# Does God hate all who are not Christian?



## David FCC

Can someone help out with this please?


----------



## Skyler

No. (That's a "no, he doesn't", not a "no, no one can help".)


----------



## Christusregnat

David FCC said:


> Can someone help out with this please?



God is angry with the wicked every day. God hates all the workers of iniquity. Children of wrath, even as the others.

That said, God is without passions, and therefore, this language describes His judicial response. Until a man believes in Christ, He is under God's sentence of condemnation. Once justified, such a sinner is accepted in the Beloved.

Hope that helps!

Cheers,


----------



## David FCC

Skyler said:


> No. (That's a "no, he doesn't", not a "no, no one can help".)



Any chance of some quotes to back that up?


----------



## Prufrock

It depends on what sense you intend:

1.) For instance, there are the elect who are not yet converted; these has God loved with an everlasting love, though they be not yet *actually* justified.

2.) There is a love which God has toward all his creatures as creatures; this is not salvific in anyway, nor is it related to or in anyway foundational to salvation. But it is a love which causes him to preserve all creatures in existence.

3.) But yes, in a more specific sense, God loves the elect and hates the reprobate. These are not emotions or passions in God, but are assigned to him based upon the acts of his will.


----------



## JML

*Psalm 5:5*
"The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity."


*Psalm 11:5*
"The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth."


He does love the elect however. Even before their conversion.

*Ephesians 1:4*
"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love."

So to answer your question. Yes, He hates the non-elect.


----------



## MW

Something to ponder from the pen of Samuel Rutherford (Covenant of Life Opened, "The Elect non-converted are not under Law-wrath"):



> Whether the Elect unconverted be under wrath is a doubt to many. It is true, they are servants of sin, Rom. 6. 17. Blind, and under the power of Satan as Reprobates are, Acts 26.18. By nature children of wrath, even as others, Eph. 2.3. Ans. Their sins committed before their Conversion, are according to the Covenant of Works, such as deserve everlasting condemnation, and they are jure and in relation to that Covenant, heirs of wrath, as well as others. 2. But we must distinguish between a state of election and everlasting, though unseen love, that they are under, as touching their persons: and a state of a sinfull way that they are born in, and walk in as others do, untill they be converted. As to the former state, it is true which is said, Ier. 31.3. I have loved thee with an everlasting love. See also, Rom. 9. 12,13. Eph. 1.4. so that God never hates their persons.



The key to answering the OP lies in distinguishing between eternal election and temporal administration of the covenant.


----------



## Skyler

David FCC said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. (That's a "no, he doesn't", not a "no, no one can help".)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any chance of some quotes to back that up?
Click to expand...


The answer is also yes. See all the quotes above.


----------



## Romans922

Jacob I loved, Esau I hated. 

Does God hate all who are not Christian? No, some are of His elect. But He also doesn't hate in the way that we hate (ours stems from a breaking of the sixth commandment).


----------



## Christusregnat

Romans922 said:


> Jacob I loved, Esau I hated.
> 
> Does God hate all who are not Christian? No, some are of His elect. But He also doesn't hate in the way that we hate (ours stems from a breaking of the sixth commandment).



This raises a related issue (perhaps off topic). Is hatred in us always a sin?

Cheers,


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Here is an interesting video by Dr. Robert Morey about this topic.

[video=youtube;LxZKJSNVgqM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxZKJSNVgqM&feature=related[/video]


----------



## Don Kistler

It is safe to say that God loves everyone except for those whom He hates, and those are enumerated in Scripture: Esau, all who practice iniquity, the one who spreads strife.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Christusregnat said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob I loved, Esau I hated.
> 
> Does God hate all who are not Christian? No, some are of His elect. But He also doesn't hate in the way that we hate (ours stems from a breaking of the sixth commandment).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This raises a related issue (perhaps off topic). Is hatred in us always a sin?
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


We should burn with a righteous anger against iniquity. Eph 4:25-26 

Dr. Lloyd-Jones speaks about here.


----------



## BertMulder

Don Kistler said:


> It is safe to say that God loves everyone except for those whom He hates, and those are enumerated in Scripture: Esau, all who practice iniquity, the one who spreads strife.



Meanwhile it is true that we are called to love those whom God hates, and to bring them the Gospel.


----------



## TeachingTulip

BertMulder said:


> Don Kistler said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is safe to say that God loves everyone except for those whom He hates, and those are enumerated in Scripture: Esau, all who practice iniquity, the one who spreads strife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile it is true that we are called to love those whom God hates, and to bring them the Gospel.
Click to expand...


We do not yet know exactly who is hated or loved by God . . .so meanwhile, prior to that Day when these very truths will be revealed, the commandment from God is for us to love our enemies who presently exhibit hatred of God by bringing them the Gospel of His grace.


----------



## steadfast7

If God's hate is unlike ours, in that he hates without passions and emotions, then how can we say that God hates, and how can we know what that hate is like?

We know what 'hate' means because of our human experience of it. How can we then know what it means for God to hate? Does it even have meaning?

I understand the necessity of anthropomorphic language, I just don't understand how that helps us know anything about the reality that lies behind it.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

steadfast7 said:


> If God's hate is unlike ours, in that he hates without passions and emotions, then how can we say that God hates, and how can we know what that hate is like?
> 
> We know what 'hate' means because of our human experience of it. How can we then know what it means for God to hate? Does it even have meaning?
> 
> I understand the necessity of anthropomorphic language, I just don't understand how that helps us know anything about the reality that lies behind it.



Truth is reality as perceived by God.

I believe like all anthropomorphisms of God in the bible he does what is done because that is what is correct according to his will. 

He is not grieved involuntarily at the wickedness of men. He is not taken aback or surprised. He is grieved because it is righteous to be grieved so he is voluntarily grieved at the wickedness of man because he is the definer of good, thus his grief is the proper answer to wickedness.

Also with hate. God is love. But he hates what is proper to hate because it is righteous hatred because that is his will.

God is immutable and his emotions are the bluprint of propriety.


----------



## Christusregnat

steadfast7 said:


> If God's hate is unlike ours, in that he hates without passions and emotions, then how can we say that God hates, and how can we know what that hate is like?



It is impossible to know what God is like by unaided examination of our own emotional states. God does not have emotions, as, by definition, that would mean that He would be moved from without Himself (this is the meaning of the term emotion). God is always moved from within Himself: his good pleasure and purpose govern all that He does.

That said, the hatred of God is a term that Scripture uses to describe God *per effectum*, not _per affectum_. In other words, it is describing what is effected or accomplished, not God's emotional state. It is the same as referring to God's "wings"; it describes the effect, such as protection or shelter, vs. the affect, God flapping His pinions 

Cheers,


----------



## Bern

That video was a real mixed bag for me... it seemed almost like a comedy sketch in its presentation. He seemed kind of sarcastic and cutting, yet at the same time it helped to deliver his point really well.

If some Christians saw that they'd be appalled by his delivery, saying it was unloving.


Edit: In fact I just looked up Morey on google, and there is a ton of stuff about him being involved in fraud cases etc, not to mention the way he speaks to people, calling homosexuals "fags" etc... I wonder if he is just misrepresented online, or if he genuinely needs to evaluate the way he represents Christ to the world.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

God hates sin, as it is rebellion against His holy and loving governance, and His pure creation. When Adam fell / rebelled he consigned _all_ his posterity into the condition which is called "children of disobedience...children of wrath" (Eph 2:2, 3). As said, God hates the sheer evil of rebellion against His good, and must destroy it to preserve His glory in a sinless creation (which is coming).

But He has compassion and mercy on His creatures' abject and utter ruination, and He saved some out of the lot deserving of and en route to Hell. 

As an offense against the infinite God merits an infinite death, He sent His Son to bear that in our stead.

There are many things we cannot answer now about this, but it is clear God abhors evil, and for His glory and our good will destroy it.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

P.S. I'm glad to see Robert Morey is still kickin'.

I followed the fraud allegation some years back, and decided that the alleger was in the wrong, and calumniated Morey (in other aspects as well).

Morey has a devastating critique of Islam (I used to air his tapes on a cable TV program in Woodstock (along with other cult-expose videos), and an Islam-promoting program shut down because of it. He is edgy, and sometimes crosses the line. Perhaps this is due to one of the calumnies against him by the aforementioned alleger being that Morey was effeminate. It could be Morey wants to make clear he is not (though I never thought he was anyway).

He would give public lectures against Islam and there would be folks (as one can imagine) very angry and threatening to him. He wasn't fazed.

He is a very good apologist, and cult refuter. I like him, even if he is a little rough - and no doubt I would not countenance everything he says. 

All this just to counter the falsehoods promoted about him.


----------



## busdriver72

Poor Mr. Morey.
He's so shy and reserved.
He just needs to say what he really thinks.

He makes some very good points that I had never considered.

But, what is to prevent God from extending grace to those He hates?
If He hates them, they are undeserving of His love, but grace is not deserved nor earned. God hates the ungodly, but Christ died for the ungodly. One can be gracious to someone that one does not love.

_PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
LUK 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for He is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
_

The Lord can be good even to those He in some fashion "hates." This in no way negates His anger or wrath.
Also, Jesus commands to "love" our enemies because we will "be children of the Highest" who does the same Himself. This does not imply the huggy-huggy kissy-kissy idea of love, but the idea of being gracious to show forth the goodness of God Himself.
All things are possible with God, and that includes His ability to be good and gracious to those He hates.


----------



## steadfast7

Does God delight in the pouring out of his hate and wrath?

Does he delight in it as much as he delights in his electing grace?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

God loves his elect _*in Christ*_. He hates all sin, and anything that opposes his holy will--and all evil either has been unutterably judged, or will be. No one "in Adam" (remaining under the Covenant of Works) can have any assurance of God's love.

I think the Rutherford quote above is quite helpful (as is most anything from Rev. Winzer).


----------



## Amazing Grace

Christusregnat said:


> Until a man believes in Christ, He is under God's sentence of condemnation. Once justified, such a sinner is accepted in the Beloved.
> 
> Hope that helps!
> 
> Cheers,



Adam, can you please unpack this a tad? Prufock appears to disagree with this assessment. And I agree with him, so I am leaning to disagree with you on this one point. In what sense can the elect every be under the judicial hatred condemnation of God? I know Ephesians 2 is used to show this, but if you look at it closely it doesnt say what some want it to say. Children of wrath does not equal children under God's wrath. The word 'orge' in the greek speaks of the natural disposition of the children. The anger of the children, the character of the children not God. Linguistically this cannot refer to God's disposition towards man. This is inline with the HC Q & A # 5.

Question 5. Canst thou keep all these things perfectly?

Answer: In no wise; (a) for I am prone by nature to hate God and my neighbour.(b)

I will say the scripture can literally be taken to mean we, the elect, were wrathful children Godwards. Because if you look at Paul's whole argument, he consistently say God loved us.

1 *And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,*

This is love not hate to me

2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.


*4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),*

Again, while we hated Him, He certainly loved us


6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

Again this is all love while we hated Him.


----------



## A.Hudson

Yea it does seem Morey comes off very sarcastic. We have to be straight forward with truth 100%, and correct false doctrine absolutely! But, we have to be wise, considerate, and loving. When we do it sarcastically we're just begging for contention and strife, we have to be considerate towards other positioning, and then bring correction. Every one who believes what he's saying doesn't react like that. Address it, point them to The word of God to correct the error in love and that's it. Him calling people sloppy thinkers and all is not very considerate; I'm sure he wasn't reformed all his life, and held to such doctrine fresh out of the womb..remember the work that God did in your heart to open your eyes to this wondrous truth and be considerate of others who are once where u were; while also teaching them sound doctrine in Love, Patience and respect.

P.S:I do believe everything He said, and all his points were on point though..most definitely..just the way they were presented I disagree with.


----------



## Christusregnat

Amazing Grace said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until a man believes in Christ, He is under God's sentence of condemnation. Once justified, such a sinner is accepted in the Beloved.
> 
> Hope that helps!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adam, can you please unpack this a tad?
Click to expand...


The elect are not justified until they believe. Therefore, they are under the wrath of God until they are justified by faith. We believe in order that we may be justified. Faith is the instrument of justification, not election. Therefore, when we did not believe, we were not justified.

I hope that helps.

Also, eternal justification is an error which tends to eliminate the means, and therefore has been an allied doctrine to antinomianism. Not that it has to be, but it tends in that direction.

Hope that's unpacked enough


----------



## JTB

Christusregnat said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until a man believes in Christ, He is under God's sentence of condemnation. Once justified, such a sinner is accepted in the Beloved.
> 
> Hope that helps!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adam, can you please unpack this a tad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The elect are not justified until they believe. Therefore, they are under the wrath of God until they are justified by faith. We believe in order that we may be justified. Faith is the instrument of justification, not election. Therefore, when we did not believe, we were not justified.
> 
> I hope that helps.
> 
> Also, eternal justification is an error which tends to eliminate the means, and therefore has been an allied doctrine to antinomianism. Not that it has to be, but it tends in that direction.
> 
> Hope that's unpacked enough
Click to expand...


If you don't mind, I'd prefer a bit more unpacking:

Does election imply that God always sees the elect united to Christ?

If so, does our eternal election in Christ imply God disposes his love to us from eternity? (i.e. is it true that God's love is expressed in uniting us to Christ?)

Is the wrath of God a disposition arising from His eternal nature?

If so, can you please explain to me how you reconcile God's love for us in election (an eternal disposition) can be compatible with God's wrath upon us (an eternal disposition) prior to our regeneration?


----------



## Ron

Christusregnat said:


> David FCC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone help out with this please?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is angry with the wicked every day. God hates all the workers of iniquity. Children of wrath, even as the others.
> 
> That said, God is without passions, and therefore, this language describes His judicial response. Until a man believes in Christ, He is under God's sentence of condemnation. Once justified, such a sinner is accepted in the Beloved.
> 
> Hope that helps!
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


I'm shocked at all the kudos this post received. Given the question it was trying to answer, it is quite misleading. The question was does God hate all non-Christians.

God loves his elect prior to their conversion, hence God does NOT hate all non-Christians. God so loved the world (the elect!) that he gave his only begotten son. 

Ron

-----Added 11/7/2009 at 09:30:57 EST-----



Prufrock said:


> It depends on what sense you intend:
> 
> 1.) For instance, there are the elect who are not yet converted; these has God loved with an everlasting love, though they be not yet *actually* justified.
> 
> 2.) There is a love which God has toward all his creatures as creatures; this is not salvific in anyway, nor is it related to or in anyway foundational to salvation. But it is a love which causes him to preserve all creatures in existence.
> 
> 3.) But yes, in a more specific sense, God loves the elect and hates the reprobate. These are not emotions or passions in God, but are assigned to him based upon the acts of his will.



I hadn't read down the thread when I posted. I'm delighted with all the kudos this post got! Let me add my name to that set of kudos! 

Ron


----------



## Christusregnat

JTB said:


> If you don't mind, I'd prefer a bit more unpacking:
> 
> Does election imply that God always sees the elect united to Christ?



Yes.





JTB said:


> If so, does our eternal election in Christ imply God disposes his love to us from eternity? (i.e. is it true that God's love is expressed in uniting us to Christ?)



Yes. However, we are not justified by election, but by faith. Contrarily, we are not elected by faith. They vary widely one from another.



JTB said:


> Is the wrath of God a disposition arising from His eternal nature?



I think the question is directed incorrectly. The question of whether or not God's wrath abides on non-Christians is not essentially a question about the essence of the Godhead, but of God's judicial relationship to people in history, space and time.



JTB said:


> If so, can you please explain to me how you reconcile God's love for us in election (an eternal disposition) can be compatible with God's wrath upon us (an eternal disposition) prior to our regeneration?



Again, I think the question is misdirected. If God did not judicially condemn us prior to our justification, He would be unjust. Election and justification are not the same thing.

I don't think I can improve on our Confession's statement on this point:



> IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:[12] nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.[13]



Again, we are not justified from all eternity; we are justified by faith. We do not believe from eternity, and therefore, we are not justified from eternity.

Cheers,

Adam

-----Added 11/7/2009 at 10:03:36 EST-----



Ron said:


> I'm shocked at all the kudos this post received. Given the question it was trying to answer, it is quite misleading. The question was does God hate all non-Christians.



I am shocked that you are shocked! Two can play at this game 





Ron said:


> God loves his elect prior to their conversion, hence God does NOT hate all non-Christians. God so loved the world (the elect!) that he gave his only begotten son.
> 
> Ron



My point was regarding the wrath of God as His judicial response to those that are not justified (those that are non-Christians).

Are you affirming that those that have not believed are justified from eternity?

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## mvdm

Christusregnat said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God's hate is unlike ours, in that he hates without passions and emotions, then how can we say that God hates, and how can we know what that hate is like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is impossible to know what God is like by unaided examination of our own emotional states. God does not have emotions, as, by definition, that would mean that He would be moved from without Himself (this is the meaning of the term emotion). God is always moved from within Himself: his good pleasure and purpose govern all that He does.
> 
> That said, the hatred of God is a term that Scripture uses to describe God *per effectum*, not _per affectum_. In other words, it is describing what is effected or accomplished, not God's emotional state. It is the same as referring to God's "wings"; it describes the effect, such as protection or shelter, vs. the affect, God flapping His pinions
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


Not sure I am convinced that God does not have emotions. Emotions are also derived from, and flow out of, personality and dispositions as well. Thus, they do not have to be viewed as from outside of, unconnected to, or inconsistent with his attributes as God. I don't see why His hatred, zeal, love, compassion, wrath, must be seen as emotionless if they are indeed perfect in their manifestation. Perhaps there is some Scripture that addresses this directly?


----------



## Brian Withnell

BertMulder said:


> Don Kistler said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is safe to say that God loves everyone except for those whom He hates, and those are enumerated in Scripture: Esau, all who practice iniquity, the one who spreads strife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile it is true that we are called to love those whom God hates, and to bring them the Gospel.
Click to expand...


Not sure I agree with the statement (at least the first part).


> Do I not hate those who hate You, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?
> I hate them with the utmost hatred; They have become my enemies.


I would allow the Psalmist to not be sinning in what he says.

While I agree that we are to love our enemies, we are to hate the enemies of God.

-----Added 11/7/2009 at 10:15:48 EST-----



mvdm said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God's hate is unlike ours, in that he hates without passions and emotions, then how can we say that God hates, and how can we know what that hate is like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is impossible to know what God is like by unaided examination of our own emotional states. God does not have emotions, as, by definition, that would mean that He would be moved from without Himself (this is the meaning of the term emotion). God is always moved from within Himself: his good pleasure and purpose govern all that He does.
> 
> That said, the hatred of God is a term that Scripture uses to describe God *per effectum*, not _per affectum_. In other words, it is describing what is effected or accomplished, not God's emotional state. It is the same as referring to God's "wings"; it describes the effect, such as protection or shelter, vs. the affect, God flapping His pinions
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure I am convinced that God does not have emotions. Emotions are also derived from, and flow out of, personality and dispositions as well. Thus, they do not have to be viewed as from outside of, unconnected to, or inconsistent with his attributes as God. I don't see why His hatred, zeal, love, compassion, wrath, must be seen as emotionless if they are indeed perfect in their manifestation. Perhaps there is some Scripture that addresses this directly?
Click to expand...


WCF


> 1. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, _without body, parts, or *passions*_; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal, most just, and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.


----------



## JTB

> The question of whether or not God's wrath abides on non-Christians is not essentially a question about the essence of the Godhead, but of God's judicial relationship to people in history, space and time.



It is a question that bears upon the essence of the Godhead, however. Either God's wrath is something He eternally confers (as his electing love) or it is something he temporally administers (as a particular, terminating consequence). You seem to indicate that you think it only to be the latter, but I'd like to see, if you are willing, support for that conclusion.



> If God did not judicially condemn us prior to our justification, He would be unjust. Election and justification are not the same thing.



You are begging the question here. If you assume that justification is temporal, then it would make sense that God would first have to condemn us. But if justification has an eternal aspect, God's is the logical consequence of our election. We don't experience it because our minds are darkened by sin, but our subjective apprehension need not impact the objective reality.

I'm assuming the footnote 12 in the Confession is citing Romans 4:25? The "for" is translated "because" in the NASB, and the greek is an accusative "dia," which bears the function of a result clause, "[Christ] was raised because of our justification."



> Again, we are not justified from all eternity; we are justified by faith. We do not believe from eternity, and therefore, we are not justified from eternity.



Believing, or faith, is not the cause of our justification. If that we so, our justification would be synergistic rather than the sole work of God. As an instrument, faith is more like the eye that receives the light of the sun than it is the hammer than strike a blow. Our faith apprehends what God has done--it does not accomplish it. Imagine, for instance, a courtroom where the judge pronounces the defendant innocent. The decision of the judge was made prior to his striking the gavel (or pronouncement of the sentence, if you will)--to the judge, the accused was justified as soon as his decision to acquit the defendant was made because it is the judge's role to determine the defendant's righteousness. When the gavel is struck, or the pronouncement made, the accused recognizes he has been justified by the judge's decision, and so too the world of onlookers who have ears to hear and eyes to see. The defendant's hearing and seeing are the instruments by which he understands what has already occurred for the judge--namely, justification.


----------



## MarieP

JTB said:


> Believing, or faith, is not the cause of our justification. If that we so, our justification would be synergistic rather than the sole work of God.



Brother, please consider these verses. Eternal justification is a tenet of hyper-Calvinism.


Romans 5
1 Therefore, *having been justified by faith*, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 

Galatians 2
16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, *even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ* and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Galatians 3
11 And the Scripture, foreseeing that *God would justify the Gentiles by faith*, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”...
28 Therefore the law was our tutor *to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.*

Ephesians 2
1 *And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins*, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, *and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others*.
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 *even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ* (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved *through faith*, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

John 3
*He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him*.”

-----Added 11/7/2009 at 11:11:58 EST-----

On the emotivity of God issue, I think D. A. Carson has a great point when he says surely we are not to think that Paul prays that we "may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height of an anthropomorphism!"


----------



## Christusregnat

JTB said:


> Believing, or faith, is not the cause of our justification.



I did not say it was. However, we believe in order that we may be justified by faith.

Adam


----------



## MarieP

See these articles by Bob Gonzales here:

“There Is No Pain, You Are Misreading”: Is God “Comfortably Numb”? | RBS Tabletalk

?There Is No Pain, You Are Misreading?: Is God ?Comfortably Numb?? Part 2 | RBS Tabletalk

?There Is No Pain, You Are Misreading?: Is God ?Comfortably Numb?? Part 3 | RBS Tabletalk

Does God Have Feelings? Twelve Theses on Divine Emotivity and Impassibility | RBS Tabletalk


----------



## Christusregnat

MarieP said:


> See these articles by Bob Gonzales here:
> 
> “There Is No Pain, You Are Misreading”: Is God “Comfortably Numb”? | RBS Tabletalk
> 
> ?There Is No Pain, You Are Misreading?: Is God ?Comfortably Numb?? Part 2 | RBS Tabletalk
> 
> ?There Is No Pain, You Are Misreading?: Is God ?Comfortably Numb?? Part 3 | RBS Tabletalk
> 
> Does God Have Feelings? Twelve Theses on Divine Emotivity and Impassibility | RBS Tabletalk



Again, emotions are involuntary responses caused by outside forces. Does God feel regret? Is he sad? Depressed? That time of the month? No. Never.


----------



## MarieP

Christusregnat said:


> Again, emotions are involuntary responses caused by outside forces.



Then I don't agree with your definition, brother. God holds us responsible for our emotions. They aren't involuntary. And they don't always come from outside forces.


----------



## ewenlin

Seems the thread is moving towards the emotion/volition, does God feel anything; is God other or wholly other; etc, debate.

This has been brilliantly discussed in http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/neo-orthodoxy-pt1-r-c-sproul-53200/ most notably by Rev. Winzer.

and http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/gods-sadness-reprobate-43836/ . 

Perhaps those who are new to this issue can visit the older threads so as to be relatively on par with what everyone is talking about, if indeed we go down this path in this thread.


----------



## steven-nemes

I don't think it makes any sense to say of God that he loves reprobates (or desires their salvation).

I think the same holds true in Arminian theology, too, interestingly enough. Steve Hays at Triablogue has briefly posted on this. If God knows some person S is never going to be saved and will go to hell, then he can hardly be said to love or have good intentions for that person in creating him.


----------



## py3ak

[Moderator]
*Please see this thread, as it contains an extensive selection of quotations on the topic of anthropomorphic descriptions of God.

I should state that the attribution of changing emotional states to God has previously been adjudged unconfessional on this board, before any one begins to promote that idea. Any advocacy of such a view will not be favorably received.*[/Moderator]


----------



## a mere housewife

Marie, I'm not a theologian; just wanted to add a distinction that has helped me -- that love itself is not the 'anthropomorphism' -- rather the way we experience love in our creaturely emotions is (I tend to agree that emotions are not necessarily 'involuntarily' produced from without as if we were merely a screen on which the external world is having a shadow play -- but I believe they are always with reference to a reality outside of ourselves; and so the material consideration is that emotions are 'creaturely'? -- Love in various senses as it has to do with the _will _of God towards His creatures, as cited in Paul's post, is independent of external influence/interplay? I can't argue this out and hope it isn't stated wrongly or very confusedly.)


----------



## Ron

Christusregnat said:


> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm shocked at all the kudos this post received. Given the question it was trying to answer, it is quite misleading. The question was does God hate all non-Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am shocked that you are shocked! Two can play at this game
> 
> 
> 
> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> God loves his elect prior to their conversion, hence God does NOT hate all non-Christians. God so loved the world (the elect!) that he gave his only begotten son.
> 
> Ron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point was regarding the wrath of God as His judicial response to those that are not justified (those that are non-Christians).
> 
> Are you affirming that those that have not believed are justified from eternity?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
Click to expand...



Absolutely not. In love God elected us in Christ but we are not justified prior to existential union with Christ, which occurs in time and is the work of the Spirit who grants justifying faith, the instrumental cause of our justification. The point that needs to be appreciated is that God's eternal, salvific love for his elect is not at odds with the fact that we are justified in time. In fact, the former is the reason for the latter. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - which is an act of his love for us. In a word, God does not hate his elect prior their justification; nor does he justify us in eternity. Loving redemption must be applied. 

Ron


----------



## cpomann

MarieP said:


> (From Post #34)
> Brother, please consider these verses. Eternal justification is a tenet of hyper-Calvinism.


I have to disagree with this..... or assume the title of Hyper. All the names of all the elect were written in the Book of Life before the foundations of the world. Just as surely as light shown at the speaking of the words let there be light, so shall all those be justified whose names are written. "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me." They are justified by God's decree and while the evidence of justification occurs at the moment in time as he ordains, they are incapable of not being justified. My disagreement with hyper-Calvinism is that I reject their stance on evangelism and missions. I believe that the Doctrines of Grace allow us to preach/spread the gospel freely knowing that God will use our obedience to bring the justified to knowledge of their condition.


----------



## Ron

cpomann said:


> They are justified by God's decree and while the evidence of justification occurs at the moment in time as he ordains, they are incapable of not being justified.



Thomas,

Are you glorified now too and we just don't have the "evidence"?

Ron


----------



## ChariotsofFire

Ron said:


> cpomann said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are justified by God's decree and while the evidence of justification occurs at the moment in time as he ordains, they are incapable of not being justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas,
> 
> Are you glorified now too and we just don't have the "evidence"?
> 
> Ron
Click to expand...


I would agree. God foreordained that he would justify different people at different times in history at different points in their lives. It doesn't follow to say that he justified them before their conversion took place. If the instrument God uses to justify is faith in Christ, then how does it make sense to say God justifies someone before someone has faith in Christ? 

God ordains the means for justification through faith, not just the end.


----------



## Christusregnat

Ron said:


> Are you affirming that those that have not believed are justified from eternity?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not. In love God elected us in Christ but we are not justified prior to existential union with Christ, which occurs in time and is the work of the Spirit who grants justifying faith, the instrumental cause of our justification. The point that needs to be appreciated is that God's eternal, salvific love for his elect is not at odds with the fact that we are justified in time. In fact, the former is the reason for the latter. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - which is an act of his love for us. In a word, God does not hate his elect prior their justification; nor does he justify us in eternity. Loving redemption must be applied.
> 
> Ron
Click to expand...


Ron,

I was not putting election at odds with justification in time. I was merely recognizing that the elect of God are judicially under the wrath of God until they are called in due time.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## JTB

John Gill said:


> 7c. It is urged, that strictly and accurately speaking, it cannot be said that justification is eternal, because the decree of justification is one thing, and justification itself another; even as God's will of sanctifying is one thing, and sanctification itself another; wherefore, though the decree of justification is eternal, and precedes faith, that itself is in time, and follows it. To which it may be answered, that as God's decree and will to elect men to everlasting life and salvation, is his election of them; and his will not to impute sin to them, is the non-imputation of it; and his will to impute the righteousness of Christ unto them, is the imputation of it to them; so his decree, or will to justify them, is the justification of them, as that is an immanent act in God; which has its complete essence in his will, as election has; is entirely within himself, and not transient on an external subject, producing any real, physical, inherent change in it, as sanctification is and does; and therefore the case is not alike: it is one thing for God to will to act an act of grace concerning men, another thing to will to work a work of grace in them; in the former case, the will of God is his act of justification; in the latter it is not his act of sanctification; wherefore, though the will of God to justify, is justification itself, that being a complete act in his eternal mind, without men; yet his will to sanctify, is not sanctification, because that is a work wrought in men, and not only requires the actual existence of them but an exertion of powerful and efficacious grace upon them: was justification, as the papists say, by an infusion of inherent righteousness in men, there would be some strength in the objection; but this is not the case, and therefore there is none in it.



Justification as an Eternal and Immanent Act of God



Abraham Kuyper said:


> And so it is here. There is a certain moment wherein that justification becomes to our consciousness a living fact; but in order to become a living fact, it must have existed before. It does not spring from our consciousness, but it is mirrored in it, and hence must have being and stature in itself. Even an elect infant which dies in the cradle is declared just, though the knowledge or consciousness of its justification never penetrated its soul. And elect persons, converted, like the thief on the cross, with their last breath, can scarcely be sensible of their justification, and yet enter eternal life exclusively on the ground of their justification. Taking an analogy from daily life, a man condemned during his absence in foreign lands was granted pardon through the intercession of his friends, wholly without his knowledge. Does this pardon take effect when long afterward the good news reaches him, or when the king signs his pardon? Of course the latter. Even so does the justification of God's children take effect, not on the day when for the first time it is published to their consciousness, but at the moment that God in His holy judgment-seat declares them just.



Justification from Eternity, by Abraham Kuyper


----------



## Prufrock

First, a moderator note:
*[Moderator]
Please note that, in accordance with the board rules, this is not a place to advocate eternal justification, as it is out of accord with the governing standards of the PB. While we certainly do not want to stifle conversation on the topic, the standards clearly state that a person is not actually justified until believing: this is incompatible with a collapse of the distinction between the decree of justification and justification itself, and also with a notion that faith merely realizes justification already possessed. In the Westminster Formulae there is an actual, declarative justification in time.
[Moderator]
*

Secondly, I do find it to be an interesting topic; mainly because there are several orthodox theologians who make statements which have the *appearance* of an affirmation of eternal justification, though in fact the doctrine is not strictly affirmed. The nuances in position of several divines give much meat not only for the mind to chew upon, but also much light for the eyes of the soul to cling to and embrace.


----------



## MW

I've not found a better explanation of the various aspects of justification than that which is presented by John Colquhoun, Sermons, pp. 152-156.



> IV. Under the fourth general head, I was to consider the manner of a sinner's justification. The elect were justified,
> 
> 1. Intentionally, or in the absolute purpose and decree of God. It is called "the justification of life." It is legal life, in opposition to legal death under the condemning sentence of the violated law, and as such is a constituent part of eternal life. Now, we are told that eternal life was promised and given to the elect in Christ, or to Christ as Representative of the elect, before the world began. "In hope of eternal life, that God who cannot lie promised before the world began." "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." Hence justification, as a fundamental part of that life, was according to the purpose and grace of God, promised and given to the elect in Christ, before the world began. It was promised to Christ their Representative, in their name, upon condition of his fulfilling all righteousness for them in time. Thus on the ground of their federal union with their adorable Surety, they were justified according to the purpose and grace of God, even from eternity. Hence is this cheering declaration, "The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all," Isa. liii. 6. The Father, in making the covenant of grace, laid the guilt of the iniquities of all the elect upon him, and that from everlasting. But this load of guilt could not be considered as transferred to him, without being in some sense transferred from them. The same delightful truth is hinted in the first promise, Gen. iii. 15. There the elect are comprehended under the seed of the woman; and are represented in Christ their Head, as the enemies and conquerors of Satan. Now this presupposes the suretiship of Christ, and the guilt of their iniquities already laid on him. It implies that in the decree of God they are set free from the guilt of sin; otherwise they could not be represented as delivered from the dominion either of sin or of Satan. That promise implied a declaration, that on account of the suretiship of Jesus Christ, God never intended to execute the sentence of the broken law upon any of his chosen. Whenever a surety is admitted, the principal debtor is understood, intentionally at least, to be free from obligation to advance the debt.
> 
> 2d, They were justified virtually, in the resurrection of Christ from the dead. — When Jesus died, he died in order to satisfy Divine justice, as Surety of the elect: when he rose, he rose as their Representative, and in him they all virtually arose. In his resurrection, he was publicly and solemnly acquitted; and he received a full discharge from the hand of his righteous Father, for the debt which he engaged to clear. Hence the Father is represented as the God of peace, who brought again from the dead the Lord Jesus, through the blood of the everlasting covenant; and as having raised him up, loosing the pains of death. When vindictive justice had now no more to demand from him, his Father, as an evidence thereof, knocked off the fetters of the grave, and released him from that prison-house. "He was taken from prison and from judgment," Isa. liii. 8. His righteous Father, having accepted the payment of the infinite debt at his hands, solemnly absolved him at his resurrection from every judicial charge. "Then was he justified in the Spirit: He was raised again for our justification." As he was one with the elect in law, his justification was fundamentally and virtually their justification. They were crucified with him in his death, and justified with him in his resurrection. Then were they all virtually absolved from guilt, and virtually accepted as righteous. Then it was that God declared that full satisfaction was given by Christ. "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them," 2 Cor. v. 19. Then he reconciled to himself the elect world, and declared that he would not impute their trespasses to them for condemnation. Having rent the veil of the temple, and torn the handwriting of ordinances, he took it out of the way. And is not tearing the hand-writing, or the bond, an evidence that the creditor has no intention to demand payment from the principal debtor?
> 
> 3d, They are justified actually, when they apply this justification, each of them to himself by faith. — "All who believe are justified from all things;" that is, are justified actually, so as to have the sentence declared, both in the court of heaven and in the court of conscience. Though our adorable Surety has merited pardon of sin, and a title to life, for all his elect, so that God hath already declared that the condemning sentence shall never be executed upon them; yet, they are not actually pardoned nor entitled to life till they apply by faith this declaration to themselves, and so receive the remission of sins. Notwithstanding their intentional and virtual justification in Christ their Representative, they are still considered as children of wrath, as under condemnation, Gal. iii. 10, till they flee from the curse of the law to the promise of the covenant of grace. When they have through the Spirit applied Christ and the blessing of justification to themselves in particular, and have presented, in the hand of faith, his perfect righteousness to God, as the sole ground of their title to eternal life, they are justified actually. They are not only absolved from guilt and adjudged to life, but declared to be so, declared righteous in the sight of God. Jesus Christ merited a right to eternal life for all his spiritual seed, so that none of them can perish; but this right is not particularly applied to them, until they believe, and be vitally united to him. The sentence is not judicially declared, not does it terminate in the sinner's conscience, till he present that righteousness to God the Judge for aquittance. He must first plead the complete satisfaction of his Divine Surety at the bar of the court of heaven, before the sentence can be intimated in the court of conscience.
> 
> Lastly, They shall be publicly justified at the last day. — Then they shall be solemnly absolved before an assembled world, and have their title to eternal life publicly proclaimed. In that day, judgment shall be passed, an irreversible sentence shall be pronounced on them. On this account, it is called the day of judgment, Matth. xii. 36. In that day, the good works of the saints shall be proclaimed, not as the ground of their justification, but as evidences of their interest in the spotless righteousness of Christ, and of their title to life eternal. This, the sentence of the righteous Judge implies, — "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you." It is only in union with Christ that men are blessed; that they inherit, or possess as sons by hereditary right, the kingdom. Thus, the elect shall be justified publicly, and be declared heirs of an eternal inheritance. Now, the sentence of aquitment and of title to life, is pronounced only in the court of heaven, and to the believer himself; but in that day, it shall be declared before all kindreds and nations. O what triumphant, what transporting joy, will fill the hearts of that redeemed company, when, clothed with the white robe of the Redeemer's righteousness, they shall enter the heavenly sanctuary, no more to go out! "With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the king's palace."
> 
> Thus the elect are justified. — They were justified in the day of eternity, before the world began; in the day of the Redeemer's resurrection; in the day of believing; and in the last day. — In the day of eternity, they were justified intentionally; in the day of the Saviour's resurrection, virtually, or fundamentally; in the day of believing, actually, or declaratively; and at the last day, publicly and solemnly. In the day of eternity, their justification was actually secured; in the day of Christ's resurrection, it was acually merited; in the day of believing, it is actually applied to the conscience; and in the day of judgment it shall be actually declared in the most public and solemn manner. From eternity, they were justified in the purpose of God; at Christ's resurrection, they were justified in the Son of God as their representative; at the time of their beginning to believe, they are justified in the court of God, the court of heaven, and the court of conscience; and in the last day, they shall be justified publicly at Christ's august tribunal.


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> I've not found a better explanation of the various aspects of justification than that which is presented by John Colquhoun, Sermons, pp. 152-156.



That seemed to cover a lot in a very concise manner. I did hit the thanks for it. I enjoyed reading it, and it contained much of what I think is being discussed here ... the differing aspects of justification. He seems to have captured a means of looking at the different "parts", for lack of a better word, of justification that I think many see, but have trouble putting to words. Again, thank you.


----------



## Ron

Christusregnat said:


> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you affirming that those that have not believed are justified from eternity?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not. In love God elected us in Christ but we are not justified prior to existential union with Christ, which occurs in time and is the work of the Spirit who grants justifying faith, the instrumental cause of our justification. The point that needs to be appreciated is that God's eternal, salvific love for his elect is not at odds with the fact that we are justified in time. In fact, the former is the reason for the latter. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - which is an act of his love for us. In a word, God does not hate his elect prior their justification; nor does he justify us in eternity. Loving redemption must be applied.
> 
> Ron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ron,
> 
> I was not putting election at odds with justification in time. I was merely recognizing that the elect of God are judicially under the wrath of God until they are called in due time.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
Click to expand...


Adam, 

I know you weren't. I answered your question and then moved on to interact with what is a common misunderstanding held by hyper-Calvinists. 

Best,

Ron


----------

