God loves the sinner and hates the sin.
- Thread starter Jason0047
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The English language is not well suited to paradox; simultaneously true conflicting statements.
The nature of sin is such that God finds sin, and those who practice sin grossly offensive!
The nature of God is such that He does not want the consequence of sin to destroy us.
God, in love, mercy, and grace; took upon Himself the consequence of our sin(s) and provided for our restoration and reconciliation.
We must choose to either accept His provision for our sin(s), on His terms; or take the consequence of sin back upon ourselves when we reject His provision.
Scripture says that God hates. If we contradict those statements, we deny the authority of Scripture and claim we know better. The problem with doing so is that by denying the authority of Scripture, we undermine the foundation of faith.
However inconvenient this may seem, words do not change to fit our theology.
It is not enough to believe in God; we must believe God.
The God, who I believe, is not such a poor communicator that He is unable to avoid ambiguity.
Unless there is compelling reason to do otherwise, Scripture must be understood to say what it means and mean what it says. When a straightforward reading of Scripture conflicts with our theology, It is time to adjust our theology, NOT our Bible.
The nature of sin is such that God finds sin, and those who practice sin grossly offensive!
The nature of God is such that He does not want the consequence of sin to destroy us.
God, in love, mercy, and grace; took upon Himself the consequence of our sin(s) and provided for our restoration and reconciliation.
We must choose to either accept His provision for our sin(s), on His terms; or take the consequence of sin back upon ourselves when we reject His provision.
Scripture says that God hates. If we contradict those statements, we deny the authority of Scripture and claim we know better. The problem with doing so is that by denying the authority of Scripture, we undermine the foundation of faith.
However inconvenient this may seem, words do not change to fit our theology.
It is not enough to believe in God; we must believe God.
The God, who I believe, is not such a poor communicator that He is unable to avoid ambiguity.
Unless there is compelling reason to do otherwise, Scripture must be understood to say what it means and mean what it says. When a straightforward reading of Scripture conflicts with our theology, It is time to adjust our theology, NOT our Bible.
Sometimes that word love is a struggle to me personally, sometimes I don't even want to speak in case I sow discord amongst people especially believers. Sometimes I don't quite know what to make of things, for example, I often hear the phrase 'hate the sin but not the sinner' where did this originate?,
"Hate the bad things that bad people do but don't hate the bad people that do bad things"?
When one is instructed to love one's enemy, to love those who hate you and to love your neighbour which part of the person does one love, is it the the body or the mind?
I have much to understand with ancient language in its grammar and vocabulary because sometimes I struggle to not see the seemingly self-contradictory effect.
"Hate the bad things that bad people do but don't hate the bad people that do bad things"?
When one is instructed to love one's enemy, to love those who hate you and to love your neighbour which part of the person does one love, is it the the body or the mind?
I have much to understand with ancient language in its grammar and vocabulary because sometimes I struggle to not see the seemingly self-contradictory effect.
I deal with this kind of idea, thinking about children. They are a ball of emotion, running down a street. An idea pops into their head and they break a window.
The problem was breaking the window, an action, and the things that led up to this. You could say the child is responsible, the cause, so should be rebuked and rejected, or you see the whole and an action that was destructive.
Until the Lord returns this child can meet the Lord and be transformed so all is not lost. One can love this potential, but not the action or the disfunctional reasons which led up to it.
In thinking about such a situation we can remember how many things we have done similarly without knowing why, or seeing the slavery to sin. We are victims of ourselves who need help.
The counter argument is there is no help or potential for change, then love has no power, because all is lost. This is when ideas of genocide become real, when a group are deemed so evil, they must just be destroyed. So this idea is not just a neutral idea, it has its place in human history and the evil loosing hope and love in people leads to tremendously bad things.
The problem was breaking the window, an action, and the things that led up to this. You could say the child is responsible, the cause, so should be rebuked and rejected, or you see the whole and an action that was destructive.
Until the Lord returns this child can meet the Lord and be transformed so all is not lost. One can love this potential, but not the action or the disfunctional reasons which led up to it.
In thinking about such a situation we can remember how many things we have done similarly without knowing why, or seeing the slavery to sin. We are victims of ourselves who need help.
The counter argument is there is no help or potential for change, then love has no power, because all is lost. This is when ideas of genocide become real, when a group are deemed so evil, they must just be destroyed. So this idea is not just a neutral idea, it has its place in human history and the evil loosing hope and love in people leads to tremendously bad things.
Hate the sin but not the sinner is an oxymoron, but that is just the way I think, I don't see how I could hate the one without the other?. What is sin?, surely sin is not something that can be contained in a pitcher or sealed in a spray can?, is the sinner not the sin?, the bible says The soul that sinneth, it shall die.The more I think I know the more I question what I think I know, I shall not rest on one's laurels and that word presumptuousness does not sit well with me. My profile says that I am unsure but that does not mean I don't believe in the existence of God nor do I doubt the existence of the Christ Jesus, I just simply will not presume that I am a Christian simply because I believe, faith without works is dead according to scripture. Perhaps I should really change my profile to outsider?. But I took note of your analogy.
Dear Peter Jens.:
While God is certainly loving and can forgive some of the most evil of sins, God cannot under any circumstance condone a person to do horrible and evil sins done in the present moment with no intention to confess or forsake it (Whether it be just one unrepentant sin done on occasion or whether they abide in that sin all the time). Yes, God is merciful, and knows many struggle with sin, but that is one of the reasons why Jesus Christ was manifested. So as to destroy the works of the devil. Not just on the cross with our Justification in coming to Him, but Jesus was manifested to destroy the works of the devil in our lives, too. For God's people are good and they are not evil.
While God is certainly loving and can forgive some of the most evil of sins, God cannot under any circumstance condone a person to do horrible and evil sins done in the present moment with no intention to confess or forsake it (Whether it be just one unrepentant sin done on occasion or whether they abide in that sin all the time). Yes, God is merciful, and knows many struggle with sin, but that is one of the reasons why Jesus Christ was manifested. So as to destroy the works of the devil. Not just on the cross with our Justification in coming to Him, but Jesus was manifested to destroy the works of the devil in our lives, too. For God's people are good and they are not evil.
Last edited:
A simple question, did God love Judas? He was doomed, he was to betray the Son of God.
Now we are told God so loved the world, at which point they had not repented, or taken note or understood.
So God loved while people in their sin had no intention of doing anything in the future but be evil.
But that is the nature of sin, it makes you its slave. Is a slave free, or able to behave differently? No.
Only when the possibility of freedom comes is there a real choice. And only those who see the choice actually have it.
Now we are told God so loved the world, at which point they had not repented, or taken note or understood.
So God loved while people in their sin had no intention of doing anything in the future but be evil.
But that is the nature of sin, it makes you its slave. Is a slave free, or able to behave differently? No.
Only when the possibility of freedom comes is there a real choice. And only those who see the choice actually have it.
While Judas lost his salvation by betraying the Lord and by committing suicide, If God didn't love Judas then Judas would not have benefited in any of the goodness from God. Yes, God loved him but it is not the same kind of love that God has for His faithful followers, though. Hence, why God chooses to reward those according to their deeds.
Love is just a word, words are cheap, of course, I have cared for the well being of someone and I can tolerate certain behaviour to a certain point. But I have to admit that as an imperfect human being I find it really really difficult to love those who's deliberate negligence and intentions are to cause suffering to others, so, no love lost there chap. Love can just be a lip service to its effect. I'm talking about human beings and the human condition.
I don't have a problem with this thinking or this instruction set.
I don't have a problem with this thinking or this instruction set.
First, the problem with saying Judas was never saved is to say that the Holy Son of God chose an unholy person to be his representative of the Kingdom of God. Such a thing is wrong. God does not send out evil apostles. That doesn't make any sense.
Second, there are many clues in Scripture that tell us Judas was in fact once saved and the lost his salvation.
In fact, we know Judas was a familar friend to Jesus at one time. For a Messianic Psalm that talks about Judas betraying Jesus says this,
"Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me." (Psalm 41:9).
Jesus said he did not lose any of his disciples except Judas.
"While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled." (John 17:12).
You cannot lose something you never had. For example: You cannot lose one of my books unless I let you borrowed it, or unless it somehow came into your possession some way.
Acts 1:16-26 tells of Peter and the disciples choosing another apostle to fill the vacancy left by Judas. Verse 16 speaks of the Scripture being fulfilled that was spoken by the Holy Ghost concerning Judas. Notice verse 17, "For he was numbered with us, and hadobtained part of this ministry. " Also notice in verse 20, "And his bishopric [the charge of instructing and governing in spiritual concerns; office] let another take." Concerning the choosing of a new apostle, verse 25 says, "That he may take part of this ministry andapostleship [the office or dignity of an apostle], from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." How could Judas fall from a position appointed to him by our Lord Himself if he never really was an apostle? According to the scriptures a qualification for a bishop is one who is blameless (1 Timothy 3:2). If a bishop or elder of the church is to be blameless, how much more an apostle who would be a founder of churches. Do we really think Jesus would choose an officer of the church contrary to His Word? Men may, but not our Lord!
"That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." (Acts 1:25).
Jesus said of the twelve that they were as sheep sent out among wolves (Matthew 10:16, c.f with Matthew 10:5). Judas given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom (Matthew 13:10-11) In fact, Jesus says to the disciples that blessed are their eyes and ears because they see and hear.
Matthew 19:27-28 says, "Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye [always plural in the Greek] which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribesof Israel." Judas was not faithful unto the end; therefore, he forfeited the promise of a throne in heaven. Judas' fall did not negate the fact that he was promised a throne. But that promise was conditional, like all God's promises.
Side Note:
As for the verse you reference: Jesus says this at the point where Judas had already turned against Him.
Source Used:
http://www.frontiernet.net/~rzimm3/tcc/judas.htm
(Please take not that I only quoted those points that I agree with in the article; Other verses I believe the author is not realizing specifically the time or moment of when Judas fell).
Second, there are many clues in Scripture that tell us Judas was in fact once saved and the lost his salvation.
In fact, we know Judas was a familar friend to Jesus at one time. For a Messianic Psalm that talks about Judas betraying Jesus says this,
"Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me." (Psalm 41:9).
Jesus said he did not lose any of his disciples except Judas.
"While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled." (John 17:12).
You cannot lose something you never had. For example: You cannot lose one of my books unless I let you borrowed it, or unless it somehow came into your possession some way.
Acts 1:16-26 tells of Peter and the disciples choosing another apostle to fill the vacancy left by Judas. Verse 16 speaks of the Scripture being fulfilled that was spoken by the Holy Ghost concerning Judas. Notice verse 17, "For he was numbered with us, and hadobtained part of this ministry. " Also notice in verse 20, "And his bishopric [the charge of instructing and governing in spiritual concerns; office] let another take." Concerning the choosing of a new apostle, verse 25 says, "That he may take part of this ministry andapostleship [the office or dignity of an apostle], from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." How could Judas fall from a position appointed to him by our Lord Himself if he never really was an apostle? According to the scriptures a qualification for a bishop is one who is blameless (1 Timothy 3:2). If a bishop or elder of the church is to be blameless, how much more an apostle who would be a founder of churches. Do we really think Jesus would choose an officer of the church contrary to His Word? Men may, but not our Lord!
"That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." (Acts 1:25).
Jesus said of the twelve that they were as sheep sent out among wolves (Matthew 10:16, c.f with Matthew 10:5). Judas given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom (Matthew 13:10-11) In fact, Jesus says to the disciples that blessed are their eyes and ears because they see and hear.
Matthew 19:27-28 says, "Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye [always plural in the Greek] which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribesof Israel." Judas was not faithful unto the end; therefore, he forfeited the promise of a throne in heaven. Judas' fall did not negate the fact that he was promised a throne. But that promise was conditional, like all God's promises.
Side Note:
As for the verse you reference: Jesus says this at the point where Judas had already turned against Him.
Source Used:
http://www.frontiernet.net/~rzimm3/tcc/judas.htm
(Please take not that I only quoted those points that I agree with in the article; Other verses I believe the author is not realizing specifically the time or moment of when Judas fell).
Yes, but your worldview is not the experience of all the inhabitants that exist on this planet. If you have never loved someone who has done something wrong, then you simply have not experienced it like many other people have. There are unbelievers who love their child despite certain wrongs that they commit. Then there are those who have accepted Jesus Christ for real and abide in His good ways and they love others who are hateful towards them. This is natural for a true believer. Loving is a part of who they are because God lives with them (For God is love). For example: When Stephen was being stoned, he was saying to the Lord not to hold such a crime against them. This is the type of love (that can only come from God). If you never experienced that kind of love, you can call upon the Lord to save you now (or renew your faith in Him) and seek His good ways (While turning from your old bad ways).
Last edited:
Once again, why complicate it, Jason?
IMO, Judas' was an example to the unsaved world, (the naysayers of the God of the Bible), that you can literally have God in front of you, performing miracles right in front of your eyes....over and over and over.......and STILL not believe that God is real.
Judas might have had moments when he believed, but apparently he was never saved.
The Lord choose him KNOWING before hand that he would NEVER turn and fully believe in Him............its that simple.
Judas is THE example to the world, NO MATTER WHAT "EVIDENCE" IS PRESENTED TO THEM,...they will NEVER accept that there is a God.
IMO, Judas' was an example to the unsaved world, (the naysayers of the God of the Bible), that you can literally have God in front of you, performing miracles right in front of your eyes....over and over and over.......and STILL not believe that God is real.
Judas might have had moments when he believed, but apparently he was never saved.
The Lord choose him KNOWING before hand that he would NEVER turn and fully believe in Him............its that simple.
Judas is THE example to the world, NO MATTER WHAT "EVIDENCE" IS PRESENTED TO THEM,...they will NEVER accept that there is a God.
if there is no hope that God could have mercy on Judas, than neither is there any that He could have mercy on me,
and i suspect the same of everyone on earth. he also called Peter "Satan" if you recall, and He also called Judas "friend"
despite how much everyone enjoys condemning him, i will leave it to God to judge.
and i suspect the same of everyone on earth. he also called Peter "Satan" if you recall, and He also called Judas "friend"
despite how much everyone enjoys condemning him, i will leave it to God to judge.
K
Not to mention that when Jesus commissioned the 12 to go out and preach the gospel to the surround areas He warned them of the things they would face, and told them this in 10:22;
Matthew 10:22
And you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.
I have seen a few on here try and make this verse refer to the tribulation period, but the problem is that Matthew 10 has nothing to do with the tribulation. It is the commissioning of the 12 to send them out to preach the good news of the gospel to the surrounding areas.
Yes, I agee. We have to endure in our faith. For this is speaking about one's Sanctification (Abiding in Christ and letting Him do the good work within one's life) unto their final stage of salvation (Which is Glorification).
Justification = Repentance and Accepting Christ. (Initial salvation)
Sanctification = continuing in Christ and His work (cont. Salvation)
Glorification = being taken home. (Final salvation).
Justification = Repentance and Accepting Christ. (Initial salvation)
Sanctification = continuing in Christ and His work (cont. Salvation)
Glorification = being taken home. (Final salvation).
Last edited:
I have a self-sacrificial spirit, in fact I gave up my life so that another can benefit from my care, if care is love then so be it. Actions speak louder than words. All i am saying is that it is going against the grain to love someone implicilty when that someone is evil. I'm not saying that it is impossible to learn to love someone evil implicitly, yeah we are all tested. I can work on my evil ways just like you can and others too, perfection is simply a hope and there exists not one human being free from the adamic spirit.