Does God loves the devil?

[Not David]

People don't realize how much EO and RCC strikingly resembles the different streams of Rabbinical Judaism. But, this is for another discussion and is not related to the OP.

Wouldn't it be because they come from Second Temple Judaism?

 

[Not David]

Also, implying that God first hates someone and then he loves him shows a change in God. God is without change.

 

[Jonaitis]

I am not defining love as it is defined in our day, or as you are. nor am I neglecting His wrath properly defined.

as for your second point, Scripture says God doesn't change, Scripture says God is love, Scripture says love is kind. therefore, if God is being kind, God is showing love. the fact that you bring this point up shows you don't get what love is as defined in the ancient Church.

which means that while you reject the warm fuzzies definition of love (rightly so), you are still defining it through very modern means.

Well, I don't know the main consensus of the ancient church's definition of love was, but I do know this: Scripture was written in the ancient Greek vernacular, it may have not been high or classical in form, it was nonetheless the tongue of the pagan, understood by the pagan, utilized by the pagan. The divinely inspired word of God, particularly the NT document, was written in the "watered-down" version of that form of Greek spoken beyond the borders of Greece in other hellenized nations not originally native to it. Before the early church was established (officially), the meaning of what would be used to convey truth in Scripture was consistent with what was understood by pagans.

Greek not only has nuances, but there is even technicality as to particular words for particular uses, and "love" is one of them. As you know, and I am assuming know better than me, love has at least four kinds. The one used often when talking about God's love is "agape," and in meaning and contexual understanding in other places where it is imported in Scripture, it is always understood to be an active form of benefiting another at the expense or effort of one party to another for their good as its end. Christ suffered on behalf of sinners in order to redeem them from that divine wrath, that's a realized form of agape. It isn't just some passive feeling, it is an active doing good toward another for their greatest benefit. We do not see God actively doing all for the good of all with the same result. On the contrary we read thus:

"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, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory..." (Rom. 9:22-23).

In this text, we see that the wicked were not only created to serve God's justice, leading to his glory in that, but ultimately to show how grand his love and mercy is toward those whom he has eternally set his affections on, vessels of mercy, the very objects of his love in salvation in Christ. This is a hard verse to swallow, but we find such verses scattered all over Holy Writ, that God created the wicked to bless the righteous, whom he elected in love, from eternity.

 

[Jonaitis]

Also, implying that God first hates someone and then he loves him shows a change in God. God is without change.

I agree, God is without change. But, this leads to another discussion on the impassibility of God and his pure act, which would take even more time to explain. How man can go from under God's hatred to love isn't a change in his nature, but the position of the creature.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well, I don't know the main consensus of the ancient church's definition of love was, but I do know this: Scripture was written in the ancient Greek vernacular, it may have not been high or classical in form, it was nonetheless the tongue of the pagan, understood by the pagan, utilized by the pagan. The divinely inspired word of God, particularly the NT document, was written in the "watered-down" version of that form of Greek spoken beyond the borders of Greece in other hellenized nations not originally native to it. Before the early church was established (officially), the meaning of what would be used to convey truth in Scripture was consistent with what was understood by pagans.

Greek not only has nuances, but there is even technicality as to particular words for particular uses, and "love" is one of them. As you know, and I am assuming know better than me, love has at least four kinds. The one used often when talking about God's love is "agape," and in meaning and contexual understanding in other places where it is imported in Scripture, it is always understood to be an active form of benefiting another at the expense or effort of one party to another for their good as its end. Christ suffered on behalf of sinners in order to redeem them from that divine wrath, that's a realized form of agape. It isn't just some passive feeling, it is an active doing good toward another for their greatest benefit. We do not see God actively doing all for the good of all with the same result. On the contrary we read thus:

"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, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory..." (Rom. 9:22-23).

In this text, we see that the wicked were not only created to serve God's justice, leading to his glory in that, but ultimately to show how grand his love and mercy is toward those whom he has eternally set his affections on, vessels of mercy, the very objects of his love in salvation in Christ. This is a hard verse to swallow, but we find such verses scattered all over Holy Writ, that God created the wicked to bless the righteous, whom he elected in love, from eternity.

except for the longest time, the Christians who were native Greek speakers would disagree with what you are saying and concluding.

 

[Not David]

Well, I don't know the main consensus of the ancient church's definition of love was, but I do know this: Scripture was written in the ancient Greek vernacular, it may have not been high or classical in form, it was nonetheless the tongue of the pagan, understood by the pagan, utilized by the pagan. The divinely inspired word of God, particularly the NT document, was written in the "watered-down" version of that form of Greek spoken beyond the borders of Greece in other hellenized nations not originally native to it. Before the early church was established (officially), the meaning of what would be used to convey truth in Scripture was consistent with what was understood by pagans.

Greek not only has nuances, but there is even technicality as to particular words for particular uses, and "love" is one of them. As you know, and I am assuming know better than me, love has at least four kinds. The one used often when talking about God's love is "agape," and in meaning and contexual understanding in other places where it is imported in Scripture, it is always understood to be an active form of benefiting another at the expense or effort of one party to another for their good as its end. Christ suffered on behalf of sinners in order to redeem them from that divine wrath, that's a realized form of agape. It isn't just some passive feeling, it is an active doing good toward another for their greatest benefit. We do not see God actively doing all for the good of all with the same result. On the contrary we read thus:

"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, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory..." (Rom. 9:22-23).

In this text, we see that the wicked were not only created to serve God's justice, leading to his glory in that, but ultimately to show how grand his love and mercy is toward those whom he has eternally set his affections on, vessels of mercy, the very objects of his love in salvation in Christ. This is a hard verse to swallow, but we find such verses scattered all over Holy Writ, that God created the wicked to bless the righteous, whom he elected in love, from eternity.

Calvinism is mostly based on the Medieval idea of honor in the Satisfaction Theory, so I don't see how your idea can be close to the Greeks.

 

[Jonaitis]

except for the longest time, the Christians who were native Greek speakers would disagree with what you are saying and concluding.

Okay. Just look at the uses of it throughout the NT and the Septuagint. That's all I have to say...

 

[ArmyMatt]

Okay. Just look at the uses of it throughout the NT and the Septuagint. That's all I have to say...

I have, I have also read what the earliest Christians said about it.

 

[Jonaitis]

Calvinism is mostly based on the Medieval idea of honor in the Satisfaction Theory, so I don't see how your idea can be close to the Greeks.

Well, is that so? I would like to hear the Orthodox position of verses we Calvinists often use to defend our medieval belief system.

 

[Jonaitis]

I have, I have also read what the earliest Christians said about it.

Okay.

 

[Not David]

Well, is that so? I would like to hear the Orthodox position of verses we Calvinists often use to defend our medieval belief system.

@Jonaitis St. Justin Martyr forum is the debate forum. You can debate here but read the rules if you have any question.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Seven Day Adventists cannot image God punishing sinners for eternity, and Univeralists cannot imagine God punishing anyone period. We must be honest with what God has told us, that's my concern.

Indeed, being honest with what God has told us, and ESPECIALLY with Who He IS ... is of the greatest imoportance.

My point had nothing to do with what you might be understanding ... Seventh Day Adventists and Universalists have nothing to do with any of it. The early Christian Church has everything to do with it though.

People don't realize how much EO and RCC strikingly resembles the different streams of Rabbinical Judaism. But, this is for another discussion and is not related to the OP.

You're right, I don't quite see the point. The early Christian Church was made up first of Jews who believed in Christ. It is not surprising that certain similarities would be seen ... the God of the OT is the same as the God of the New ... we know Him most clearly through Jesus.

Like I said, I'm not interested in arguing. You bring up some interesting points. But generally the theology you are talking about is like looking through a telescope the wrong way, beginning with later western understandings of theology (introduced by Catholicism, not Orthodoxy) which Protestantism has as its foundation, often giving too much emphasis to OT understandings (and sometimes rabbinical later-century understandings via the Masoretic text) ... instead of primacy being given first to Jesus Himself and how He presented everything, viewing all through the lens of the Gospel and the early Church.

It a topic I have found fascinating (how theology develops). But I ultimately must agree with the truth I've found. On the one hand I have no desire to argue. On the other, I'd encourage anyone who is interested to sincerely search out these matters.

God be with you.