Do you love people God hates?

[Crazy Liz]

The love of God for those He has ordained to eternal life, and His hatred for those whose end is destruction displayed:
But we see that men God loves may love others whom God hates:Isaac is not rebuked for his love for Esau, because it is right, from his place and perspective, to love him. Regardless of how you may wish to define love, these scriptures demonstrate that it is appropriate for men to love some whom God does not. Isaac is now in the bosom of Abraham, who must now see his own grandson in his torments, as he saw the rich man in his. Do you think Abraham and Isaac are now weeping over one they loved, but who was a traitor and enemy of their beloved and faithful King?

That is precisely the question this thread was intended to pose to Calvinists. For me, this is the place where I have never seen a Calvinist connect the dots. I am hoping to learn if Calvinists have a satisfactory way of connecting the dots such that they can describe God as loving people while subjecting God's beloved people to watching the torment of their own loved ones.

To me, the difference is only that between inflicting direct torment on some and inflicting vicarious torment on others.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I'm not sure the word is "nothing", but yes, it's not the same as some feeling of homeyness or romance or simply liking them -- or not always even nicety. Though all are possible, they're not the focus of agapae.

I agree with you that love is much more than mere romantic feelings or liking someone. It is also more than mere acts of kindness. It is a bond between persons that has both feeling aspects and action aspects.

 

[bradfordl]

That is precisely the question this thread was intended to pose to Calvinists. For me, this is the place where I have never seen a Calvinist connect the dots. I am hoping to learn if Calvinists have a satisfactory way of connecting the dots such that they can describe God as loving people while subjecting God's beloved people to watching the torment of their own loved ones.

To me, the difference is only that between inflicting direct torment on some and inflicting vicarious torment on others.

Well then, its not calvinists that you have an issue with, but God himself. The scriptures I quoted are plain. The idea that God only has love for every human ever alive is not biblical by any means. That's an invention of those who don't believe the Word of God. But you're assuming that this 'vicarious torment' is experienced by those who have been made perfect in glory. When we enter heaven, we will love those who it is appropriate to love from that place and perspective, and that number will match exactly those that God loves, because we'll fully share in His holiness.

Part of how this creation declares His glory is the terrible sorrow that rebellion against Him produces. But remember that in heaven there will be no more tears; no more sorrows. That has to indicate that our 'feelings' will be changed about those here in this life we love, but are His enemies. I don't see how it could logically be any other way. Scripture tells us that "His ways are above our ways", and that we should not "lean unto our own understanding".

Do you mean to say that you reject what scripture says?

 

[Crazy Liz]

Well then, its not calvinists that you have an issue with, but God himself.

That's what Calvinists always say. And pretty much only Calvinists. So somehow I think it has something to do with Calvinists' concept of God.

The scriptures I quoted are plain. The idea that God only has love for every human ever alive is not biblical by any means. That's an invention of those who don't believe the Word of God.

Strange, I thought all Christians, other than Calvinists, believed that. It's only Calvinists who I've ever heard make this kind of statement.

But you're assuming that this 'vicarious torment' is experienced by those who have been made perfect in glory. When we enter heaven, we will love those who it is appropriate to love from that place and perspective, and that number will match exactly those that God loves, because we'll fully share in His holiness.

Part of how this creation declares His glory is the terrible sorrow that rebellion against Him produces. But remember that in heaven there will be no more tears; no more sorrows. That has to indicate that our 'feelings' will be changed about those here in this life we love, but are His enemies. I don't see how it could logically be any other way. Scripture tells us that "His ways are above our ways", and that we should not "lean unto our own understanding".

Do you mean to say that you reject what scripture says?

I think just about all Christians other than Calvinists reject what you think scripture says. That includes a whole lot of orthodox theologians & good, Spirit-filled people. That's why I posted this thread to try to understand.

I think I'm beginning to understand, though. You think in heaven God will change your feelings so you will then hate some of the people you love now. I'm not sure what purpose there is, then, for this life, in which we learn to love as Jesus loved. It sounds like it's all a charade, and the love we have now is not real or lasting.

 

[bradfordl]

Liz, why don't you address the scripture quoted instead of asserting that how you feel about things is of any consequence? I'm not going to base any argument based on how I feel, particularly if scripture contradicts my feelings. If the scriptures are true, then we must believe them, regardless of how many "experts" might disagree. As I said, your argument is with the scriptures, and by extension with God. It may be that you only hear that from calvinists because what you call calvinism is actually just biblical consistency.

If you are unhappy with what the bible has to tell you, then you have basically a choice between two paths to take. You can either reject the bible, or you can reject what seems right to you that contradicts it. I will always choose the latter.

BTW, I don't usually call myself a calvinist, except to help folks differentiate what I believe from other theologies. I consider it to be biblical christianity. If a theology ain't biblical, it ain't christianity. Plenty of other religions out there. What's the point of claiming to be part of one with which a person disagrees with the teachings of it's holy writ?