God discriminates

[bricklayer]

Homer C. Hoeksema (1923-1989): “All history, in which vessels unto honor or unto dishonor are formed, is the revelation and realization of the counsel of God according to which He loved Jacob and all His elect people, but hated Esau and all the reprobate” (cf. “A Scriptural Presentation of God’s Hatred“).


Cornelius Hanko (1907-2005): “God loves His people in Christ, but He hates all the workers of iniquity (Ps. 5:5). Since God loves holiness, that very love turns in hatred against unholiness and sin. Since He is righteous, He burns with righteous indignation against all wickedness. Since He loves Himself as the sole Good, He banishes from His presence all that is in conflict with His Holy Name. God is a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Him. No one has ever dared to deny that God hates the devil. And yet also the devil is one of God’s creatures, who was created as a holy angel. If God hates the devil and his host, does He not hate those who are branded in Scripture as the very seed of the serpent, a generation of vipers? Nor can we distinguish between the deed and the person, as if God hates the sin but loves the sinner. For the deed can never be separated from the depravity of the one who commits the sin, nor can the guilt be reckoned to anyone but the guilty party. Therefore God does not banish sin to hell, but the sinner. The Word of God never hesitates, therefore, to declare that God’s very soul hates the wicked and him that loveth violence (Ps. 11:5). “Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated” (Rom. 9:13). See also verses 17 and 18″ (“Particular Love, Particular Atonement, and Missions,” Standard Bearer, vol. 42, issue 4).

John MacArthur, Jr.: “In a very real sense, God hated Esau himself. It was not a petty, spiteful, childish kind of hatred, but something far more dreadful. It was divine antipathy—a holy loathing directed at Esau personally. God abominated him as well as what he stood for” (The Love of God, pp. 86-87).


Donald S. Fortner: “The Christ of modern, freewill, works religion loves everyone in the universe and wants to save them. We are told that Christ loves all men alike, desires the salvation of all men alike, and is gracious to all men alike. That makes the love, will, and grace of Christ helpless and useless. But that language cannot be applied to the Christ of the Bible. The true Christ, the Christ of the Bible, the saving Christ loves his people, wills and prays for the salvation of his people, and is gracious to his people, the people unconditionally chosen unto salvation from eternity, whom he came to save (Ps. 5:5; 7:11; 11:5; Matt. 1:21; 11:27; John 10:16; 17:9-10; Acts 13:48; Rom. 9:21-24; Eph. 1:3-6).”


[The source can be found here.]

The above is, to me, beauty and art, just the sort of thing I troll the internet for, good stuff.

 

[Faith.Man]

When you say "personal choice", to which person do you refer?

I am speaking as if I wrote what you wrote. It's not that you wrote anything that was not true. It is if I wrote it I may have chosen different wording. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

 

[Faith.Man]

Martin Luther (1483-1546): “the love and hate of God towards men is immutable and eternal, existing, not merely before there was any merit or work of ‘free-will,’ but before the world was made; [so] all things take place in us of necessity, according as He has from eternity loved or not loved … faith and unbelief come to us by no work of our own, but through the love and hatred of God” (The Bondage of the Will, pp. 226, 228-229).

William Perkins (1558-1602): “This hatred of God is whereby he detesteth and abhorreth the reprobate when he is fallen into sin for the same sin. And this hatred which God has to man comes by the fall of Adam and is neither an antecedent nor a cause of God’s decree, but only a consequent and followeth the decree” (A Golden Chain, chapter 53).

A. W. Pink (1886-1952): “‘Thou hatest all workers of iniquity’—not merely the works of iniquity. Here, then, is a flat repudiation of present teaching that, God hates sin but loves the sinner; Scripture says, ‘Thou hatest all workers of iniquity’ (Ps. 5:5)! ‘God is angry with the wicked every day.’ ‘He that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God’—not ‘shall abide,’ but even now—‘abideth on him’ (Ps. 5:5; 8:11; John 3:36). Can God ‘love’ the one on whom His ‘wrath’ abides? Again; is it not evident that the words ‘The love of God which is in Christ Jesus’ (Rom. 8:39) mark a limitation, both in the sphere and objects of His love? Again; is it not plain from the words ‘Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated’ (Rom. 9:13) that God does not love everybody? … Is it conceivable that God will love the damned in the Lake of Fire? Yet, if He loves them now He will do so then, seeing that His love knows no change—He is ‘without variableness or shadow of turning!’” (The Sovereignty of God, p. 248).

The quote from A. W. Pink is especially good. We hear the phrase "God hates the sin but loves the sinner" from all manner of preachers of the word today who should know better. God is sovereign, we should never forget that. Excellent post.

 

[twin1954]

I have no problem with the term discriminating grace. I use it often. Especially when I am speaking to free-will works mongers. It sets the truth of God's electing love in a clear light and leaves no room for the God hating rebel to twist the love of God into a false doctrine. Folks who love to hate God's truth don't care what term you use.

 

[JM]

A note from the Reformation Study Bible…teaches that God does not call all men.





Commenting on Matthew 11:28,

“Jesus has the authority to invite people to Himself. He does not extend His invitation to the strong but to the weary and burdened. Jesus uses the language of the wisdom tradition, calling the burdened to Himself as the incarnate wisdom of God. (v.19 note)
​

Introduction to the Reformation Study Bible

 

[※※♡Rose○Gold○Macaron♡※※]

God did create the human mind, but the human mind did not conceive of unicorns, Pegasus or Frodo. These are concepts originated in the mind of God. Man simply perceives these concepts.
One of the most significant differences between God's ideas and our ideas is the fact they we are not the first ones to have (conceive) our ideas.

The "clay" has a free-will, and this is exactly the combination of free-will choices God chose to create. Our free-will does not trump God's first choice.

Uh... What??? What do you mean by this? This is weird but interesting.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Uh... What??? What do you mean by this? This is weird but interesting.

I think the idea is simply that no one can think of something that has never been considered before, because all things are known by God from the beginning of time. If a man has a thought that he considers novel, it still stands to reason that God always knew that he would have that thought. Therefore, one man's "new" idea can never be new to God.