God's Love And Hate?

No but this is unrelated to the discussion we are having here. You guys and your concordances ... you come up with teh same word used in two different places and assume it it talking about the same thing ... Stop it already ... </font>[/QUOTE]No, its not unrelated. This goes to show what could be meant when talking about divine hatred.

The greek word "miseo" is translated "hate" and the Hebrew word is "sane." You can see this if you compare the Greek text from Romans 9 which says, "Esau I hate..." and Mal. 1 where it says the same thing in Hebrew.

This same greek word "miseo" is used in Luke when Jesus tells his disciple that they must hate their family.

How is that not significant to this discussion of the meaning of divine hate?

Larry please go back and read my post dated March 29 1:04 a.m. (pg 1) on this thread and tell me specifically what it is that I wrote that you disagree with. Thanks

 

The problem is that you think the word “hate” always means the same thing in every context. I don’t. I don’t believe that the hate God has for sinners is the same hate that a man has for his family. That cannot be supported biblically for a number of reason among which are 1) Straight biblical commands to love one another; 2) the condemnation of a man who does not care for his family; etc.

When the Bible says that God hates sinners, it means that his constitutional holiness has a constitutional response against that which is not like himself. We might closer think of it as similar to an allergic reaction to something that disagrees with our constitution. God does not hate sinners in the same way that a man is to hate his father and mother, etc. God hates sinners because they sin against his holiness. You have to remember the basic exegetical rule that a semantic domain does not apply to every usage. That is what some have called a totality transfer, an illegitimate totality transfer. A word is defined by context. The fact that the same word is used in different places does not mean that both usages have the same meaning. They may … but they may not. There are huge differences between the relationship between God and sinners and the relationship between man and family. Only if that relationship was the same would you be justified in saying the hate is the same.

As for what I disagree with, I hadn’t read your post up to now. Howeverk I don’t really see that the Bible defines hate as separation. There is no reason to think that such is the case. Hatred might lead to separation but the two are not synonymous. Again, it appears to me like you are creating your own categories.

 

Larry,

I think it is interesting that you feel that way. We have passages that say God hates sinners and other passages that say he loves sinners so much that he sent his son to die in order to reconcile Himself to them.

And we also have passages spoken by God Incarnate that show that the word hate doesn't necessarily mean hatred in the connotation of the English language, but instead uses the term as separating yourself from someone, which directly relates to sin separating us from God.

BTW to reconcile means to "bring together." On the other post many of the Calvinist were arguing that spiritual death was separation from God which seems to directly relate to the word hate in the context of separation.

But, I guess that is just too easy to see, for it to be true I suppose you think it needs to be more complicated than this obvious comparison of love and separation as seen in Luke 14:26.



[ March 30, 2003, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: Brother Bill ]

 

You are wrong yet again. I routinely study from non-Calvinist sources. As for Strong and 5 points, I can't remember. It has been a while since I have looked at him. As for the false theology of the first four points, again you are wrong. You haven't bought them to be sure, but they are not false, as we have demonstrated and you have failed to refute.

No it's not. It not even analogous, much less similar. Please tell me you didn't think before you said that. That can be the only reasonable explanation for it.

As we have demonstrated, you hvae a strange sense of justice. Your "justice" will allow Christ to be punished for something he didn't do while letting us off for something we did do. But this justice won't allow God to damn people to hell because they deserve it. That is really strange.

You are a "ThD" student and you don't have Strong's theology?? Remarkable ... and telling.

 

Uh, isn't that what grace is all about?

 

Sorry. I am not sure how much more clear to make it. It's pretty straight forward, especially for those who are truly conversant in the issues here.

I think you know this is not true. You have never answered any post that I have put forth. YOu haven't offered any biblical understanding of these issues. What is it that you are confused about? I will answer it again.

Agreed.

How was it just for God to punish an innocent person for sins they never committed? I don't disagree that salvation is possible for all sinners. Never have. All they must do is repent and believe to be saved. However, what you mean by that is somethign very different than what I mean and something very different than what Scripture teaches. The Scripture teaches that Christ's atonement was sufficient for teh sin of the world in total.

I think we have been through the issues of your "doctorate." Why won't you tell us where you got it from? Are you embarrassed about it? Do you doubt the legitimacy of it?

Since you haven't studied this, how do you know how unscholarly and unspiritual it is? This is typical from you. No real refutation. No Scripture. No serious analyis. Just an accusation. You do not give hardly any serious interaction with the issues. You do not show an awareness of what is going on. You show no skill with the original languages, even though you like to cite them. You show very little exegetical and correlative skill. You have a few ideas that you just rehash over and over again but never move the discussion forward. And then you tell me I am unspiritual and unscholarly for suggesting a widely held and defended viewpoint that you haven't even looked up to see what the argument for it is. It gets old Ray ... Really old.

Why not just participate in the substance of the conversation?

In the end, this is not that big of a deal. I don't think there is a real practical difference where any of us come down on this. Perhaps the problem is that some view hate as an emotional response, which I agree would be a problem. But God is infinite ... I don't have to understand all of that. I would suggest you add Strong to your library at least for reference and that you read up on this idea.

 

Uh, isn't that what grace is all about? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes this is what grace is all about. But I was pointing out the fallacy of Ray's idea of justice. His is a convuluted one for this very reason. He overemphasizes his idea of justice without realizing the "godness" of God ... the fact that God is God and can do what he desires and how he desires to do it. I think pursuing the justice avenue is faulty because 1) If God sent everyone to hell, he would not be unjust; and 2) If God saved some out of hell for whatever reason he chose, he would be not be unjust to let the rest to hell for their sins. After all, that would be just.

 

You had a doctoral program where you only studied one systematic theologian?? That is unbelievable. I had a master's program where we studied upwards of 15 each semester. I am not the one worried about or scared about what other theologians say. I read them with interest. I am well aware of the differences out there. And I know when someone has some legitimate arguments and when they are bogus.

Based on what has been said here, it seems my understanding of other views is broader than yours. I could be wrong but the evidence hasn't shown that so far. My view is not the only view. I realize that. Mine however is the right view ... Of course I am only joking. I am usually not the one misunderstanding here. To be honest, I think Bill's wierd view of hardening is the first idea that someone has put forth here that I wasn't familiar with.

Not shaken in the least. I do wish there was a greater depth of conversation being carried on however.

 

Hi Nepetreley;
a quote from you;
-----------------------------------------------
If you honestly believe that works are the product of true faith, then how can you believe that true faith would produce a person who would "sin all they want"?

IMO, this is the sort of fear that is produced by doctrines that depend on man's will instead of God's will.
----------------------------------------------
My reply;
Answer to your first question; If you sin at all you are sinning all you want. You always have a choice as to sin or, not to. No one sins by accident. We sin on purpose. We know we are sinning when we do and we don't care and sin anyway. It's like spitting in the face of the Savior.

Maybe you think well I'll go ahead and sin and later I'll get forgiveness. It seems your doctrine has taken away your fear of God.
Don't you fear God?.

God is not under a contract to save us no matter who's doctrine you believe, "Calvin" or any one else.

Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. If you do not fear the one who can kill the soul then your putting yourself on the same level as God.


Romanbear

 

Not at all. One does not always give in to the desires of the flesh. Personally, I wish I never did, but I'm not going to lie and say I never do. So the desire is there without the fulfillment, hence I am not sinning "all I want" (or, more accurately, all the flesh wants).

Second, you are playing with words now. To sin "all you want" is an expression that conveys licentiousness, as if predestination or any concept of grace is license to sin. Clearly this is not the case.

But all this is getting way off track. The fact is that the saved are no longer slaves to sin but slaves to righteousness. So they are motivated by the Spirit to be obedient. If you're not motivated by the Spirit to be obedient, then it might be worthwhile to ask yourself if you have the Spirit at all.

 

Maybe its just late and I'm not understanding clearly but I have no idea what this means Dallas. Sorry </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sorry, I thought my meaning was pretty well stated.

Bro. Dallas

 

Hi Nptreley;
A quote from you;
-------------------------------------------------
One does not always give in to the desires of the flesh. Personally, I wish I never did, but I'm not going to lie and say I never do. So the desire is there without the fulfillment, hence I am not sinning "all I want" (or, more accurately, all the flesh wants).
-------------------------------------------------
I think if you'll look at sin like Christ did you'll see you are in fact sinning all you want. The desire to commit a specific sin is the same as committing that sin in the eyes of God. It's called lust it's what desire means. example Christ said that if you look upon a woman with the desire of committing adultery it's the same as committing that sin. because you have committed that sin in your heart. The desire or lust for that sin is committing that sin.
a quote from you;
--------------------------------------
The fact is that the saved are no longer slaves to sin but slaves to righteousness.
--------------------------------------
my reply;
If we are slaves to righteousness then we shouldn't be able to do unrighteous deeds without punishment

A quote from you;
---------------------------------------
So they are motivated by the Spirit to be obedient. If you're not motivated by the Spirit to be obedient, then it might be worthwhile to ask yourself if you have the Spirit at all.
----------------------------------------
My reply;
I agree that I'm motivated by the spirit to be obedient. Although I still have sin in my life. I'm constantly asking for forgiveness of the sins I commit and the ones I have a desire for. To desire to commit a sin is the same thing as committing that sin.

As Paul said what a wretched man I am.
Romanbear

 

Paul said you are a wretched man? Aw, you're not that bad. You're just a bit mixed up on the free will/election thing.