Does God hate most people in human history

[Charlemagne4]

If God predestines people to hell, how does God not hate them?

 

[AMR]

If God loved them with an electing love, they would be regenerated and destined for eternal glory in Heaven. Obviously, God does not.

We need to understand that [FONT=&quot]God's love is not the same as human sentimental love. To get our thinking properly focused, I would rather we say, "God is holy!" than "God is love" with all the mistaken views of love that abound.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
There are only two places in the Bible that directly say "God is love," both of which are found in John's first letter to his fellow believers. John is not writing to the world or the people of the world. In his letter he makes it clear that there are those who are "in Christ" and those of the world. Those of the world have no part with the people of God, with Christ, or with the forgiveness found in Christ because they deny Christ. Therefore any hope of the love of God being the world's to obtain is unthinkable.

Secondly, John shows us what this love means. 1 John 4:7-9 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9 In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.

John is defining what the love of God means for those who are in Christ: that God has sent His only begotten into the world, that we might live through Him. He is showing believers in Christ, what manner they are to live in Christ in response to the gift of salvation that comes through Christ. He tells us that God is love, and shows us what that love looks like. He doesn't say anything about not sending the masses to hell, or allowing the wicked of the world off the hook for their wickedness. There is no reference to universalism in this passage at all, but a direct link to believers as recipients of God's love through His Son.

The broader abuse of this passage is the liberty many take by defining what God is by this verse without respect to the Bible's other claims about what and who God is. In other words, those who abuse this truth do so because they also ignore God's other attributes, like His holiness.

I know this is shocking to some, but God's holiness has far more implications for the world and non-believers than His love does. Whereas the believer is the recipient of God's special love, the non-believer is the recipient to God's special judgment. This is because God's holiness demands that sin be dealt with.

Many people have a distorted view of what love is that really does not come close to revealing what God's love is. It would be much better to say God is holy and then explaining what that means instead of this abused concept that God is loving, therefore meaning that He loves us unconditionally. The fact is that God doesn't love us unconditionally. The conditions of His love are very specific and not a few people do not understand or simply ignore these biblical truths.[/FONT]

 

[Charlemagne4]

Thank you. I wish all Calvinists would be as forthright about what they beliefs imply about the world and market them as such as you have.

 

[Charlemagne4]

He doesn't say anything about not sending the masses to hell, or allowing the wicked of the world off the hook for their wickedness.

Why would God think about this in terms of letting the world off the hook for their wickedness if they never had a chance to repent or avoid sin in the first place?

 

[AMR]

Why would God think about this in terms of letting the world off the hook for their wickedness if they never had a chance to repent or avoid sin in the first place?

John in his first epistle is the writer I was discussing in my response.

No one, even those who have never heard of Jesus Christ, has an excuse. Paul reminds us of this fact in the first chapter of Romans.

 

[crimsonleaf]

If God predestines people to hell, how does God not hate them?

I think you've had an honest answer from my friend above, but I'd like to focus on your OP; Most Calvinists would take issue with your initial statement.

You've quoted the double-predestinarian view, where most Calvinists (in my experience) hold to the single-predestinarian view. Simply, we believe that God elects some to eternal life and allows the others to follow their chosen path, ultimately to an unsaved state.

Although this is an inexact analogy, it might come close for some: I want a dog; I go to my local rescue centre, and for reasons unknown to anyone but me, I pick the mangiest, unhealthy looking cur to take home. In choosing him it says nothing whatsoever about my views on the fate of the others. I have not condemned them to euthanasia because that is a path they are all on anyway.

Where this is dissimilar to God's position in salvation is that man's certain path to destruction has been chosen by man himself. God doesn't "block" anyone from coming to Him, and as it's been said above, none are without excuse. He just absolutely ensures that some are saved. My analogy says that the remaining dogs may be killed through no choice of their own. But mankind has a choice and inevitably, through his God-hating nature, chooses badly. Man signs his own death warrant, not God.

As a general disclaimer, and to pacify comedic posters who will claim that man is not a dog etc. etc, I am not saying that man is God's pet, that we have four legs, or anything other than trying to find a pertinent metaphor for God's NOT condemning men to hell.

 

[Charlemagne4]

Does that square with a limited atonement? It doesn't sound like it.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Does that square with a limited atonement? It doesn't sound like it.

What I've described is election to salvation and how single predestinarians do not accept God's active predestination of sinners. Unbelievers choose their own path.

Limited atonement isn't affected one way or the other by what I've written. We accept that Christ didn't die to forgive the sins of those who subsequently end up in hell. Hell is a punishment for sin, so it makes no sense that those in hell have been atoned for. That's limited atonement. Those whom God gives to Christ, He keeps. Those are the ones he died for.

 

[Skala]

A few things need to be said about God's "love" and God's "hatred".

When the question "Does God hate people" is asked, it first helps to develop an understanding of what it means for God to hate.

God is holy, sinless, and righteous. Therefore, any emotion God has is also holy sinless and righteous. If God hates something, he is hating that thing righteously. In other words, his hatred is not a selfish, uncontrollable, sinful emotion the way we humans might hate our neighbor. His hatred is righteous.

Is it possible for hatred to be righteous? Yes it is. For example, I hate abortion, injustice, rape, child molestation, etc. My hatred of these things is not a sinful kind of hate. So you can see that it is good to have a hatred for evil things.

When we consider that the Bible teaches that fallen man is wicked and evil, i think it is safe to say that if God hates a human, it is a good thing. In the same way it is good for me to hate what is evil, it is likewise good for God to hate what is evil. Humans are evil.

So if God hates a human, there is nothing wrong with that. He is hating what is evil. Thus his hatred is a righteous hate.

This is why the Bible says clearly that God hates those who do iniquity. Psa 5:5.

Can God love something he hates? I think so. The Bible says that God gives gifts to men like the sunshine and the rain. He gives these gifts to all people, both the righteous and the wicked. Thus, I see this as God showing love to all people, even the reprobate that He does not plan on saving. He can love someone without it being a salvific love.

The Bible says that Gods love for the church is like a husbands love for his wife. As a husband, I don't love all the women in the world equally. I have a special, unique love for my wife. I am commanded to love all people. So I can love other women, but I will never love them the way I love my wife. For her, a special, unique love is reserved.

The same is true of God and His chosen people. He can love all people, but it doesn't have to be the same kind of love. He has a unique, special love for His wife, the church.

Conclusions:

Is it right of God to hate what is evil? Yes

Can God hate humans? Yes. Humans are evil

Can God show love to those that he hates? Yes. He gives gifts to all.

Can God love some people with a special love that he does not love other people with? Yes. They are called God's elect, "the beloved".

 

[hedrick]

You've quoted the double-predestinarian view, where most Calvinists (in my experience) hold to the single-predestinarian view. Simply, we believe that God elects some to eternal life and allows the others to follow their chosen path, ultimately to an unsaved state.

This seems odd to me. Generally Calvinism is considered to be (by definition) double predestination. Not that things are completely symmetrical: God is personally present in the elect regenerating them, and he does not personally degenerate the non-elect. But his plan includes both equally, so he can be said just as much to elect the reprobation of the reprobate as the election of the elect.

Single predestination is normally used for Luther. While people have sometimes characterized it as you do, I don't think that's entirely fair. What Luther really seems to say is that we know God's activity with his children, because he tells us in Scripture, and we can experience it. While we are confident that people can only be saved by the intervention of his grace, what his activity with others (which Luther refers to as God's Left Hand) is isn't known to us, and speculation is dangerous. When we proceed by logic rather than with true understanding, we risk turning to the Dark Side, and turning God into an immoral monster.

I'm not a Lutheran, so perhaps there are some real Lutherans who could comment whether I've gotten this right.

 

[crimsonleaf]

This seems odd to me. Generally Calvinism is considered to be (by definition) double predestination. Not that things are completely symmetrical: God is personally present in the elect regenerating them, and he does not personally degenerate the non-elect. But his plan includes both equally, so he can be said just as much to elect the reprobation of the reprobate as the election of the elect.

Single predestination is normally used for Luther. While people have sometimes characterized it as you do, I don't think that's entirely fair. What Luther really seems to say is that we know God's activity with his children, because he tells us in Scripture, and we can experience it. While we are confident that people can only be saved by the intervention of his grace, what his activity with others (which Luther refers to as God's Left Hand) is isn't known to us, and speculation is dangerous. When we proceed by logic rather than with true understanding, we risk turning to the Dark Side, and turning God into an immoral monster.

I'm not a Lutheran, so perhaps there are some real Lutherans who could comment whether I've gotten this right.

Would you agree that reprobation is essentially self-inflicted? If so, I'd refer you back to my inexact "rescue dog" analogy. An active move to save one group is not equal to an active move to reprobate the other group, and although part of God's plan it may be that the reprobates are in God's plan in the same way the unrescued dogs are in mine. Whilst Lutherans may agree with single-predestination, many Calvinists do too, and my experience is only of those on here and those at my own church, which is 100% Calvinist and thinks as I do.

 

[hedrick]

Would you agree that reprobation is essentially self-inflicted? If so, I'd refer you back to my inexact "rescue dog" analogy. An active move to save one group is not equal to an active move to reprobate the other group, and although part of God's plan it may be that the reprobates are in God's plan in the same way the unrescued dogs are in mine. Whilst Lutherans may agree with single-predestination, many Calvinists do too, and my experience is only of those on here and those at my own church, which is 100% Calvinist and thinks as I do.

I'm reasonably sure that Calvin would not agree, but would say that this is a false choice. Basically he would say that people are judged because of their own fault, so in that sense yes. But he would also say that the fact that they are reprobate is part of God's plan, and is not just passively but actively intended by God.

Basically Calvin and many later Reformed thinkers believed in "compatibiism," the idea that what we do is both our own choice, for which we are held responsible, and part of God's plan, which is specifically intends to happen. The reason these are not contradictory is that God normally works through secondary causes. He typically doesn't throw lightning bolts and otherwise act directly, but rather arranges for human and natural agents, through the course their normal functioning, to carry out his plans. That means that both the humans and God are responsible, though on different levels. The humans are genuinely responsible, because their choices reflect their character and goals. (This particular explanation for why human are responsible for their actions even though their actions are willed by God is from Jonathan Edwards.) But those choices, and the things that set them in motion, are also part of God's plan, so in another sense he is responsible.

You asked specifically about reprobation. For the elect, there's more to it than this. For them, there is the additional personal working on the Holy Spirit in them, so that God has a more direct involvement in the salvation of the elect than the fall of the reprobate. But it is still true that he equally wills both.

[I note that I'm trying to give you an explanation of what I believe Calvin intended, not my own personal views.]