WHY Universal Reconciliation is wrong ?

[Dr. Walter]

Your a fine fellow, but I am not a Calvinist as I despise much of what Calvin believed, I am a Biblicist. Yeah, I know, you might object to that title too.

However, I don't believe God elected anyone to hell because that is the free will choice of all mankind (Psa. 14:2-3). God's ordination of such was to purposely allow them to follow the dictates of their own free will unhampered by the elective grace of God.

Election is "eis" or "unto" salvation not "dia" because of salvation. Foreknowledge is not prescience but simply knowledge based upon the predisposition/purpose of God (as "foreknew" in Romans 8:29 is the working "according to God's purpose" in Romans 8:28 as are all the other things listed right up to glorification).

Respectfully, what you fail to see is that free will is not some abstract entity running around the universe having no limitations or restrictions but actually is ENSLAVED expression of the depraved heart and mind. Indeed, it is the human will that is the object of salvation and It is only elective grace that frees the will from its enslavement to sin as election is UNTO salvation that begins with granting a new heart and new spirit that willing loves righteousness and hates sin.

Nothing but free will prevents any man from coming to Christ and sends them to hell and nothing but free elective grace brings a man to Christ and grants them life. The lost man has no one but his own free choice to blame for his damnation and a saved man has NOTHING but the free grace of God to credit for his choice to come to Christ and be saved.

I fought this wonderful truth for years until God saw fit by his marvelous grace to be able to see this truth and so I have nothing to boast about as I would be where you are doing what your doing. You don't have a single argument that I have not used myself at one time or the other many many times.

When we take a verse like this, we must look at in somewhat the same light that we look at the "elect" or the saved.

First, I realize that you may be a Calvinist. I am not. Nor do I believe that God ordained some to heaven and some to hell. I do believe that all men have a free will.

God sent Christ to die for the sins of ALL men, not just the "elect." In order to be saved man, of his own free will, must choose to trust Christ. God has given him that choice. Those that are unsaved have chosen of their own free will to reject Christ. Since we are made in the image of God we have this free will that God gave us.
The fact that these false teachers mentioned in Jude 4 were "ordained to condemnation," is simply that God knew the choice that they were going to make. They still had the free will to make the choice. God didn't force their hand. He knew they would make that choice.
Whether saved or unsaved God knew the choices people would make before the foundation of the world. But he never took away the choice.

He knew these teachers would choose to teach error. Therefore they were "ordained" to condemnation. They chose it, and God knew it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I recently bumped into a website, with a discussion forum like this one, that, sadly, promotes the idea of universal salvation.

That idea is utterly absurd and ridiculous in light of Gods scriptures.


I have no idea how they could come to such a conclusion.

Just to be sure; I wouldn't confuse God's universal love of everyone with universal salvation. While I believe God Loves everyone everywhere. I don't believe his justice will allow all men to be saved. Especially those who out right reject his salvation.

 

[RAdam]

People think they are exalting God by saying He loves everyone. In reality, you are trashing God's love. What is the big deal about God's love, in your view? It isn't any more powerful than my love. I've loved people but in the end were unable to save them from things, like death. According to you, God is the same way. He loves people, but was unable to save them from eternal hell. Now, according to you, there are people God loved with an everlasting love that are in hell. God's love is nothing special then.

However, in the scriptures God's love is not described this way. It isn't described as something weak, like mine. It is described as was started the whole work of salvation. Because God loved His people, He would not suffer them to be separated from Him. Jesus said, "I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me. And this is the Father's will shich hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." The reason Jesus came was because the Father's will was that none of the ones He had given His Son should perish. God loved them with an everlasting love and wouldn't suffer them to perish, to be separated eternally from Him. This is what the bible says about God's love. There is no separation from God's love. That's what Romans 8 says. You can twist it all you want to, but that text is clear. Jesus loved the rich young ruler. The rich young ruler is in heaven. Why? Because Jesus loved him and died for him. The love of God is greater far than you and I can possibly describe. The idea that God's love is so weak that one He loves could end up in hell is blasphemy.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

People think they are exalting God by saying He loves everyone. In reality, you are trashing God's love. What is the big deal about God's love, in your view? It isn't any more powerful than my love. I've loved people but in the end were unable to save them from things, like death. According to you, God is the same way. He loves people, but was unable to save them from eternal hell. Now, according to you, there are people God loved with an everlasting love that are in hell. God's love is nothing special then.

However, in the scriptures God's love is not described this way. It isn't described as something weak, like mine. It is described as was started the whole work of salvation. Because God loved His people, He would not suffer them to be separated from Him. Jesus said, "I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me. And this is the Father's will shich hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." The reason Jesus came was because the Father's will was that none of the ones He had given His Son should perish. God loved them with an everlasting love and wouldn't suffer them to perish, to be separated eternally from Him. This is what the bible says about God's love. There is no separation from God's love. That's what Romans 8 says. You can twist it all you want to, but that text is clear. Jesus loved the rich young ruler. The rich young ruler is in heaven. Why? Because Jesus loved him and died for him. The love of God is greater far than you and I can possibly describe. The idea that God's love is so weak that one He loves could end up in hell is blasphemy.

I think you associating qualities of love that don't belong with love necissarily. God's love is pure more wholesome than ours. Its also isn't lacking in wisdom. And it doesn't negate justice. It seems your view of love is of a type which is more closely associated with feelings. So of course God's love isn't describe in that manner in the scriptures. Also, I think you miss understand God in the sense that if all the world would be saved he would indeed save it all in its entirety. However, the world generally refuses to submit itself to Gods salvation. So in my mind it isn't that God's love is weak but acknowledges God's wisdom and Justice. In Fact God's love is so strong that if every one availed themselves of it they would all be saved. But they don't and so they are condemned already because just as necissary is God's wisdom and justice. The fact that people end up in hell doesn't make God's love weak but his justice absolute. And his wisdom paramount. God's love is all the greater because of it.

 

[RAdam]

Jesus didn't say He came down from heaven to make salvation possible is man will only avail himself of it. He said He came down from heaven because the Father wasn't willing to let one He had given to the Son perish.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Jesus didn't say He came down from heaven to make salvation possible is man will only avail himself of it. He said He came down from heaven because the Father wasn't willing to let one He had given to the Son perish.

Again I refer you to John 3:16 and in fact the whole chapter of John 3.

 

[RAdam]

And Jesus lays no condition on man for him to fulfill in order to be born again. In fact, in verse 8, He clearly states that regeneration is accomplished by the sovereign Spirit of God compared to the movement of the wind which moves as it wishes rather than according to the actions of man.

I still reject the modern definition you place on the word world. That word wasn't spoken to modern man, but to a Jewish man of the first century. In that context should we understand what that word means.

Furthermore, we should compare scripture with scripture. Other scriptures clearly declare that there are people God doesn't love.

People have taken John 3:16 out of its immediate and historic context, out of the context of the rest of the scriptures, and, having separated it from everything which could help us understand what it truly says, have wrested it from its true meaning and applied a false meaning to it. It does not say God loves every single person in existence. It does not say that if you will only just believe you will go to heaven. It says that God loves the world (not Jews only Nicodemus, but also Gentiles), so He sent His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him (not whosoever will believe, whosoever does believe) wouldn't perish but have everlasting life. In other words, God's love was why Jesus came down from heaven, because God wasn't willing for even one He had chosen in Christ and given to Christ to perish eternally. See how scripture fits with scripture and forms a complete whole?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

And Jesus lays no condition on man for him to fulfill in order to be born again. In fact, in verse 8, He clearly states that regeneration is accomplished by the sovereign Spirit of God compared to the movement of the wind which moves as it wishes rather than according to the actions of man.

Funny how that works. Jesus is speaking to a jewish scribe or pharisee. However, Johns audience are Gentile (primarily of the greek influence) So, when John records Kosmos that's the point Jesus is making to Nicodemus.

I still reject the modern definition you place on the word world

I place the greek definition of Kosmos.

That word wasn't spoken to modern man, but to a Jewish man of the first century. In that context should we understand what that word means.

And so I have pointed out what Kosmos means. If it was to redeme just those that were orignially God both Jesus and John would have used the word Kosmeno rather than Kosmos.

Furthermore, we should compare scripture with scripture. Other scriptures clearly declare that there are people God doesn't love.

try comparing it to 1 John chapter 4. And 1 John 2:2

People have taken John 3:16 out of its immediate and historic context, out of the context of the rest of the scriptures, and, having separated it from everything which could help us understand what it truly says, have wrested it from its true meaning and applied a false meaning to it. It does not say God loves every single person in existence. It does not say that if you will only just believe you will go to heaven. It says that God loves the world (not Jews only Nicodemus, but also Gentiles), so He sent His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him (not whosoever will believe, whosoever does believe) wouldn't perish but have everlasting life. In other words, God's love was why Jesus came down from heaven, because God wasn't willing for even one He had chosen in Christ and given to Christ to perish eternally. See how scripture fits with scripture and forms a complete whole?

This is the argument for the Hyper Calvinists. Whereby God's love is limited only to the elect. I believe this to be extreme and limiting God. I've shown you the historical context and unless John is lying it is often forgoten that unlike matthew John's audience for his gospel are greeks.

 

[annsni]

I think we need to understand that the love we're talking about is different when we say that God loves the world and God loves His children. Yes, God loves the world. That is Scripture. However, there is a different love for those who are His. A greater love. A deeper love. Just the same way that I love everyone in our church but I love my own family in a deeper, richer way.

 

[RAdam]

Jesus is speaking to a pharisee, a highly educated pharisee, who has been taught all his life that the blessings of Messiah are for the Jews only. Jesus is saying that His mission goes beyond that, not to Jews only, but also to Gentiles. John, no matter who he is writing to, is recording a conversation taking place between Jesus and Nicodemus.

The definition for kosmos is an orderly arrangement. That's what kosmos means. It is used by John to mean several different things. It is used to describe the physical creation, it is used to describe the system run by Satan and set against God, and it is used to describe people. I cannot think of a single time when it is used in the sense of being universal without exception. In John 17:9 Jesus says, "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine." Now, obviously world here isn't used universally without exception because them (whoever that is) is excepted. Here's another one from 1 John 5:19, "And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." Again, obviously this isn't used in a universal sense without exception because the we who are of God are excepted. Here's another that Jesus says in John 15:19, "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you."

 

[DHK]

I think we need to understand that the love we're talking about is different when we say that God loves the world and God loves His children. Yes, God loves the world. That is Scripture. However, there is a different love for those who are His. A greater love. A deeper love. Just the same way that I love everyone in our church but I love my own family in a deeper, richer way.

Well put. And that would negate any concept of God being a God of hate. In him is no hatred. God is God of love. He is the essence of love.

 

[Jon-Marc]

That is not true and you know it. Purgatory is essential in the Roman CAtholic view of salvation as it is necessary to make a person acceptable for entrance into heaven. Purgatory is nothing less than a limited version of hell to purge that person from their sins so as to be fit to enter heaven. If the person was fit to enter heaven based upon what they believe and did in this life there would be no purgatory but simply entrance into heaven.

It might be essential to Roman Catholics, but it is NOT taught in God's word. There is heaven for the redeemed and hell for the lost, and eventually hell will be cast into the lake of fire. Those are the ONLY places mentioned in God's word. Purgatory is a man-made lie of the devil.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Again I refer you to John 3:16 and in fact the whole chapter of John 3.

I think you are failing to take into consideration who Jesus is speaking to in John 3:1-21. He is speaking to a Jewish rabbi, a member of the Sanhedrin, a ruler and teacher of the Jews. Two Jewish Rabbi's are speaking to each other and the term "kosmos" must be interpreted according to the Jewish mindset and context not according to Western 20th century Christianity. So the question is really what did the Jew think of when another Jew spoke of "the world" in a redemptive context?

We get a pretty good idea how another Jewish Rabbi, a member of the Sanhredin regarded the meaning of "the world" in a redemptive context when Paul used it as a synonym for "Gentile" in Romans 11.

Rom. 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

It is clear this is a salvation context (v. 11"salvation is come unto the gentiles") and that "they" and "them" refer to the Jews but "the world" and "the Gentiles" are used interchangably as the same "riches" are ascribed to both.

Hence, "the world" here in a salvational context does not mean every human being as it is in direct contrast to the whole Jewish race thus excluding the Jewish race.

Furthermore, you must take into consideration John 3:17 with verse 16:

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

He is talking about his incarnation among general humanity as a human being. He did not come into the sphere of humanity to condemn humanity or the human race. Although he was specifically born among the Jewish race, his incarnation was as a HUMAN BEING in contrast to His pre-incarnate nature as a Spiritual Being as God.

Hence, John 3:16 takes on the same meaning - humanity in general. For God so loved human beings or the human race without distinctions to race, gender or social bearing.

However, it cannot mean "every human being without exception" because He did not come into "every human being without exception" but rather "into the sphere of humanity."

Nicodemus or any other Jewish Rabbi believed that God loved "humanity" without distinction of race, gender or social status. Neither did the disciples of Jesus as the next chapter illustrates where Jesus goes through Samaria and talks to a Samaritan WOMAN:

Jn. 4:9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.

42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

Jesus admitted that "SALVATION WAS OF THE JEWS" and this Samaritan woman realized that Jews had no dealings with the Samaritans, especially a "woman" of Samaria. However, it is her use of the term "world" in relationship to salvation with this RACIST GENDER CLASS distinction in mind that demonstrates that it did not mean every single human being without exception that has ever lived or will live but it was "humanity" without distintion of race, gender or class.

It was revolutionary for any Jewish Rabbi to say that God loves "Humanity without distinction of race, gender or class."

Look at the problem the Lord had with the early JEWISH church at Jerusalem in getting them to "go....to the uttermost part of the earth." He had to send a persecution and then only the proselyte Jews spoke to gentiles (Acts 11:19-22). Peter had to be given a vision three times and even then when he went to a Gentile house he took witnesses to protect himself from what he knew would and did occur in Acts 11:1-17 but his first words stepping inside a Gentile house was:

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Look at the first theological problem confronting the early churches when Gentiles came into the membership (Acts 15:2). It was the doctrine that gentiles could not be saved without coming under the law of Moses.

Look at the Peter, James and John's committment to the "circumcision" while Paul went to the uncircumcision (Gal. 3:9).

It was John writing to the circumcision (Jewish Christians) that he had to remind them that:

1 Jn. 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, [Jews] but also for the sins of the whole world [all races of humanity].

I don't believe the term "world" when used in a redemptive context refers to all human beings without exception but rather all human beings without distinction of race, gender and class or as Paul repeatedly states"

Ga 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Col 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

Rev. 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

 

[RAdam]

Well put. And that would negate any concept of God being a God of hate. In him is no hatred. God is God of love. He is the essence of love.

So God has no hatred, yet the bible says He hates the workers of iniquity?

 

[DHK]

So God has no hatred, yet the bible says He hates the workers of iniquity?

And just where is that phrase used? What is the context?

 

[Dr. Walter]

In addition to the restrictive use of the term "world" in the post below add to this the arguments of God's special love to the elect above all others:

Rom. 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.

Notice for whom God delievered Christ for - "us all" and "us all" is the same ones he freely gave all things to "us all" which he defines in the next verse as "the elect."

Jn. 10:11,26 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep......26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

Here he clearly defines for whom He laid down his life "for my sheep" and he clearly denies that all are his sheep "ye are not of my sheep";

Jn. 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

Rom. 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Rom. 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Not all that are "in Adam" are "in Christ." Just as by "one man's disobedience" many "were made sinners" - all in Adam were made sinners by nature by his one act so likewise "by the obedience of one SHALL many be made righteous" - ALL in Christ shall be made righteous.

Paul is talking about the two representatives or federal heads not of the human race but for ALL who are represented by each one. All human beings are in Adam but not ALL human beings are in Christ. All in Adam die but all in Christ shall be made alive. In His representative work (Rom. 5:15-20) Christ provided the basis for imputation to the justified (Rom. 3:24-5:2).

In the Old Testament, the lamb that was slain on the day of Atonement and the work of the High Preist was not offered up FOR EVERY HUMAN BEING LIVING presently or from Adam to the last human living. The lamb was offered up for, and the High priestly work was performed for GOD's ELECT PEOPLE - not for Egypt and the Egyptians, not the for the Canaanites, not for the rest of the world but only and solely for the twelve stones upon the ephoh worn by the high Preist, only for the people who were TYPES OF ALL THE ELECT.

I think you are failing to take into consideration who Jesus is speaking to in John 3:1-21. He is speaking to a Jewish rabbi, a member of the Sanhedrin, a ruler and teacher of the Jews. Two Jewish Rabbi's are speaking to each other and the term "kosmos" must be interpreted according to the Jewish mindset and context not according to Western 20th century Christianity. So the question is really what did the Jew think of when another Jew spoke of "the world" in a redemptive context?

We get a pretty good idea how another Jewish Rabbi, a member of the Sanhredin regarded the meaning of "the world" in a redemptive context when Paul used it as a synonym for "Gentile" in Romans 11.

Rom. 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

It is clear this is a salvation context (v. 11"salvation is come unto the gentiles") and that "they" and "them" refer to the Jews but "the world" and "the Gentiles" are used interchangably as the same "riches" are ascribed to both.

Hence, "the world" here in a salvational context does not mean every human being as it is in direct contrast to the whole Jewish race thus excluding the Jewish race.

Furthermore, you must take into consideration John 3:17 with verse 16:

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

He is talking about his incarnation among general humanity as a human being. He did not come into the sphere of humanity to condemn humanity or the human race. Although he was specifically born among the Jewish race, his incarnation was as a HUMAN BEING in contrast to His pre-incarnate nature as a Spiritual Being as God.

Hence, John 3:16 takes on the same meaning - humanity in general. For God so loved human beings or the human race without distinctions to race, gender or social bearing.

However, it cannot mean "every human being without exception" because He did not come into "every human being without exception" but rather "into the sphere of humanity."

Nicodemus or any other Jewish Rabbi believed that God loved "humanity" without distinction of race, gender or social status. Neither did the disciples of Jesus as the next chapter illustrates where Jesus goes through Samaria and talks to a Samaritan WOMAN:

Jn. 4:9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.

42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

Jesus admitted that "SALVATION WAS OF THE JEWS" and this Samaritan woman realized that Jews had no dealings with the Samaritans, especially a "woman" of Samaria. However, it is her use of the term "world" in relationship to salvation with this RACIST GENDER CLASS distinction in mind that demonstrates that it did not mean every single human being without exception that has ever lived or will live but it was "humanity" without distintion of race, gender or class.

It was revolutionary for any Jewish Rabbi to say that God loves "Humanity without distinction of race, gender or class."

Look at the problem the Lord had with the early JEWISH church at Jerusalem in getting them to "go....to the uttermost part of the earth." He had to send a persecution and then only the proselyte Jews spoke to gentiles (Acts 11:19-22). Peter had to be given a vision three times and even then when he went to a Gentile house he took witnesses to protect himself from what he knew would and did occur in Acts 11:1-17 but his first words stepping inside a Gentile house was:

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Look at the first theological problem confronting the early churches when Gentiles came into the membership (Acts 15:2). It was the doctrine that gentiles could not be saved without coming under the law of Moses.

Look at the Peter, James and John's committment to the "circumcision" while Paul went to the uncircumcision (Gal. 3:9).

It was John writing to the circumcision (Jewish Christians) that he had to remind them that:

1 Jn. 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, [Jews] but also for the sins of the whole world [all races of humanity].

I don't believe the term "world" when used in a redemptive context refers to all human beings without exception but rather all human beings without distinction of race, gender and class or as Paul repeatedly states"

Ga 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Col 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

Rev. 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

 

[RAdam]

Psalm 11:5, 6 - The LORD trieth the rigtheous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

 

[annsni]

So God has no hatred, yet the bible says He hates the workers of iniquity?

Yes, God hates too.

 

[DHK]

Psalm 11:5, 6 - The LORD trieth the rigtheous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Note the place where you found this verse (and the reference Ann quoted subsequently). they are both in Psalms. It is not wise to build your theology, especially of the character of God, on an imprecatory psalm. I already mentioned that once. These are prayers of judgment. They are prayers that you or I would not pray today, but the OT saint prayed, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that expressed in very vivid terms the judgment of God. Let's take an example:

Would you pray this prayer today?

Psalms 109:6-20 Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.
7 When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.
8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
9 Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
10 Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.
11 Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour.
12 Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children.
13 Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
14 Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
15 Let them be before the LORD continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.
16 Because that he remembered not to shew mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man, that he might even slay the broken in heart.
17 As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him: as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him.
18 As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment, so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones.
19 Let it be unto him as the garment which covereth him, and for a girdle wherewith he is girded continually.
20 Let this be the reward of mine adversaries from the LORD, and of them that speak evil against my soul.

Is it love or is it hatred. Jesus said: "Love your enemies."
This is an expression of the judgment of God upon the enemies of God.
It is one of the Imprecatory Psalms. One cannot literally discern God's character from a psalm like this. Are you willing to pray it?

 

[Dr. Walter]

My friend, an imprecatory Psalm is a Psalm that reflects God view and action toward the sinner rather than our view and action toward sinners. This discussion is precisely that - God's view toward sinners.

David spoke in the place of God as God takes vengeance upon the wicked. If this is an imprecatory Psalm then it correctly presents God's hatred toward the wicked - the non-elect - those that God justly passed over and left them to their own free will (Psa. 14:2-3) to continue in their "enmity" toward God and a will that will not "subject" itself to the law of God and indeed "neither indeed can" willing submit to God's law (Rom. 8:7).

Note the place where you found this verse (and the reference Ann quoted subsequently). they are both in Psalms. It is not wise to build your theology, especially of the character of God, on an imprecatory psalm. I already mentioned that once. These are prayers of judgment. They are prayers that you or I would not pray today, but the OT saint prayed, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that expressed in very vivid terms the judgment of God. Let's take an example:

Would you pray this prayer today?

Psalms 109:6-20 Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.
7 When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.
8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
9 Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
10 Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.
11 Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour.
12 Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children.
13 Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
14 Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
15 Let them be before the LORD continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.
16 Because that he remembered not to shew mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man, that he might even slay the broken in heart.
17 As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him: as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him.
18 As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment, so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones.
19 Let it be unto him as the garment which covereth him, and for a girdle wherewith he is girded continually.
20 Let this be the reward of mine adversaries from the LORD, and of them that speak evil against my soul.

Is it love or is it hatred. Jesus said: "Love your enemies."
This is an expression of the judgment of God upon the enemies of God.
It is one of the Imprecatory Psalms. One cannot literally discern God's character from a psalm like this. Are you willing to pray it?