who spoke everything into existence, and ordains the course of all His Creation. On the other hand, we as contingent beings are told to love our enemies (Mt 5:44) There are different rules because we are not God, just as an employee operates under different rules than his employer. We can't condemn anyone to Hell for that is God's position. We are not in the position to Judge, God is. The parable of the Unforgiving Servant in Mt 18:21-35 is a clear example of this sort of role relationship.

(2) The harmonization of Lk 14:26 is found in Matthew 10:37 where the Greek word 'miseo' is tempered from its natural meaning of "hate" to "loves less" because the passages says "he who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me". This is a concept to concept direct relation, therefore the dilution of "hate" found in Luke is justified. Also the 5th commandment orders us to "Honor your father and mother".

(3) The context of "Esau I hated" is Romans 9:6-10 regarding Israel's Rejection and God's Purpose. In this context God is Electing one to glory and hating one to wrath. Mal 1:3 "But Esau I have hated, and laid waste his mountains and his heritage for the jackals of the wilderness" How on earth can any rational person interprete these words into a syrupy Divine mash note?

(4) The very idea that a defining characteristic of God "God is Love" manifested towards the majority of people in a defective and imperfect way is profanity of a very high order. For instance, when we read "love your enemies", is that to mean "love less" or as traditionally held by the Golden Rule "as you love yourself" (Mk 12:31) which is meant to be understood as "as much as can be possible"? Now if the order to love our enemies is intended to be performed in the strongest and most sincere manner, pray tell, how is it OK for God to "love less" while we are to "love unconditionally"? In this perverted case you are presenting, you are making God our moral inferior, and the very idea of that should shame you to repentance. (Job 35:2, 7-8).

This is not some kind of cognitive dissonance, this is using other passages to understand what is meant when something conflicts with the general theme of scripture.

OK, YOU may not feel that this is cognitive dissonance, but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

For one thing, it is some of the worst scholarship and dreadful hermeneutics I have seen of late. Examine Ps 11:4-7 Here we have the righteous in contrast to the wicked. Where on earth do you see the "in-between man" ? In fact, the Bible always has a black/white, wicked/righteous, death/life, love/hate theme from cover to cover. In no instance can you triangulate and find the "middle man" who is not loved perfectly, nor hated. In previous posts you have vainly asserted such a creation, but never have you produced one from anywhere but the deep recesses of your mind. So when you make this outrageous and unsubstantiated claim that the Third Way is a prominent and dominant theme of Scripture, I must only conclude that you have replaced the Bible with your own sentiments.

God does hate our sin and he hates the one who loves sin

Stop right there, and you have it correct, and there is bountiful Scripture support, as has already been demonstrated.

, but the moment they repent, he holds no grudges against them but freely forgives and loves them.

But you decided to throw in an obvious contradiction for vanity's sake, I guess.

Take your two phrases:

(1) "[God] hates the one who loves sin"

This is found in Ps 5:5, 11:5 and demonstrated in all of God's dealings with the wicked.

(2) "the moment they repent..." otherwise known as "the cause", "... he...loves them" (the effect)

And this is a contradiction that is quite easily disproven:

Ro 5:8 "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

and Col 1:21 "And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works yet now He has reconciled..."

If one reads the passages in their immediate context, the reasonable person can see, we the Elect were once wicked sinners alienated from God, yet God demonstrated His own love toward us (the cause) in that Christ's death and the Holy Spirit's work of regeneration made for reconciliation (the effect). Note that Col 1 does not speak of a hypothetical reconciliation, and the unregenerate/reprobate are not reconciled, so clearly the Elect was enemies of God, pursuing wicked works, but God's love changed all of that.

Even since you reject the Doctrines of Grace, you should still see that the passages indicate that the love preceded the repentance.

He loves the world in that he will save whosoever repents and comes to the light...

Yet another wave-of-the-hand dismissal of Ps 5:5, and contradicting your own words just a paragraph previous.

(sigh)

[Reuben Hick]

QUOTE (Ddavid from NC @ Mar 17 2008, 08:53 AM)

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

We have all heard and probably all said, "God hates the sin and loves the sinner". Well, what do we do with this verse?

The passage means what it says.

Those who reject God's Sovereignty in the heart of man (aka Free Will Apologists), can't handle this passage, and for the many years that I have asked them their view on it, without exception they deny the passage of its central meaning and gratuitously divert the hatred on to something other than what the passage clearly teaches. Sort of the in same mold as hoplophobes project sin and evil on the firearm, banning it rather than dealing with the perp who misuses the otherwise inanimate, unconscious metal object, or blaming the alcohol and not the driver in a DUI death.

You might as well ask them why God hated Esau. (Ro 9:13) Without reading any of the other posts I can pretty much say that "hatred" will devolve into something that is not hatred. In fact, they will completely turn around the passage and say that God really loves them. I honestly don't know how folks can live with that kind of cognitive dissonance unless they just flat out reject those difficult passages in Scripture. And when I mean "difficult" I am talking about those many passages that argue against their bogus Free Will soteriology.

I am a "Free Will Apologist" and I have never had a problem with understanding such passages to mean exactly what they say. I was never taught anything different in 20 years of being a Christian.

I would say you need to cease the over-generalized assumptions about "Free Will apologists." Furthermore, you are off topic anyway.

I respectfully disagree.

It appears that you are saying that those who are anthropocentric see Scriptures the same way as the theocentric.

I have been around long enough to see a very constant theme that God is not who He says He is by the FW crowd, and despite your desire to pretend to think that it is "off topic", it is indeed central in understanding the philosophy that underlies interpretation of the passage.

If a person believes that they come to salvation by exercising their own will, and they base this on a universal application of a John 3:16 "...for God so loved the world [head for head]..." which each and every FW advocate agrees, then Ps 5:5 cannot mean that there is a category of folks who God hates.

If you feel that you are the exception to this and God does indeed hate doers of iniquity, then you must have one of two views of God:

(1) By the use of the Tunnel Of Time machine, God looks and sees if someone will come to Him, or just remain wicked. Based on that observation God makes a last minute decision to either love or hate that person before that person is born.

(2) God changes His mind about someone at the point of repentance of that individual. That is, God hates everyone until that person come to Christ.

In both cases God is viewed as a reactive God, dramatically changing his mind on someone, or acting in a manner contingent on the Created. When considering the transcendant applications of eternity, as in "being known in eternity past", one immediately recognizes an unncessary paradox attributed to God's love. (2) is even worse because it suggests that God is still learning which is a scary concept to those who have placed their trust in Him.

If you reject both these possibilities, then we are back to the original complaint and that the passage doesn't really mean what it says, it simply means that very few people are wicked enough to merit hate from God (deconstucting 'wicked'), or that hate doesn't mean hate, it means "loved less" (deconstructing 'hate'). Once we get around to deconstructing wickedness or hate, we must by extension diminish the attributes of God to accomodate our post modern relativism.

Under the Doctrines of Grace, God is Sovereign and God chooses who He will show mercy to, preserving His holiness and righteousness by hating those who are wicked.

The world view does indeed matter, despite your unsubstantiated protests.

[Guest shiloh357]

If a person believes that they come to salvation by exercising their own will, and they base this on a universal application of a John 3:16 "...for God so loved the world [head for head]..." which each and every FW advocate agrees, then Ps 5:5 cannot mean that there is a category of folks who God hates.

Wrong. I do not personally believe that God's hate cancels out His love. I believe that God can hate and love at the same time and that He does both perfectly at the same time.

The problem is that we seem to be imposing our carnal version of "Drop dead and burn in hell you stinking bum" kind of hatred on God. God does not exercise the same carnal, murderous type of hatred that is expressed by human beings. Jesus said that when we hate another person we have committed murder in our hearts, and such hatred is therefore sinful. Since God is sinless, it stands to reason that He "hates" on an entirely different level and in a manner for which we really do not not have an accurate point of reference.

God is infinite and is therefore, infinitely capable of loving a person he also hates. The Bible says God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

[Reuben Hick]

If a person believes that they come to salvation by exercising their own will, and they base this on a universal application of a John 3:16 "...for God so loved the world [head for head]..." which each and every FW advocate agrees, then Ps 5:5 cannot mean that there is a category of folks who God hates.

Wrong. I do not personally believe that God's hate cancels out His love. I believe that God can hate and love at the same time and that He does both perfectly at the same time.

The problem is that we seem to be imposing our carnal version of "Drop dead and burn in hell you stinking bum" kind of hatred on God. God does not exercise the same carnal, murderous type of hatred that is expressed by human beings. Jesus said that when we hate another person we have committed murder in our hearts, and such hatred is therefore sinful. Since God is sinless, it stands to reason that He "hates" on an entirely different level and in a manner for which we really do not not have an accurate point of reference.

God is infinite and is therefore, infinitely capable of loving a person he also hates. The Bible says God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

OK, you hooked me here.

Could you please cite in Scripture where God is shown simultaneously loving perfectly and hating perfectly a particular individual? And while you are at it, could you explain how to square the circle - it would be an easier and more likely task.

God's love has eternal purpose (Dt 7:7-8). For if you say that God's Love is manifest only in producing a hypothetical salvation (since all are not saved), then you diminish the Purpose of His Love and turn God into a cardboard cutout of tokenized and empty "love". It is not a Purposed Love that knowingly creates a man fashioned intentionally as a literal "vessel of Wrath". For you to make the audacious claim that the Potter's Vessel of Wrath is loved in the same way and to the same degree as His Vessel of Mercy. (Mercy being a vital part of the exhibition of God's love, something that is absent in the vessel of wrath) is mockery and that is why I am offended.

The gospel is supposed to be clear and simple, introducing unecessary paradoxes so that you can gratuitously slide in this watered down and worthless universal love serves no purpose, which may explain why no one ever teaches that concept in Scripture.

Go read Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" and tell me where he is off base.

One last thing, the reference you make to 2 Peter 3:9 is an abuse of fundamental hermeneutics, grammar and context.

I simply request that you spend a few minutes comparing what you know of the passage to this: *edit links*

Some folks have found it helpful. At least I don't have to parrot those arguments.

[Guest shiloh357]

OK, you hooked me here.

Could you please cite in Scripture where God is shown simultaneously loving perfectly and hating perfectly a particular individual? And while you are at it, could you explain how to square the circle - it would be an easier and more likely task.

A good example is when Jesus rebuked the Pharisees with seven woes, but at the same time laments as to how much he longed to gather Jerusalem under his wings. When you read the passage you can feel the pain of a julted lover. Yet he never stops loving them. From the cross He continues to pray for them, continues to love them even though they are very unrepentent people whom He claims in Psalms to hate. While I don't disagree that he hates them, I disagree that He does not also love them at the same time. Why is that so hard to believe??? Stop being so caral.

God's love has eternal purpose (Dt 7:7-8). For if you say that God's Love is manifest only in producing a hypothetical salvation (since all are not saved), then you diminish the Purpose of His Love and turn God into a cardboard cutout of tokenized and empty "love".

The eternal purpose of God's love is to bring all of humanity back to Himself. The fact that all are not saved is irrelevant. There will be those who reject His call, but that does not mean God's love is empty or tokenized. It certainly does not mean that God does not love everyone, including those he also hates.

For you to make the audacious claim that the Potter's Vessel of Wrath is loved in the same way and to the same degree as His Vessel of Mercy. (Mercy being a vital part of the exhibition of God's love, something that is absent in the vessel of wrath) is mockery and that is why I am offended.

Again, that is just completely carnal. You are the one deciding who is worthy of being loved by God. There is not one place (including Romans 9) where the Bible teaches that some people were created to be vessels of wrath. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that some people were created for God to destroy.

As for you being offended... You come to this board with this arrogant, "Everybody who disagrees with me is an idiot" attitude as if you have the last word on everything, so I am not really too concerned about offending you.

The gospel is supposed to be clear and simple, introducing unecessary paradoxes so that you can gratuitously slide in this watered down and worthless universal love serves no purpose, which may explain why no one ever teaches that concept in Scripture.

The problem with people like you is that you seem to rest on assigning false values to what people like myself believe and thus create a false premise from which platform you starting arguing aganist us. The reason we do not teach what you teach, is because it is not biblical to start with.

One last thing, the reference you make to 2 Peter 3:9 is an abuse of fundamental hermeneutics, grammar and context.

simply request that you spend a few minutes comparing what you know of the passage to this:

Sorry, but you have nothing to say to me about hermeneutics, given the sloppy exegesis you present from that YouTube video (which is a violation of board policy, YouTube links are forbidden and like the others this one will be reported.

The fact is the video makes the same classic mistake everyone seems to make. They rely on a lexicon which is obviously "Strongs Concordance" which is not meant to be a stand alone exegetical tool to make their case. I also find it funny that they base their treatment of the Greek words on the secondary usages of the words as opposed to the usage that actually agrees with the text and with all mainline translations. You can tell they are using strongs because they claim that "all" in 2:39 is the Greek word "pas." That is wrong. When I look it up in the TR, the word is "pantos" which is derived from "pas." The two words mean something different. It is because pantos is used that it was translated as "all" and not "some of all types" as your video suggests it should mean, which is the secondary defintion.

The problem is that good exegesis takes more into account than the lexical/dictionary definition of a word, but also examines how a word is used and one needs more than Strong's Concordance to to that. Your erroneous interpretation of the verse is that God is not willing that any of the "uconditional elect" should perish, but that is not what Peter is saying. Peter is, in this chapter, addressing those who scoff at the coming of the Lord, and He is saying that God is not slack as these mockers consider slackness. What they call "slackness" on God's part is in reality, patience, as God is giving ample time for all to come to repentance including those who mock Him and His coming. God's mercy and longsuffering is misinterpreted by the wicked as a delay in keeping His promises.

Trying to twist the verse into suppoort your Limited Atonement belief goes beyond what the passage is trying to convey and it uses sloppy, bargain basement exegesis to do it.

[Neopatriarch]

I see this morning that Shiloh and I are in agreement on this, and he has already written a more complete rebuttal but I will post my two cents that I wrote offline anyway. Although in the case of Esau, the idea is of a

[heresyhunter]

Wrong. I do not personally believe that God's hate cancels out His love. I believe that God can hate and love at the same time and that He does both perfectly at the same time.

The problem is that we seem to be imposing our carnal version of "Drop dead and burn in hell you stinking bum" kind of hatred on God. God does not exercise the same carnal, murderous type of hatred that is expressed by human beings. Jesus said that when we hate another person we have committed murder in our hearts, and such hatred is therefore sinful. Since God is sinless, it stands to reason that He "hates" on an entirely different level and in a manner for which we really do not not have an accurate point of reference.

God is infinite and is therefore, infinitely capable of loving a person he also hates. The Bible says God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Wonderfully put, Shiloh. I will perhaps go further and say that God's hate and his love are inseparable realities. Thus, God hates sin because he loves those whom sin hurts.

[heresyhunter]

For you to make the audacious claim that the Potter's Vessel of Wrath is loved in the same way and to the same degree as His Vessel of Mercy. (Mercy being a vital part of the exhibition of God's love, something that is absent in the vessel of wrath) is mockery and that is why I am offended.

This is a debate board. If you are offended by a differing opinion, that perhaps this is not the place for you.

You must recall that we were once children of wrath. Did God not love us then?

[heresyhunter]

God really and literally loved Jacob and really and literally hated Esau.

I'm having a very hard time seeing an reason to take this language literally.