Do you love people God hates?

[Crazy Liz]

While what I am about to say may sound harsh and mean it isn't intended in that vein. I am seeking to identify as simply and clearly as possible the root of the difficulty. This is the root of folk's problem with Calvinism. It isn't really Calvinism that you hate but God. The theological system called Calvinism puts forth God as God. He does what He wants and doesn't need to ask permission. He is wise enough to work all things according to His purpose and to bring about all that He intends. He is Sovereign in both senses of the word, King and actually ruling. He is love but love doesn't define Him. He is not bound by any obligation to man nor dependant on man in any way. He is worthy of worship even if He doesn't do anything for us simply because He is God.

You're right. This does sound like a harsh and mean Creator. I would say the god you hypothesize is worthy of submission, as a resignation to reality, but not worthy of love. But I'm here to ask questions and not to debate, so my main question would be, why are you so sure this is what God is really like? And where did you learn this, if not from Calvinism?

Those who have a problem with God have the same problem our father Adam had: refusal to bow to God as God. Rather than bow to God as God He is reshaped in the likeness of men and made to be one who fits our idea of who He ought to be rather than who He is.

ISTM, God has in reality been reshaped in the likeness of humans. Isn't that the central message of the gospel?

He is formed from the imagination of sinful minds and emotions.

This is something I've always found curious about Calvinists - thinking of emotions as sinful. I'm not sure if there is a rationale for that, or if suppression of emotions is just the only way to cope with a cruel god. It sounds very much like what many humans do when abused over a long period of time.

Can you explain this?

Reshaped into a being who we can love rather than one who we must bow to.

Yes. By God, though, not by us. That is the Incarnation.

He wouldn't hurt a fly but couldn't save a knat.

That's not the way I see Jesus portrayed in the gospels.

I suggest that instead of finding fault with the system of theology called Calvinism that you had better find out who God really is.

You seem pretty confident that you know who God really is and the rest of the Christians in the world have made up a god out of their own imaginations. Why do you feel so confident you are right and other Christians are wrong?

What part does the Incarnation - God revealed to humanity in Jesus Christ - play in the Calvinist view of God? Why is it I see Calvinists appealing frequently to the NT Epistles, but seldom to the Gospels?

 

[Crazy Liz]

In looking for the context of some quotes, I noticed some parts of an earlier post I'd like to respond to before going on.

When Paul tells Timothy prayers should be made for "everyone," who is he referring to? Is he telling Timothy to get the local phone directory and begin with "A" and go through "Z" and pray for every individual? Is Paul telling you and me that? I don't think so. I think the "everyone" in verse 1 (also the "all men" in vs 4) is qualified by "kings and those in authority." "Kings and those in authority" are types of men. God desires all types of men to be saved, including Jews and Gentiles, male and female, rich and poor, the powerful and the powerless.

So how do we figure out which ones we're supposed to pray for & which ones we aren't?

I think the "all men" is also qualified by verse 5 and 6, which states:
5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,6who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.
Who does Christ mediate for? Is he mediating for those in Hell, or is there a certain people that Christ has in mind when he mediates?

Good question. As far as mediating for those in hell, we would have to veer off into eschatology to discuss whether there are people in hell now, and if so, what "hell" means, if anything, beyond what the OT refers to as sheol.

Usually, eschatology is something Christians agree is speculative, and not something to be dogmatic about. However, I sometimes wonder if it is only in the area of eschatology that these issues can be resolved. We are, after all, talking about the personal eschatology of loved ones of the Elect, and what we are allowed to hope for. Personally, I see the NT as encouraging us to hope for all things. I see Calvinism as very pessimistic in comparison - saying it's better just to accept reality than to hope. Everything has already been determined. There is nothing better than can be hoped for.

I'm sure Calvinists are going to say I'm wrong in that, but if I am, exactly how? This is something I can't understand.

I think Romans 8 helps shed light on the passage:
31What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.
These verses are clear that Christ gave himself up (as a ransom) for us, ie believers. Easton's Bible Dictionary defines "ransom" as:

So I ask, did Christ get what he paid for? Did he die for all men without exception as you seem to suggest 1 Timothy 2 teaches? If so, what are men doing in hell?

This question assumes there are humans (now) in hell, and that this hell is one of eternal punishment, rather than merely some sort of intermediate state between death and resurrection (sheol).

Before continuing along this vein, perhaps it would help if you clarified this point.

 

[Crazy Liz]

My assumption is that yes I do. I believe I give my "explanation" of the "mess" in post 73 (? It is somewhere in the 70s).

OK, thanks. Quoting it here for reference.

I am a Calvinist who believes that God does not love everybody but instead hates the non elect (as per Romans 9, Psalms 5, and the fact that God does not save the non elect). The question poised in the OP and the verses you provided have caused me some difficulty. I don't know how to "reconcile" this passage with other passages I think are more clear.
I have been thinking that Romans 5 may help shed some light on the passage you quoted and the passages dealing with God's hatred towards the non elect. The verses in Romans 5 that I am thinking of read as such:

There was a time when all Christians in status were enemies. As per Romans 3, we were under sin. We acted as enemies of God, we followed enemies of God, and we taught things that were consistent with being enemies of God. Yet, while we were enemies of God, God showed that He still loved us by sending Christ to redeem us and to make us sons and daughters of God. God set his love on those who were in status his enemies.
I think when we love our enemies and do good to those that persecute us, we reflect the One who truly did love his enemies and did do good for them that persecuted Him. Since we do not know who the elect are (not all non Christians are non elect also), we are to operate under the assumption that all non Christians are elect proclaim the Gospel, love them, and do good to them.

It sounds to me like you find the words of Jesus unclear, so that they need to be qualified in some way by the Epistles and even the Psalms. I think this is a basic difference in our hermeneutic. When Jesus says, "You have heard it said... But I say unto you..." it is often in the context of quoting the OT or alluding to it or quoting some rabbinical interpretation of it. Part of my hermeneutical method is to pay special attention to these sayings, as they qualify or supersede something else. To use other scriptures (especially OT scriptures) to qualify the words of Jesus just seems wrong to me.

I see those Calvinists (and hyper-Calvinists) in this thread who say God hates some people taking verses from the OT and using them to qualify the words of Jesus. To me, this seems like a backwards hermeneutic. Could you explain why you think the words of Jesus are unclear, so that you can just put them aside and go back to the "You have heard it said... " passages instead?

 

[A New Dawn]

This is something I've always found curious about Calvinists - thinking of emotions as sinful. I'm not sure if there is a rationale for that, or if suppression of emotions is just the only way to cope with a cruel god. It sounds very much like what many humans do when abused over a long period of time.

Can you explain this?

The Bible repeatedly states that the heart is deceitful and not to trust it.

Jeremiah 17:9 ¶ The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?

We are admonished in earlier in Jeremiah 17 to not put trust in the arm of flesh, which is one reason we believe in letting the Bible interpret the Bible.

The God of modern Christendom is a God of their own making because certain scriptures are ignored, ones that demonstrate God's holiness and his omnipotence and his need for justice. Also, scriptures that suggest that the only path to heaven is through Christ are largely ignored. That is the only way to get to universalism, to ignore that Christ said certain things.

 

[Crazy Liz]

The Bible repeatedly states that the heart is deceitful and not to trust it.

Jeremiah 17:9 ¶ The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Do you think Jeremiah was talking about emotions in that verse?

We are admonished in earlier in Jeremiah 17 to not put trust in the arm of flesh, which is one reason we believe in letting the Bible interpret the Bible.

That sounds reasonable. Wouldn't a Christian hermeneutic go even farther and let Jesus interpret the Bible, rather than letting the OT qualify the words of Jesus?

The God of modern Christendom is a God of their own making because certain scriptures are ignored, ones that demonstrate God's holiness and his omnipotence and his need for justice. Also, scriptures that suggest that the only path to heaven is through Christ are largely ignored. That is the only way to get to universalism, to ignore that Christ said certain things.

There are different kinds of universalism. Not all ignore the scriptures that say Jesus is the only path to heaven. However, universalism isn't the topic of this thread.

 

[A New Dawn]

Do you think Jeremiah was talking about emotions in that verse?

I think that emotions influence us enormously and we base a lot of our decision and our theology on our emotions, no matter what it says in the Bible. We don't want to think that our loved one is going to a place that would cause them to suffer, so we change our beliefs, even though the scriptures say otherwise.

That sounds reasonable. Wouldn't a Christian hermeneutic go even farther and let Jesus interpret the Bible, rather than letting the OT qualify the words of Jesus?

Jesus is not here, it is one of the jobs of the Holy Spirit to open our minds to the truth of scripture. I think that the NT should all be used to convey doctrine, not limit it to Jesus words (Jesus couldn't discuss some things because the Holy Spirit would not come to open their minds to the truth before He died, so those things pertaining to his death and resurrection and the world to come were necessarily hidden from the eyes of His followers prior to his death.) There are some universal truths revealed in the OT, like the nature of God, the nature of God's relationship with us (which is continued in the NT), that are good to use always. I don't think I see where anyone is using OT scripture to interpret Jesus' words, though.

There are different kinds of universalism. Not all ignore the scriptures that say Jesus is the only path to heaven. However, universalism isn't the topic of this thread.

It isn't, directly, but it ties in when talking about not wanting your loved one to suffer (I'd have to assume that you are talking about a non-believing loved one.)

 

[Crazy Liz]

I think that emotions influence us enormously and we base a lot of our decision and our theology on our emotions, no matter what it says in the Bible. We don't want to think that our loved one is going to a place that would cause them to suffer, so we change our beliefs, even though the scriptures say otherwise.

I don't wish to change my beliefs simply because I don't want to think of my loved ones suffering. What I simply don't get is how the suffering of our loved ones will be compatible with the universal joy portrayed in the New Jerusalem, given that compassion and vicarious suffering are essential parts of human love. The only difference between eternal life and hell then seems to be whether the suffering is direct or vicarious.

Jesus is not here, it is one of the jobs of the Holy Spirit to open our minds to the truth of scripture. I think that the NT should all be used to convey doctrine, not limit it to Jesus words (Jesus couldn't discuss some things because the Holy Spirit would not come to open their minds to the truth before He died, so those things pertaining to his death and resurrection and the world to come were necessarily hidden from the eyes of His followers prior to his death.) There are some universal truths revealed in the OT, like the nature of God, the nature of God's relationship with us (which is continued in the NT), that are good to use always. I don't think I see where anyone is using OT scripture to interpret Jesus' words, though.

It was here:

Then what did Christ mean when he said, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more [than others]? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

I am a Calvinist who believes that God does not love everybody but instead hates the non elect (as per Romans 9, Psalms 5, and the fact that God does not save the non elect). The question poised in the OP and the verses you provided have caused me some difficulty. I don't know how to "reconcile" this passage with other passages I think are more clear.

Beoga seemed basically to disregard the saying of Jesus in favor of some other scriptures he felt were more clear, even though some of them seemed to go more with the "You have heard it said... " part of Jesus' saying.

Do you agree or disagree with Beoga's hermeneutic?

Personally, I do not know how to reconcile them either. I think this is why the Church omits the precatory Psalms from the cycle of public scripture readings.

I was under the impression that the Church does not use the precatory Psalms precisely because of the saying of Jesus I quoted, yet Beoga disregarded this saying, because he felt other scriptures, including a precatory Psalm, were more clear.

Perhaps this is the heart of the hermeneutical issue I was trying to raise in this thread.

 

[ReformedChapin]

OK, thanks. Quoting it here for reference.



It sounds to me like you find the words of Jesus unclear, so that they need to be qualified in some way by the Epistles and even the Psalms. I think this is a basic difference in our hermeneutic. When Jesus says, "You have heard it said... But I say unto you..." it is often in the context of quoting the OT or alluding to it or quoting some rabbinical interpretation of it. Part of my hermeneutical method is to pay special attention to these sayings, as they qualify or supersede something else. To use other scriptures (especially OT scriptures) to qualify the words of Jesus just seems wrong to me.

I see those Calvinists (and hyper-Calvinists) in this thread who say God hates some people taking verses from the OT and using them to qualify the words of Jesus. To me, this seems like a backwards hermeneutic. Could you explain why you think the words of Jesus are unclear, so that you can just put them aside and go back to the "You have heard it said... " passages instead?

Historical calvinism has always held double predestination. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the terminology as well as scripture so you don't misrepresent any group of individuals and their stance. There is no "hyper calvinist" here. Hyper calvinist are those who historically deny evangelisim.

 

[bradfordl]

Pertinent to this discussion is:

A. Are you an annihilationist?

and

B. Are you a universalist?

If either of these answers is yes, nothing of calvinism will make any sense to you. In fact, nothing of Christianity will make any sense to you.

So what are your answers?

 

[Beoga]

So two people are saying that I am disregarding the "clear" words of Jesus for some Old Testament passage (however, they are neglecting my statement that Romans 9 speaks of the same idea as Psalms 5). First, I should say that I believe that all of Scripture is God breathed (not just the words of Jesus) and thus all hold equal authority. Second, on to the passage being discussed:
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more [than others]? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Now it has been assumed, but never shown, where in this passage does it state that God loves everyone? Please, show me. Maybe I read the passage too quickly and I glanced over it, so show me. Please.
Assuming I did not pass over the "clear" statement, I am seeking to understand what Jesus said, recognizing that Scripture does not contradict Scripture. Scripture has already stated a number of times that God does hate individuals:
Psalms 5:
The boastful shall not stand before your eyes;
you hate all evildoers.
Romans 9:
13As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
Malachi 1
2 "I have loved you," says the LORD. But you say, "How have you loved us?" "Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?" declares the LORD. "Yet I have loved Jacob 3but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert."
I would say that these passages are "clearer" than the pasage by Jesus quoted above because they come out and say there are those whom God hates where Jesus does not say outright God loves everyone without exception (unless of course you can point out the statement in this passage that I am missing). I then sought to understand what it meant for us to be like the Father when we love our enemies, which I then pointed out the statement in that say while we were still still sinners/enemies Christ died for us. We reflect this and are like our Father in Heaven when we love our enemies.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Historical calvinism has always held double predestination. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the terminology as well as scripture so you don't misrepresent any group of individuals and their stance. There is no "hyper calvinist" here. Hyper calvinist are those who historically deny evangelisim.

Everybody else in this thread seems to have identified beloved57 as a hyper-Calvinist. Are you disagreeing with them?

 

[Crazy Liz]

Pertinent to this discussion is:

A. Are you an annihilationist?

and

B. Are you a universalist?

If either of these answers is yes, nothing of calvinism will make any sense to you. In fact, nothing of Christianity will make any sense to you.

So what are your answers?

You keep asking these questions, and I keep saying I have no position to defend here. I am trying to understand your views.

I have pointed out in one or two posts how a statement from a Calvinist would make more sense to me from an annihilationist or universalist perspective than from a perspective of double predestination including eternal conscious torment.

I am putting forth the hypothesis that subjecting loved ones of the Elect, through double predestination, to eternal conscious torment amounts to eternal conscious (although vicarious) torment for the Elect.

Since God commands the Elect to love your neighbor as yourself, and beyond that, to love your enemies, then it seems certain that the Elect love some "vessels of wrath." This means Calvinism (double predestination) results in eternal torment for all, some directly, others vicariously. The Elect have the privilege of suffering only vicarious torment. This is cruelty not love.

If you think Calvinism holds together logically, and that God is loving, how do you explain this? It is the piece of Calvinism I have never heard explained in a way I can understand, other than by the giant memory wipe hypothesis. And I have never talked to an actual Calvinist who actually believed the memory wipe hypothesis.

I'm focusing my inquiry on this area because I'd like to see how Calvinists see this issue. From my reading, Calvin himself called this a "horrible decree," and couldn't explain it. Why do Calvinists accept it and not look for a different explanation?

 

[A New Dawn]

It was here:


Beoga seemed basically to disregard the saying of Jesus in favor of some other scriptures he felt were more clear, even though some of them seemed to go more with the "You have heard it said... " part of Jesus' saying.

Do you agree or disagree with Beoga's hermeneutic?

I read the post you responded to a few times to try to understand what you were objecting to, and as Beoga said, he used NT scripture, also, to substantiate his beliefs. That was the basis of my whole previous post regarding why Jesus couldn't be specific about some topics before He died, and those issues were cleared up later on in the NT.

But I don't really think that anyone is ignoring Jesus' statements. They portray the common grace that God has for all. Furthermore, He is pointing out that because His nature is love, and we should strive to be Christlike, then we should strive, also, to be love. We are not God, we don't know who is elect and who isn't, so we should treat everyone as God has treated us. (Love them.)

 

[Crazy Liz]

I read the post you responded to a few times to try to understand what you were objecting to, and as Beoga said, he used NT scripture, also, to substantiate his beliefs. That was the basis of my whole previous post regarding why Jesus couldn't be specific about some topics before He died, and those issues were cleared up later on in the NT.

Thank you.

It's still not the hermeneutic I'm used to, but that does shed some light on your apparent emphasis of the Epistles over the Gospels. The inclusion of the precatory Psalm in the reply did throw me for a loop, though. Even my Calvinist Systematic Theology professor (in the Ecclesiology course) taught that the Church does not use the precatory verses of the Psalms.

But I don't really think that anyone is ignoring Jesus' statements. They portray the common grace that God has for all.

This idea of common grace toward vessels of wrath created for eternal torment is something I still can't get, although I've heard it many times.

Furthermore, He is pointing out that because His nature is love, and we should strive to be Christlike, then we should strive, also, to be love. We are not God, we don't know who is elect and who isn't, so we should treat everyone as God has treated us. (Love them.)

This makes sense, except to the extent that it then becomes a setup for vicarious eternal torment of the Elect, which is what I started this thread to ask about.

 

[A New Dawn]

This makes sense, except to the extent that it then becomes a setup for vicarious eternal torment of the Elect, which is what I started this thread to ask about.

I think it teaches us, if even in a very limited way, some of the suffering He endured on the cross. (Not the physical suffering, the suffering for the sins of mankind.)

 

[ReformedChapin]

Everybody else in this thread seems to have identified beloved57 as a hyper-Calvinist. Are you disagreeing with them?

I am not familiar with beloveds stance, however we should keep the terminology as a historically recognized.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I am not familiar with beloveds stance, however we should keep the terminology as a historically recognized.

NewGuy, have you read this entire thread? I'm trying to use the terminology suggested by the "home team." Before I change my terminology again to accommodate this forum, why don't you guys come to an agreement among yourselves.

 

[bradfordl]

I am putting forth the hypothesis that subjecting loved ones of the Elect, through double predestination, to eternal conscious torment amounts to eternal conscious (although vicarious) torment for the Elect.

What we, as fallen creatures, love is immaterial and corrupted. What God loves is the only thing that matters because it is derived from His holiness and is therefore perfect.

If you think Calvinism holds together logically, and that God is loving, how do you explain this? It is the piece of Calvinism I have never heard explained in a way I can understand, other than by the giant memory wipe hypothesis. And I have never talked to an actual Calvinist who actually believed the memory wipe hypothesis.

Calvinism is completely logical. God is loving of what is perfectly loveable. And that's not us, by the way, it is His Son in and for us. There is none of us worthy of the least of His mercies. And that unworthiness derives from our unholiness, which morally (another derivative of His holiness) requires that we love in a different way than He does. He can only love that which is holy, because that is consistent with His nature. We must love all things that are both consistent with, and better than, our natures. Which under the Crown rule of Christ requires that we love even our enemies.

There is no "memory wipe" involved. When we are like Him, when we are made holy before His throne, we will love only that which is perfectly loveable as He does.

When the unrighteous steward was rebuked and punished for his mistreatment of his fellow servant who owed him far less than his Master, who had shown him mercy, the Master was not obligated to show either of them mercy, because He occupied an office far above theirs - He owned them both.

My own Father after the flesh was very dear to me. He died in 2004. He lived in my house from before the time he first got sick. I sat by him the entire duration of his sickness to the day of his death, and was only feet away when he passed. That was my Daddy. He had been a flagrant heathen alcoholic womanizer all my life. The only thing that arrested any of that was old age. But he always counted me his favorite son from my earliest memory (I have 2 older brothers), and to the extent he was able was very loving to me in his later years, although in my youth he was not at all. I witnessed to him of the gospel of Jesus Christ many times in words, and as best I could in deed, but I know he died an unbeliever. He is in hell now, or perhaps will be, depending on what turns out to be the correct eschatology. Does that sadden me? Yes. Did/Does he deserve hell? Yes. I believe that the love my fallen heart has had for him here will be subsumed in the perfected love I will have for Jesus in glory.

When I have passed through this vail of tears all the days that He has written for me in His book, my Redeemer will clothe me in wedding garments without spot or wrinkle, I will take the seat He has promised me at His wedding feast, and then I will love what He loves because it is right and He has made me righteous, and I will hate what He hates because it is right and He has made me righteous.

And that will not require a "memory wipe".

 

[Crazy Liz]

I still just cannot get Calvinism.

 

[ReformedChapin]

NewGuy, have you read this entire thread? I'm trying to use the terminology suggested by the "home team." Before I change my terminology again to accommodate this forum, why don't you guys come to an agreement among yourselves.

I skimmed through it, too long.