Does God Hate Certain Persons? Is there Any Truth to “Love the Sinner, but Hate the Sin?”

In an article from July 30, 2013 (I know, it’s old… https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/god-loves-the-sinner-but-hates-the-sin), John Piper teaches that God hates certain people. The problem with this is that there are inconsistencies in the mind of the person (usually a Calvinist) who believes this, and even Piper in the article recognizes the inconsistency but tries to pass it off as a paradox. “He hates — now here is the paradox — and he loves at the same time.”[1] The problem is that it is not a paradox, but simply a contradiction.

Let’s look at some different texts from where the belief that God hates certain persons likely came…

Psalm 5

Give ear to my words, O Lord;

consider my groaning.

2 Give attention to the sound of my cry,

my King and my God,

for to you do I pray.

3 O Lord, in the morning you hear my voice;

in the morning I prepare a sacrifice for you[a] and watch.

4 For you are not a God who delights in wickedness;

evil may not dwell with you.

5 The boastful shall not stand before your eyes;

you hate all evildoers.

6 You destroy those who speak lies;

the Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.

7 But I, through the abundance of your steadfast love,

will enter your house.

I will bow down toward your holy temple

in the fear of you.

8 Lead me, O Lord, in your righteousness

because of my enemies;

make your way straight before me.

9 For there is no truth in their mouth;

their inmost self is destruction;

their throat is an open grave;

they flatter with their tongue.

10 Make them bear their guilt, O God;

let them fall by their own counsels;

because of the abundance of their transgressions cast them out,

for they have rebelled against you.

11 But let all who take refuge in you rejoice;

let them ever sing for joy,

and spread your protection over them,

that those who love your name may exult in you.

12 For you bless the righteous, O Lord;

you cover him with favor as with a shield.

Another text often used is found in Hosea, 9:15…

Every evil of theirs is in Gilgal;

there I began to hate them.

Because of the wickedness of their deeds

I will drive them out of my house.

I will love them no more;

all their princes are rebels.

There are many other verses and passages with this type of language. But concluding that this is what it means, clearly creates a problem in the person who believes that God is love, as 1 John 4:8 describes. It is also problematic through the lenses of other biblical passages. For instance, Matthew 5:43-48:

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 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. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have?

If someone says that the text means that God hates certain persons, then he has another problem to deal with, which is that God desires that none should perish: 2 Peter 3:9 “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” Just because the text says something does not mean that's what it means. Proper Hermeneutics is a requirement.

The real issue with the conclusion of the article mentioned above, that there are paradoxes as such in the Bible, is that these are not paradoxes, but the human authors of the Bible frequently used hyperbole.[2]Jesus Himself was a frequenter of hyperbole. For instance, in Mark 9:42-48 we find a prime example of Jesus’ use of hyperbole:

Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’

Should we cut off our hands and feet, and gouge out our eyes if they cause us to sin? Absolutely not! This is not what Jesus was teaching. If it were the case that it were not hyperbolic, then by not literally cutting off our hands and feet and gouging out our eyes, we would find ourselves in an endless cycle of sin. If our hands were causing us to sin by doing something and we didn’t use our hands to cut off our hands, then what? We are sinning again by not obeying the command to cut off our hands. This is absurd. He was teaching that we should do everything we can to stop sinning and grow closer to God. Jesus was exaggerating in order to drive the point deeper into the heart of His hearers. That God hates sinners is a hyperbole as well.

“Love the sinner but hate the sin” is absolutely a good thing to believe today, simply because this is what God does. He loves the sinner and hates the sin. Read what Jesus says again:

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 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. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have?

Love your enemies? Wait… what? I thought God hated certain people? No, He makes His sun rise on the evil and the good, and send rain on the just and the unjust. Again, that God hates sinners is hyperbolic.

Perhaps this brings a person to conclude that if God loves everyone, then it may lead to universalism. This is a whole other issue obviously, but just because God loves everyone does not mean that everyone goes to heaven. It does not mean that God will bring people to His Kingdom against their own will. That would be unloving! In John 14:6, Jesus says that “I am the way, the truth, and the life; No one comes to the Father, but through me.” So, if a person does not have Jesus (“He who has the Son has life. He who does not have the Son of God does not have life” 1 John 5:12), then he will not enter into the Kingdom of God. Romans 10:9 agrees: “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, then you will be saved.” There are no conditions for God's love (God's love is unconditional), but there are conditions on where one spends eternity (God's salvation is conditional).

To be consistent in the worldview of Calvinism, it seems then, that one must believe that God indeed hates certain persons, but the problem is that this creates inconsistencies in his thinking elsewhere, such as I have mentioned above (i. e. in considering the other texts contained the Bible). The real issue with inconsistencies, logically speaking, is that when there are inconsistencies in one’s beliefs, this means that there is something in those beliefs that is not true. In other words, something believed to be true is actually false because the logic used for one belief is not the same when it comes to another belief. Consistency is a high goal that we should all strive for. Where do you have inconsistencies in your beliefs?

[1] John Piper. https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/god-loves-the-sinner-but-hates-the-sin.

[2] NOUN: hyperbole; plural noun: hyperboles; exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Comments

The Evidence and Power of Testimony: The Apostolic Witness

What to say to People who Demand more Evidence for God. Why is there something rather than nothing? Glacier National Park. © Nace Howell, 2018. The question is, how much evidence do you require? Would Jesus have to come back and slap you in the face with evidence that He is God? It seems to me that there is a line we must draw. We do this in all other areas of our lives, so why would we treat theism any different? When a court convicts, they do so “beyond a reasonable doubt.” I would like to take a few moments to explore this a bit. But before we get to that, I want to pose a question, which is… why are you the standard? What makes you think He has to prove His existence to everyone individually? He already created the universe from nothing. In the beginning, there was a big bang. Seriously… do you believe your mom when she tells you a story about her day? Did you believe the reports of 9/11 when they were happening? Do you accept the testimony of anything you hear on social ...

Baptism is Not Necessary for Salvation According to the Early Church

Let’s dive right in. The Bible says in Acts 2:37-41, Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. The phrase in Acts 2:38 that reads, “for the forgiveness of your sins” modifies the word repentance, not the word baptism. See more about this Here . What is interesting is that those who translate the above verse as meaning that baptism is a requ...

Using Guilt to Guide to the Truth

While taking a cultural apologetics class in my doctorate, I rambled along in a 30-page paper and in it, I wrote that, “I define religion as an anthropological system consisting of worship which is often filled with specific sacred rituals that seeks to appease or eradicate guilt.” My professor red-penned this and said that I am not yet in an authoritative position to make such definitions. But I was never asked how I came up with such a definition. The thing is, working on my second post-graduate degree in apologetics, studying many other religions on a deeper level was inevitable, and by this, I noticed a pattern in all of them which was the fact that they all seek to appease or eradicate guilt, including Buddhism , even though many adherents of Buddhism claim that it is not a religion . The point is that all religions seek to eradicate guilt on some level, because guilt crosses all cultures and times, to all people . Guilt transcends all people. The ...

Self-tests of Some of the World's Religions

It is fairly common for a religion of the world to give itself a sort of test for truth, since this is one question that is asked of any religion: “Why should I believe what you are telling me is true?” After all, the answer to such a question will ultimately result in followers of specific beliefs and doctrines, let alone religions, or will result in a lack of followers. If a religion can answer this question posed by seekers and thinkers, and therefore train its adherents to be able to answer why a religion is true, this will inevitably help people believe in such, even if the claims are false. If there is no answer, this is where a religion will perhaps find more trouble for itself. Many religions make an appeal to a higher authority, namely, God , for the veracity of their existence and as a result, no one can question the truth from such an authority. This is correct in a sense, that if in fact God is making such a claim, then what is said or stated is true ...

The God of the Killdozer Operator, Marvin Heemeyer

While working toward becoming an apologist and a pastor, I was a heavy equipment operator. I have over 15 years’ experience in the field, focusing on hydrological restorations (stream bank and river restoration and water dam removals) and site development for building pads (ranging from houses to one million + sq. ft. warehouses). I say this because I want to show where the heart for writing article this came about. Marvin Heemeyer purchased a bulldozer from an auction which was a Komatsu D355A with an operating weight of 97,907 lbs. (this does not include the weight of Heemeyer’s fabricated addition). In the picture above, I am operating a Komatsu D155AX which has an operating weight of 89,300 lbs. (If I remember correctly, we were developing the site for a 550,000 sq. ft. warehouse building pad). Heemeyer then went on a rampage in his armored bulldozer in Granby, CO. I don’t want to go into great details about what led up to Heemeyer doing what he did, nor do I want to go into great ...

Two Problems Jesus has with the Mormon Doctrine of Eternal Families

Mormonism teaches that those who are married in a temple can be married for eternity. In Doctrine and Covenants 132:15–20, we find the following: 15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word , and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead , and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world. 16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. 17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God for...

An Overlooked Argument Against the Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon is written in a style of language that was not used by anyone at the time that it was written and published. This style of English is called Early Modern English . This fact is an anachronism that I find to be severely overlooked by those who seek the truth about the Book of Mormon. Many Mormons will instantly write this objection off concerning the veracity of the Book of Mormon, even to the point of saying that such an objection is lazy and pitiful, while not giving any rebuttals worth their weight. I recently insinuated the absurdity of the Book of Mormon by asking the question, “Why was the Book of Mormon translated into Early Modern English?” I’m saying that it is absurd that the BoM uses an out-of-date language. A Mormon replied to me that the Bible has equal absurdities. He said, “Why is [The BoM translation into Early Modern English] absurd? Is it absurd that God uses a donkey to speak to Balaam in Numbers 22?” First, this is a tu quo...

Defending Christianity against Jehovah’s Witnesses

Defending Christianity against Jehovah’s Witnesses Using much of their “bible” to refute them “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect ” (NIV 1 Peter 3:15). In other words, LOVE THEM . Jehovah’s Witnesses Biblical Truths Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in the Trinity. J.Ws. believe that Jesus was a “little god” (lower case g). J.Ws. believe in a different “ Jesus ” because of the NWT accounts. J.Ws. call themselves “Christians.” J.Ws. believe Jesus is not to be worshiped. J.Ws. believe that Jesus was once, and is again, Michael the archangel. Genesis 1:26 says, “Let Us crea...

Who Made God? Identifying Categorical Errors

A category is simply a distinct class to which something belongs… A set of objects that can be treated as equal in some way. A Macintosh apple belongs to the category, apple, and not what we categorize as an orange. Similarly, colors are in a different category than taste. When we say, “apples and oranges” what we mean is that there has been a confusion of categories. Sure, they are both fruit, but when you examine both, there is an obvious difference. An apple is not an orange, and an orange is not an apple. Macintosh, Granny Smith, and red delicious are all apples. Navel, blood, and Valencia are all oranges. To mix the two, for instance, to call a navel orange an apple, would be a categorical error, sometimes referred to as a category mistake. How Identifying Categorical Errors can Help with Apologetics It seems that simply learning about or being reminded of categorical errors can help us be more aware of them. We have all heard or thought of ourselves, the...

How to Show a Mormon the Difference Between the Mormon Jesus and the Biblical Jesus

I find that Mormons frequently claim that they are Christians, and that they want to be referred to as Christians, and that they have even recently sought to distance themselves from the word “Mormon.” The problem is, they worship another Jesus, and here is how to show them the difference between the Mormon Jesus and the Biblical Jesus. Before we get to that, some clarifications are necessary. Specifically, that they cannot even distance themselves from being called "Mormons." The Mormon President Russell Nelson said, “What’s in a name or, in this case, a nickname? When it comes to nicknames of the Church, such as the “LDS Church,” the “Mormon Church,” or the “Church of the Latter-day Saints,” the most important thing in those names is the absence of the Savior’s name. To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan. When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us—even His Atonement.” [1] ...

Apologetics and Evidence

Search This Blog