« How Social Ostracism Could Increase Our Love | Main | Live Broadcast Today »

April 20, 2015


Even in english, are the following two statements contradictory?

  1. A hates X
  2. A loves X
Hatred and the absence of love often, perhaps even typically, go together. Likewise, love and the absence of hatred often, perhaps even typically, go together.

But is there a reason to think that hatred and the absence of love must always go together? That love and the absence of hatred must always go together?

I think the idea that love and hate are logically incompatible makes for a neat psychological picture that is almost certainly false, even for human beings, let alone for God.

Here's a simple example, that wouldn't apply to God, but would show that even human beings can pull off the feat of loving and hating the same thing. Consider the character Arthur Dimmesdale from Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter. Dimmesdale clearly viewed both his act of adultery, and his cowardice in refusing to admit to the adultery to be despicable. And he came to hate himself for those acts. But his own self-love continued to prevent, through the course of almost the entire story, his confession of his sin.

Hawthorne presents us a picture of a man who both loves and hates himself. I'd even go so far as to say that he loves himself...and he hates himself for that very self-love. If you are honest with yourself, and look at all the desires of your own heart, it will probably not take much effort to see that Hawthorne had hit upon a deep truth there. It's not just Dimmesdale who finds himself in that predicament.

Now, God cannot hate Himself for His sin, love Himself and yet hate Himself for that self-love. This is because God cannot sin to start with.

But I think its quite evident that God hated Himself enough to suffer unspeakable torment and die. At the same time, He loved Himself.

Christ tells us that we have to love God and hate our patents......

But wait: Genre.... Other verses.... Etc....

Else: "God says we need to hate our parents."

Which is nonsense.

One-verse theologies like that (hate... parents... etc...) are how we've justified all sorts of errors in the past.

Typo: Christ tells us to hate our *parents*.

This argumentation solves nothing and tries to solve a contradiction that never existed. For one thing there is no proof in the Bible that God loves everyone equally and is "all loving", a term that is not even defined in the video from Scripture. If you want to define it that way you have a contradiction. But it's not with the Bible but with a popular ideal. I agree not all nations had their place in redemptive history in the days of Jacob and Esau . Read it this way: People in some nations are redeemed and others were sentenced to eternal punishment. Even if we exegete this to mean a nation and not an individual (which I'm not entirely convinced is acceptable) it still doesn't solve this "contradiction". It only obfuscates the issue at hand. I'm sorry. STR has a lot of high quality things to offer. This is not one of them.

So, Chris, your solution is that, while love and hate really are incompatible, God does not love all people, but hates some...Essau (and possibly the nation of Edom) for example?

Does it follow also that we are not to love all people? In particular, we're to hate our parents.

Are we also to hate ourselves (or at least our own lives)?

And since we are to love our neighbors as ourselves, can we conclude that we're commanded to hate our neighbors (or at least, their lives)?

My solution is to be Biblical and allow God to love who He loves and hate whosoever He hates. As Christians we are instructed to love our neighbors and our enemies and leave vengeance to the Lord so I will follow Jesus according to His instructions.

"As Christians we are instructed to love our neighbors"

as ourselves.

Since we are also instructed to hate our own lives, what does that imply about our love of neighbor?

God certainly can hate whomever He wants. But we are told that God is love. I'm inclined to think, at a minimum, that this means that God loves everyone.

I'm inclined to get my whole understanding of God from what the Bible actually teaches without going off the deep end over one particular attribute of God glorifying it the exclusion of the others. I am dedicated to what God has revealed in His Word and any philosophical construction contrary to His revelation is dismissible. My claim in consistent with the holiness and revealed judgement of God against sin. My original objection still stands. The logic of this argument just kicks the can down the road and you are still faced with the same problem. Whether it is a nation, or an individual, the result of God's hatred is functionally identical in contrast to His love for Jacob to the level of the individual. As far as hating or loving ourselves goes I'll just have to say that things always mean what they mean in context and say that I follow the commandments of Jesus regardless of their implications. He says to love your neighbor as yourself. He also says to take up your cross. If you want to take Scripture of context then you can make it have as many or as few contradictions as you want it to have and there would be no need for apologetic argumentation.


If you want to commit to an ontology wherein God hates us that is fine. "One-verse theologies", as it were, have been used by Christianity before in such ways. But you'll have to offer a much better or more fully developed picture. Preferably one which no longer conflates Justice or volitional motions (of Man) on one hand with hate on the other hand, as you seemed to have unfortunately done.

A valid question arises:

Who does God hate?

Who is God hating right now?


I can't imagine you saying God hates Christians. We're left, then, with Non-Christians as the people God hates. ("-Cause the Bible")

All that is left, then, is: Does God hate *all* Non-Christians?

Then, once you commit to an answer:

Did/Does (tenseless) God hate them on His Cross - where All Sufficiency pours Himself out for - and into - Insufficiency?

Are you a universalist? Do you deny the existence of hell and judgment against sin?

Who does God hate? The ones he is wrathful towards.
How do I know this, because love is defined as being kind and giving and caring and all of those things that wrath cannot be.
Who is God hating now? The ones He is punishing in hell eternally. None of them were Christians.
Does God hate all non-Christians? No. Not all non-Chrsistians will be unrepentant. Some will recieve His grace. Did/Does hate them on the cross? No. His sufficiency is sufficient for all He died for which was not all individuals who ever did or would live.


A Universalist?

Not at all.

Unilaterally speaking, love would not - and cannot - "make" it to be so. Marriage just isn't like that. Two become one. Us.

I've answered your question.



To clarify - by "You?" I mean simply would you please now answer my question about who God hates - *all* Non-Christians (etc....)


Okay thank you. The delay in posts put it up a bit after mine.

I've answered succinctly right after that. Please refer to the following post.


God hates all Non-Christians who don't eventually convert to Christianity. And you seem to have added that He also didn't love/die-for them on His Cross.

Is that about right?

I certainly believe Jesus did not die for those he would condemn in hell. Those who Christ died for He atoned for. The blood of Christ is atonement turning away wrath

I should answer that God would hate those who He has not atoned for. I certainly would have a hard time saying he "loves" them when they destroyed by Him. I think that would undermine the meaning of the word "love".


You seem to be going, then, here regarding said Non-Christians:

"Did not /does not die for. Did not / does not love. Did and does Hate."

If that is about right then such is (obviously) quite unlike the ontological motions prior to and surrounding Marriage among Necessity/Contingency there amid Self/Other (thus our disagreement).


Undermine love? Impossible.


Two (full stop) become (full stop) one (full stop).

That is Marriage.


The ontological doors and motions therein are 1) necessarily present viz cannot not exist and 2) not necessarily used viz volition and 3) thus fail to detract from love's landscape but in fact define it.

Once "married" - well everything (literally) changes there amid Self/Other.... as such begets "one". But how is all guesswork. Well, mostly guesswork.

Love is love. Wrath is wrath. These things are mutually exclusive by definition as far as I know. It doesn't matter if love or hatred is in the past, present, or future. It is either expressed or it is not. If God doesn't atone for someone He will pour out His wrath on that someone at some point. Atonement is by definition turning away the wrath of God. To say He loves someone when He is hating them to the point of eternal destruction by every definition of that word "hate" you really do have a contradiction. If God punishes someone He atoned for on the cross at any time then the atonement is a joke. These things are contingent on God who is acting them out both the atonement and the wrath. He is doing so in a way that is not disconnected from His emotions or His will unless you wish to assault the asceity of God.


That's a bit confused about a few things - particularly love's geography - and a few other items.

Regarding said Non-Christians it was merely a restatement of:

"Did not /does not die for. Did not / does not love. Did and does Hate."

I've stated my case. I've given clear definitions of words that are consistent with the way the Bible defines them. Not just one or two proof texts but the same theme that runs from Genesis to Revelation of what it means to sacrifice and bleed and die to atone for the actual sin of sinners.

I hope one day you'll be able to see that. I used to think the same way but found I couldn't stomach the idea once I recognized we are not dealing with theoretical possibilities but actualities because there are people right now actually in hell and in heaven. The difference is the work Jesus actually did on the cross. The cross that was in the past and is turning away His wrath in the present. I trust in the power of His atoning work and in that alone can I rest knowing it is the person of Jesus Christ who will declare me righteous on the day of judgement and not some impersonal principle contingent on my wishy-washy, rebelious, immoral spirit that otherwise would be rightfully condemned.

He does what He wills and wills what He does. He is God. He loves who he loves and hates who He hates. He actually atones for the ones whom he loves with His blood, not some anonymous theoretical person, but for me personally, who was on His mind from the creation of the world as He wrote my name in His book of life. That is the God Who I worship and trust whose atonement that turns away His expressed wrath did not, does not, nor could ever actually fail.


Yes it is clear that you believe that God has never loved them, that you believe that He, God, does not now, today, love them, and that you believe that He never will love them, and it is clear that you believe that God always has hated them, that you believe God still does hate them, is even hating them right now, and that you believe He always will hate them.

You, not the main of Christianity, believe that right now, today, this or that person is hated by God and Christ, that right now, today, this or that group of persons is hated by God and Christ.

You, not the main of Christianity, believe that God hates people, that Christ hates people.

We (as Christians) have in the past used "The Bible" to say the very same things about this or that color of persons or about this or that group of persons, and, on occasion, about some specific person here and now.

Fortunately none of that is true and we've the main of Christianity, past and present, affirming that your framework is flawed in many places and that your theological assumptions are misplaced as said Christianity throughout its ontological commitments - from A to Z as it were, contradicts your stated start/stop points and thereby affirms instead God's truths with their far more intellectually robust treatment of scripture's themes, definitions, and texts. As we travel through life it is the actual state of affairs such that we can and do say the truth to every person we encounter, even to every creature, that truth being that God, Actuality Himself, in degrees our own eyes cannot spy, tenselessly loves them.

The fact that God loves His enemies is clear enough, but, even a quick or cursory search of “Romans 9” and “Esau” at the link’s search box will bring up a basic starting point for relevant contours such that Christianity’s various start/stop points find a few (basic) footholds. Basic can always morph and grow to the more robust should one find the time to do some wider reading.

It’s not hard.

Just look at Christ.

Have you noticed that Craig doesn't interact with any of the issues in that article? The best he can do is point to the fact that Jesus instructs us to love our enemies, and to an extent, demonstrates grace towards the unrighteous, at least while they are on earth. Then he jumps to the conclusion that God hates no one contrary to what the Bible actually states. To make matters worse he throws Biblical exegesis under the bus dismissing passages that don't align with his theory (That I remind you is not universally accepted by Christians) by saying they are "hyperbole". Hyperbolic statements are ascertained by their context. There is no exegesis here that demonstrates this conclusion is acceptable in each presented scripture. To dismiss all of those statements as presented as "hyperbole" even if they are still doesn't explain how they don't mean what they seem to be indicating.

I'm given a choice between what the Bible is clearly stating versus Craig's theory that seems to be doing some real damage to how the atonement is defined as he recklessly dismisses the text. As a Christian I am obligated to draw my conclusions from the Biblical text. I admonish you to visit the book of Hebrews to see how the atonement is defined and how powerful and complete it is. Attacking that undermines the essentials of the Christian faith and the security of the believer. I just don't buy this.

As far as Romans 9 goes, to say that it exclusively referring to nations and not individuals still doesn't solve anything. The nations are still comprised of individuals that are facing the wrath of God. Even individuals are mentioned throughout that passage. There is Pharoah, and Moses, and Issac as well as the nations they represent. The application of those concepts can be seen in Romans 10 regarding the community as the church sounds the call to individual repentance and faith in Jesus Christ because we all face the hot and angry wrath of God against our sin apart from His atoning work. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Rom 10:13 Saved from what? Himself!

So here is the gospel we proclaim.

Be of good cheer (or not)!

God might love you (or not).

Your sins might be forgiven (or not).

Christ might have died for you (or not).

Chris you sort of interact with that one link as if the Craig link is the whole show, the entire bed of theological weight against your assertion that Christ hates Non-Christians.

Fortunately it isn't the whole show.

"As far as Romans 9 goes, to say that it exclusively referring to nations and not individuals still doesn't solve anything."

If you care about exegetical context, yes it does. But if you're seeking only to support an unbalanced - and unbiblical - soteriology, then sure, we can forget about context.

Remember, when Paul talks about Jacob v. Esau, he is directly quoting from Malachi 1, which specifically refers to the nation of Israel.

In fact, the book - and the chapter - begin with the words "The word of the LORD to Israel". Of course it's about nations.

Paul goes on to tell us in Romans that not all of Israel is actually Israel. The nation and the people are ALWAYS distinct both linguistically and theologically.

Let the Bible speak for itself.

I'm with Chris - it's not a one verse theology: Psa 5:5 The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers, and Psa 11:5 The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.

Then Prov 6:16-19 There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

The gospel you proclaim (God loves you etc...) is not the gospel at all. Please show me where you find that in scripture? The book of Acts, where the Apostles are proclaiming the message, does not contain the word love at all. They command people to repent.

I don't say God doesn't love people, but the cross is where God's love, and His hatred of sin
meet. You cannot have one without the other. Whether it's Esau, or a nation, God doesn't love him/them like Jacob.

God does hate all evildoers. He also suffered and died to justify those very evildoers. Because He loves them.


" Chris says: "As far as Romans 9 goes, to say that it exclusively referring to nations and not individuals still doesn't solve anything."

then you say:

"If you care about exegetical context, yes it does. But if you're seeking only to support an unbalanced - and unbiblical - soteriology, then sure, we can forget about context.

Chris is right, it doesn't solve anything because nations are in fact made up of individuals who will or will not be saved per individual faith...if Paul is clear on anything, it is that no one is saved due to nationality/bloodlines. Also the Apostle quite clearly makes the point in Romans 9 that it is children of the promise who are children of God, thus the saying "not all Israel is Israel"

As far as the Apostle quoting Malachi, he is quite obviously using that scripture to make a point about the twins...as individuals, not nations. "for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,".

Romans 9 depicts a monergistic salvation by God to a people...who were not a people[not a nation] but to all kinds of people[individuals] who would then become a holy preisthood, a holy nation...per 1 Peter chapter 2. This is what the Apostle means when he says "all Israel is not Israel here in Rom 9. Galations 3 and 4 is rich with support here also...

Gal 4:26"And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise."

Christ is hating Non-Christians right now?

Another Romans 9 analysis certainly isn’t the whole weight of theological evidence against the assertion of Christ hating us, but it’s a basic starting point. It disagrees with the stopping point wherein we have this odd conclusion that God and Christ is/are – right now – hating us – or that a bunch of us are – right now – hated by Christ.

A quote from here at STR adds a few contours of relevance:

Begin quote: “Context! Context! Context! Context!!! Your citation of Romans 9 apart from the overall structure of Paul's letter to the Romans misses terribly. To recount: Paul begins with the assertion of the Gospel of Christ and its universal need by a sinful planet. All sin, be they pagan society (chap. 1), Jewish legalism (chap. 2), or any who feel themselves righteous in and of self (chap. 3). It is from this point that Paul proclaims the redemptive action of Christ who saves by grace. This is attained by faith (chap. 4, 5) which shatters the power and hold of sin (chap 6) and the power of the Law to condemn those who believe in Christ (chap. 7). The life of faith is through the workings of the Spirit (chap. 8) Who grants us power to live contrary to our selfish sinful natures and upholds us in our moments of weakness, turning all things to good in His good time.

"Now comes chapter nine. What of those who reject the Gospel. Paul would give his life to save the Jewish nation who has rejected Christ. But it is their rejection of God, not God prompting their faithlessness. The mention of the hardening of Pharaoh in that chapter is God's response to willful disobedience and defiance, not making them defiant. Even in this very chapter Paul states: Well then, you might say, “Why does God blame people for not responding? Haven’t they simply done what he makes them do?”

"No, don’t say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to argue with God? Should the thing that was created say to the one who created it, “Why have you made me like this?” (Rom 9: 19, 20). The next two chapters emphasize God's mercy, who does not desire the death of the wicked, who wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. (cf. 1 Tim 2: 4).

"To credit God with all the misery of the world is skewed reason. It's blame-shifting of the worse sort. God, who is not able to sin (non posse peccare) made man of free will (posse non peccare). To a point, in God's pristine version of Utopia (which would work with man's cooperation), man needed to obey the simplest of rules: Don't eat. However you view this incident, the point is the action would be a pure act of obedience or disobedience. Man chose poorly. But God had the option to make man robotic or redeemable. To demand why God would not also make us non posse peccare as He would just be another instance of the original temptation: you will be like God. God, in His wisdom, created better than that.” End quote (DGF)

The earlier link to Romans 9 is a basic starting point. It certainly isn’t the whole show, as far more is available. Which is apparent given that, past and present, the main of Christianity has disagreed with this odd conclusion that God and Christ is/are – right now – hating us – or that a bunch of us are – right now – hated by Christ.

Hi scbrownlhrm, I was responding to one point regarding Romans 9...namely that this passage of scripture is not at all dealing with nations...if even if it were all the same objections you've stated would still apply.

Now, you cite WLC on this...he's a Molinist so he will read the scriptures through his molinism. Craigs analysis is not too unlike what I've stated above in the link you give but one thing is certain...like Chris' objection above to the earlier linked q/a article, that Craig doesn't even deal with the very clear scriptures directly...he just molds it to molinistic conclusions. He doesn't deal directly with the scriptures that deny his version of human freedom.

This particular passage makes more sense through a covenantal view/lens as does the whole of the scriptures. These scriptures in Romans 9 are not vague...neither do they stand alone regarding election/will, here is John 6:44 right out of Jesus' mouth

"“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day."

Here, is a universal negative...NO ONE, and then the words can come to me...unless the Father [greek helko drags him. So again, along with Rom. 9, it is not of him who runs or wills but of God who shows mercy.

That the word hate is used can be tempered but you simply cannot deny, unless you are arguing for universalism, that God passes over some, He doesn't drag all men to Jesus, some He lets go. If that is hate, I cant disagree. Jesus came to do the Fathers will, of the sheep the Father has given, Jesus says "I will lose none". He didn't come to gather all, but all kinds.

This is not too unlike previous conversations regarding Gods foreknowledge and His will being the preeminent will over the lesser created wills yet there be no violence to the freedom of the lesser wills...we do His will willingly, even when He drags us to Christ, He makes us willing and He does so with great patience.

Christ is hating Non-Christians right now?

And loving them, right now.

(Christians too.)

Every person, Christian or non-Christian, is so hateful in God's eyes that it literally takes the death of God to put things right.

Every person, Christian or non-Christian, is so beloved by God, that He literally dies for them to put things right.

As for "right now", yes, it is as true right now as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow, that from all eternity God hates evildoers. It is also as true right now as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow, that from all eternity God loves evildoers.

Christians and non-Christians alike need grace, because Christians are at once justified and sinner.


The conclusion that Christ hates us is - for many (additional) reasons not found in the provided links - not a valid stopping point and I'm not sure your interpretations can avoid that *end*.

And, as it happens, I'm not a Molinist or a Universalist.

Neither is necessary, as there are more robust ways to see past the stopping-points that Christ hates us on the one hand or that God's work in Christ reconciling the world to Himself draws and effects but a few on the other hand.

Or, we can and do say that the complete and completed will of God to and for Man is both actualized and beheld - fully - in Christ. He, Christ, is the Period at the end of all such "sentences".


I agree in that the necessity of the Good demands the dichotomy of Full and Final Justice such that Mercy is aborted even as the Good demands Full and Final Mercy such that Justice is aborted.

Deuteronomy 28 houses such:

"Just as it pleased the Lord to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you."

In Christ we find just such Necessity fully actualized, fully beheld. God in Christ took Man where Man cannot reach and He therein reconciles the world to Himself.

Christ reveals to Man His complete and completed will. Justice and Mercy are in Him finished - the Good forever in the seamlessness of divine simplicity.


I will add that those Necessities are to both logic and love absolutely unavoidable. That we find such ontological topography captured nowhere at all to the degree which Christ's Fullness captures them is perhaps one of Christianity’s strongest claims on reality.

Perhaps then we can say this:

All moral claims made by paradigms outside of such seamless simplicity must give up some portion of mercy or else they must give up some portion of justice - where actual ontological real-estate is concerned.

Christ is the singular stand-alone actualization within the metaphysical landscape of contingency - within time and physicality - of the Necessary should God in fact be love - or - of Final Actuality there in the immutable love of the Necessary Being - of (as J.P. refers to Him) the Self Revealing God.

I'm disappointed with the explanation for the particular text in question from STR. Love and hate are nuanced in Scriptures. There is a sense that God loves everyone whether saved (just) or unsaved (unjust) in His common grace. For example when Jesus commanded His followers to love their enemies, He used the example of the Father for them to follow in Matthew 5
" 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." So God loves everyone including His enemies (all sinners actually) through His earthly provisions to everyone whether he or she worships or loves Him. Another way that God loves everyone is His desire for all to be saved so He offers salvation in Christ to everyone.

But just like the way I love, there would be differences in degrees or levels. I would not love any other woman the way I would love my wife. This would be all the more true for God in that His love for those He saved and saves (called, justified, regenerated, sanctified/sanctifying etc) will be different in degree and comparison to the unsaved. His love for the unsaved, it is equivalent to hate, meaning God loves the unsaved less compared to His love for the saved. Actually this expression of love and hate is used by Jesus in Luke 14:26 and should be cross-referenced to Matt. 10:37 to make sense. Our love and affection for Jesus compared to any human relationships should be so intense that when it is compared to our love for our family or friends would be equivalent to hatred.

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26

This is also used in Genesis 29:29-31, where Jacob is said to love Rachel more than Leah in v. 30, but then in v. 31, this God saw as Jacob's hatred for Leah.

30 So Jacob went in to Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah, and served Laban for another seven years.
31 When the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb, but Rachel
was barren. Gen. 29:30-31

So I would see that when God says He loved Jacob and hated Esau, it means that God loved Jacob more than He loved Esau.

I would not find much to disagree with Carl, though there are reasons that it is for good that God hates...even to severe degrees and even though He endures it and is not pleased to have to show it.

Primary among those reasons, He reveals Himself to those He loves.

Ravi Zacharias’ ministry has a brief look at the God Who remains, Who speaks His peculiar sounds of the Self Revealing God Who delights in the outsiders and bastards, in His enemies, in Mankind – bizarre sounds echoing statements unintelligible to another age – Who comes, remains, and reorders the world we know—visually, physically, restoratively, eternally.

The comments to this entry are closed.