I came across the above video in which Stephen Nichols of Ligonier Ministries responds to the question, “Is it true that God ‘loves the sinner but hates the sin’?” to which he gives the following reply:
“You know, you hear this all the time, don’t you. And it comes under the category of, ‘We would like to try to help out God.’ There are elements to the revelation of God that are difficult for us to take; and one of them is anytime we associate the word ‘hate’ with God. It is hard for us to do that. But here is what we have; we have it in Scripture. So this idea that God hates the sin, loves the sinner, is contrary to two Psalms; and also contrary to the opening verses of the book of Malachi, ‘Esau have I hated, Jacob have I loved.’ We have to be very careful that we don’t think somehow we help God by improving His PR for folks. So we have to be governed here by the text. Now, I don’t think that means we run around saying, ‘God hates these particular sinners, God hates this particular group,’ and hold banners up, and parade up and down the street, saying, ‘God hates (fill-in the social group)’. I don’t think that is the call for us, but neither do I think there is merit in that phrase. What we do need to talk about is that I was a worse sinner than anyone that we want to say God hates; we all were. And to understand, you know, R.C. said this how many times? It is one sin, just the smallest sin is an affront to the holiness of God, and just brings down the thundering wrath of God upon us. And when we slip into these kind of statements, we think we are doing God a favor, but we are not doing sinners any favor, because we are not helping them see the wrath of God, we are not helping them see what that means. And until they see that, they don’t see their true need for a substitute, and they don’t fully understand what Christ was doing on the cross. So, sometimes we have to be careful in how we want to help God’s PR.”
There are several exegetical (and linguistic) errors made in that commentary. There are a number of passages in the Bible (not many, as he has pointed out) which suggest that God “hates” sinners; and there are also other passages (more in fact) which suggest that God loves sinners! To focus only on the first set of scriptures, and ignore the second, is not helpful in arriving at a sound interpretation. Sound doctrine is obtained when all relevant passages of scripture are considered. I start with the verses which suggest that God “hates” sinners:
Psalm 5:
5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
Psalm 11:
5 The Lord trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.
Malachi 1:
2 I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob,
3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.
There is a linguistic element here that needs to be resolved before the theological one can be considered. The word “hate” as used in the biblical narrative, and in the OT especially, is a bit nuanced, and it doesn’t have the same kind of meaning that are associated with it in today’s English. The following verses illustrate the point:
Genesis 29:
30 And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.
31 And when the Lord saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.
32 And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the Lord hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me.
33 And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because the Lord hath heard I was hated, he hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon.
The word “hate” in the above passage does not mean what it does in our everyday English. It simply means that he loved her less. He didn’t favor her quite as much as the other one. He still loved both of them, but one of them less than the other (because she wasn’t as pretty). It certainly doesn’t mean that he harboured some kind of ill will or malice towards the less favoured one—which is what the word “hate” conveys to us in modern English. Here is another example:
Deuteronomy 21:
15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.
Again in these verses the word “hate” doesn’t have the same meaning, or have the same nuances associated with it that it does in today’s English. It simply means “loved less”. This nuanced meaning of “hate” is also found in the New Testament. Here is a quote:
Luke 14:
26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
In this verse Jesus is not advising his disciples to break the fifth commandment, to “Honour thy father and thy mother” (Exod. 20:12); and which himself reiterates several times in the rest of the NT (Matt. 15:4; 19:19; Mark 7:10; 10:19; Luke 18:20; Eph. 6:2). The word “hate” in Luke 14:26 simply means to love Jesus more, or give deference to him more, so as not to be afraid of offending the others for the sake of Jesus if need be. If your father and mother don’t want you to follow Jesus for example, you still follow Jesus, even if that means that you offend them by so doing. It doesn’t mean that you literally “hate” your father and mother etc., in the sense of harboring malice or ill will towards them—which is the meaning it conveys in modern English. It doesn’t mean that we should be disrespectful towards them either, while obeying that commandment. When it says that God “hates” sinners, it is meant to be understood in that sense of the term—meaning that he hates their sinfulness; but still loves their souls; and wants them to repent and be saved. There are many biblical passages that confirm this:
Romans 5:
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
So God loved sinners enough that he wanted to die and atone for their sins, so they could repent and be saved. Here is another:
John 3:
16 For God so loved the world [of sinners], that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Therefore God loves sinners! And he loves them enough to be willing to die on the cross to atone for their sins, so they could be redeemed and be saved. Here is another:
John 15:
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
1 John 4:
10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us [as sinners], and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
The same thing is taught here. God loves sinners, and loves them enough to want to die for and atone for their sins; but he disapproves of their sinfulness; and wants them to repent so they can be forgiven and be saved. Here is another:
Matthew 5:
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
In other words, God does not discriminate between sinners and saints when it comes to dispensing his daily favors and blessings on them—for a good reason. The reason is that he loves the soul of the sinner as much as the soul of the saint, and he wants to grant them the chance to repent of their sins and be saved. Peter has expressed it in these words:
2 Peter 3:
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Again we come to the same thing: God loves the soul of the sinner as much as the soul of the saint, and wants to give them as much chance and opportunity to repent and be saved as this brief mortal probation makes possible, before that window of opportunity is closed, and we enter judgement. But the choice is still theirs. Nothing is imposed on anyone. There is no “predestination” and no “irresistible grace”. And in case anyone has been wondering if this is just a New Testament doctrine, it is found in the Old Testament too:
Ezekiel 18:
23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
Ezekiel 33:
11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way [repent] and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
So it is the verdict of both Testaments that God loves the soul of the sinner every bit as much as the soul of the saint, and desires their salvation and redemption, and grants them all the chance and opportunity they need to realize that ideal before it is too late. But the choice is always theirs; and no one is compelled nor predestined.
In that commentary Stephen Nichols has also given a quote from R.C. Sproul that needs to be discussed separately. The quote is as follows:
“And to understand, you know, R.C. said this how many times? It is one sin, just the smallest sin is an affront to the holiness of God, and just brings down the thundering wrath of God upon us.”
What that is implying is that all sins in the sight of God are equal. There is no distinction between greater sins and lesser sins, major sins and minor sins. A one-time shoplifting carries the same penalty in the sight of God as a highway robbery, or a violent burglary; and insulting someone in a fit of anger is as heinous a crime in the judgement of God as adultery, rape, or murder, and carries the same punishment. That is not borne out by the scriptures. All sins are not equal. Some sins are more heinous in the sight of God than others, and carry a greater punishment. Some sinners will be beaten with “many stripes,” while others will be beaten with “few stripes” (Luke 12:47–48); and some sins are forgivable in the next life, and some are not (Matt. 12:31–32). Inherent in the idea of being judged “according to our works” (Rev.20:12–13) is that the judgement will be proportional to the “work”. Greater acts of good will carry a greater “reward” in heaven (Matt. 5:12; Luke 6:23); while greater acts of evil will carry a greater punishment. Some punishments are permanent, as in the case of the unpardonable sin; while other punishments come to an end after one has paid the “uttermost farthing” (Matt. 5:26). It is not a “one size fits all,” like it teaches in the Calvinism.
It also ignores the biblical teaching that God is “merciful and gracious, long suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth” (Exod. 34:6); meaning that he is merciful and forgiving, and readily forgives sin and iniquity when repented of. His primary disposition is not to “bring down his thundering wrath” on people; but to forgive them their sins at the first hint of genuine repentance. The god of Calvinism is the God of “thundering wrath;” whereas the God of the Bible is the God of forgiveness, gentleness, mercy, compassion and grace. He is “longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth;” and “takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked,” but wants them to “turn” from their “evil ways” and “live”. He mourns and weeps when they are punished for their sins (Matt. 23:37; Luke 13:34). He takes “no pleasure” in it. The god of Calvinism, on the other hand, delights in the punishment of the wicked, and rubs his hand with glee when they are burned forever in hell.
So the bottom line is that God loves the soul of the sinner as much as the soul of the saint, and desires their salvation and redemption as much as the other’s. But the choice is theirs; and God gives them all the chance and opportunity they need to realize that if they want to. No one is compelled either way. This doesn’t mean that God condones their sins; but that he loves them enough to want them to repent, be forgiven, and be saved; and “joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance” (Luke 15:7). God’s desire is that all might come to repentance and be saved, as Peter says (2 Peter 3:9), not just the “elect”. Stephen Nichols in his commentary has seriously failed to grasp the biblical theology of redemption, and God’s love for all mankind, sinners and saints alike. That is what Calvinism does to people I guess. It numbs the mind, dulls the intellect, and distorts the thinking process so that the most obvious truths, and plainest declarations of scripture become inaccessible and unintelligible.
After posting the above, I came across the following video by R.C. Sproul and others which corrects my first impressions. So kudos to R.C. Sproul et al. for getting that doctrine right:
https://youtu.be/T01LZfKFkAU
In that commentary Stephen Nichols has also given a quote from R.C. Sproul that needs to be discussed separately. The quote is as follows:
“And to understand, you know, R.C. said this how many times? It is one sin, just the smallest sin is an affront to the holiness of God, and just brings down the thundering wrath of God upon us.”
What that is implying is that all sins in the sight of God are equal. There is no distinction between greater sins and lesser sins, major sins and minor sins. A one-time shoplifting carries the same penalty in the sight of God as a highway robbery, or a violent burglary; and insulting someone in a fit of anger is as heinous a crime in the judgement of God as adultery, rape, or murder, and carries the same punishment. That is not borne out by the scriptures. All sins are not equal. Some sins are more heinous in the sight of God than others, and carry a greater punishment. Some sinners will be beaten with “many stripes,” while others will be beaten with “few stripes” (Luke 12:47–48); and some sins are forgivable in the next life, and some are not (Matt. 12:31–32). Inherent in the idea of being judged “according to our works” (Rev.20:12–13) is that the judgement will be proportional to the “work”. Greater acts of good will carry a greater “reward” in heaven (Matt. 5:12; Luke 6:23); while greater acts of evil will carry a greater punishment. Some punishments are permanent, as in the case of the unpardonable sin; while other punishments come to an end after one has paid the “uttermost farthing” (Matt. 5:26). It is not a “one size fits all,” like it teaches in the Calvinism.
It also ignores the biblical teaching that God is “merciful and gracious, long suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth” (Exod. 34:6); meaning that he is merciful and forgiving, and readily forgives sin and iniquity when repented of. His primary disposition is not to “bring down his thundering wrath” on people; but to forgive them their sins at the first hint of genuine repentance. The god of Calvinism is the God of “thundering wrath;” whereas the God of the Bible is the God of forgiveness, gentleness, mercy, compassion and grace. He is “longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth;” and “takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked,” but wants them to “turn” from their “evil ways” and “live”. He mourns and weeps when they are punished for their sins (Matt. 23:37; Luke 13:34). He takes “no pleasure” in it. The god of Calvinism, on the other hand, delights in the punishment of the wicked, and rubs his hand with glee when they are burned forever in hell.
So the bottom line is that God loves the soul of the sinner as much as the soul of the saint, and desires their salvation and redemption as much as the other’s. But the choice is theirs; and God gives them all the chance and opportunity they need to realize that if they want to. No one is compelled either way. This doesn’t mean that God condones their sins; but that he loves them enough to want them to repent, be forgiven, and be saved; and “joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance” (Luke 15:7). God’s desire is that all might come to repentance and be saved, as Peter says (2 Peter 3:9), not just the “elect”. Stephen Nichols in his commentary has seriously failed to grasp the biblical theology of redemption, and God’s love for all mankind, sinners and saints alike. That is what Calvinism does to people I guess. It numbs the mind, dulls the intellect, and distorts the thinking process so that the most obvious truths, and plainest declarations of scripture become inaccessible and unintelligible.
___________________
P. S.After posting the above, I came across the following video by R.C. Sproul and others which corrects my first impressions. So kudos to R.C. Sproul et al. for getting that doctrine right:
https://youtu.be/T01LZfKFkAU
