Does God love the devil/Satan?

[RickD]

Neo wrote:
Love necessitates such action. I don't see what else is there to support the notion. The only way we know we have it is because we are told God loves us. That pretty much blots out any other reason. If he loves them then why not save them. Unless there is no love/hate relationship between God and angels.

This almost sounds like you're saying that because God loves us, He's obligated to offer us redemption.

I know how it sounds. But God is not obligated, but it follows under his will that he loves and saves. At least that is what the gospel says. Infact we have redemption because God loves and loved us first.

Neo,

I edited my post, to show what I meant. It sounds like you're saying that if God offers us redemption because He loves US, He must offer redemption to fallen angels, if He loves them. Is that what you're saying?

[neo-x]

Maybe God doesn`t offer them redemption because they have already rejected Him?

How can you reject something which has not been offered to you?

Neo,

As far as I can see from scripture, angels were created as eternal(in the sense of immortality) spiritual beings, in the presence of God. They were already eternally in the presence of God. They didn't need redemption.

But we can only speculate to why the Angels that fell, weren't offered some kind of redemption.


Maybe this will help. Once we die, and are in the presence of God, if it were possible for us to reject Him, would God then be obligated to offer us redemption? And further, if He wouldn't offer us redemption, would that prove that He didn't love us?

Of course this is hypothetical, because I'm not suggesting that we can reject Him once we are in His presence.

Its a nice example rick. I would only say, when adam was made he didn't need redemption either. But he later did when he sinned. The same could be with Angels. Being eternal, which by the way I don't think angels are, for only God is eternal, doesn't mean you don't need redemption ever.

[neo-x]

Neo wrote:
Love necessitates such action. I don't see what else is there to support the notion. The only way we know we have it is because we are told God loves us. That pretty much blots out any other reason. If he loves them then why not save them. Unless there is no love/hate relationship between God and angels.

This almost sounds like you're saying that because God loves us, He's obligated to offer us redemption.

I know how it sounds. But God is not obligated, but it follows under his will that he loves and saves. At least that is what the gospel says. Infact we have redemption because God loves and loved us first.

Neo,

I edited my post, to show what I meant. It sounds like you're saying that if God offers us redemption because He loves US, He must offer redemption to fallen angels, if He loves them. Is that what you're saying?

Yes. Unless agape has a different definition.

[RickD]

Maybe God doesn`t offer them redemption because they have already rejected Him?

How can you reject something which has not been offered to you?

Neo,

As far as I can see from scripture, angels were created as eternal(in the sense of immortality) spiritual beings, in the presence of God. They were already eternally in the presence of God. They didn't need redemption.

But we can only speculate to why the Angels that fell, weren't offered some kind of redemption.


Maybe this will help. Once we die, and are in the presence of God, if it were possible for us to reject Him, would God then be obligated to offer us redemption? And further, if He wouldn't offer us redemption, would that prove that He didn't love us?

Of course this is hypothetical, because I'm not suggesting that we can reject Him once we are in His presence.

Its a nice example rick. I would only say, when adam was made he didn't need redemption either. But he later did when he sinned. The same could be with Angels. Being eternal, which by the way I don't think angels are, for only God is eternal, doesn't mean you don't need redemption ever.

Wait...you actually believe Adam was a real, historical person? Now I'm really confused!

But seriously, again, this is speculation on my part, but Adam wasn't created as an immortal being. God sustained Adam as long as he ate of the tree of life.

And when I say angels are eternal, I don't mean in the same sense as God is eternal. God is without beginning or end. Angels, that are created, spiritual beings, have a beginning. Maybe there's a better word to use besides eternal, but it slips my mind, if there is.

[RickD]

Neo wrote:
Love necessitates such action. I don't see what else is there to support the notion. The only way we know we have it is because we are told God loves us. That pretty much blots out any other reason. If he loves them then why not save them. Unless there is no love/hate relationship between God and angels.

This almost sounds like you're saying that because God loves us, He's obligated to offer us redemption.

I know how it sounds. But God is not obligated, but it follows under his will that he loves and saves. At least that is what the gospel says. Infact we have redemption because God loves and loved us first.

Neo,

I edited my post, to show what I meant. It sounds like you're saying that if God offers us redemption because He loves US, He must offer redemption to fallen angels, if He loves them. Is that what you're saying?

Yes. Unless agape has a different definition.

Just think about what you're saying. We are saved by God's grace. And there's no "obligation" on God's part, with grace.

Besides,
If God is obligated, it gets back to my point from before. Saying God is obligated, means you are denying God's aseity, and immutability.

God cannot be obligated. It goes against His nature.

Dammit! Where's Jac when you need him! He can explain this stuff a lot better than I can! Jac, I'm rubbing the magic lamp. You're supposed to appear now!

[Philip]

This is a typical commentary on the issue of God potentially hating people: http://www.compellingtruth.org/does-God-hate.html

It doesn't settle the matter.

Other commentary's:

Barne's: "I will love them no more - So He saith, in the beginning; “I will have no more mercy upon the house of Israel, but I will utterly take them away” Hosea 1:6.: “This was a national judgment, and so involved the whole of them, as to their outward condition, which they enjoyed as members of that nation, and making up one beady politic. It did not respect the spiritual condition of single persons, and their relation, in this respect, to God.” As individuals, they were, “not cut off from God‘s favor and tokens of His love, nor from the power of becoming members of Christ, whenever any of them should come to Him. It only struck them forever out of that “house of the Lord” from which they were then driven,” or from hopes that that kingdom should be restored, which God said, He would cause to cease."

Coffman's: ""There I hated them ..." Smith and many others pointed out that "hate" is not to be understood in absolute terms, because God hates no man;[29] nevertheless, a rejection of the most violent and terminal dimensions is indicated"

Gills: "I will love them no more; which is not to be understood of the special love and favor the Lord bears to his own people in Christ, which is everlasting and unchangeable; but of his general and providential favor and regard unto these people, which he had manifested in bestowing many great and good things upon them; but now would do so no more; he would do nothing to them, or for them, that looked like love, or be interpreted of it, but all the reverse; and, by his behavior to them, show that they were the objects of his aversion and hatred; and this was to continue, and has continued, and will continue unto the time of their conversion in the latter day, when "all Israel shall be saved", Romans 11:26; "

The Hosea passage IS difficult:

"All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! 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."

Note that it indicates that God indeed DID love them, but "because of their wickedness and deeds," He "will love them NO more." Now, as the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit - because that is an "eternal sin." So, how might that play out here?

Even Gleason Archer didn't address this Hosea passage.

[RickD]

I like what the article you linked, says about what hate means, when translated from Hebrew.

Basically, that hate means to stand against. If that's a good translation of the Hebrew word, it makes a lot of sense. Go to the Hosea passages, and replace "hate", with "stand against".

Whatever "hate" means in the context of attributing hate to God, it can't be an emotional kind of feeling, like we associate hate with as humans.

[Mallz]

I don't see it as YHWH changing at all. I see His creatures changing into something He has always hated.

"All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! 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."
Note that it indicates that God indeed DID love them, but "because of their wickedness and deeds," He "will love them NO more." Now, as the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit - because that is an "eternal sin." So, how might that play out here?

He 'came to hate them' as they became wicked. He didn't change, they did. He has always hated who they became which is distortions/degradation of Him. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth. You can't deny truth if it's in your face. If it is then you will not be forgiven because you will not be allowed to distort truth, game it to your will. satan and his fallen knew truth face to face. They had all the blessings of being with Elohim in His eternal presence in His will. They weren't satisfied. Even when explained by the Spirit of Truth why they should not separate themselves from Him they chose to out of selfish desires (and they had access to knowledge and wisdom we can't fathom). They are not Elohim. They can not change reality/truth but that is what they aim to do. Be their own gods. Distort in their own will which is why satan is called the father of lies. Talk about unimaginable narcissistic self absorbed beings. There is no redemption for them because there's no such thing as redemption to them. It was a knowing eternal choice they made and were aware of it.

My 2 cents

[PaulSacramento]

God can't hate because Hate is an absence of love and if God lacks something, he is not God.
Any passage that attributes the quality of "hate" to God must be viewed as being a "personification" of God's emotions for the readers sake or that the term applies to actions that the individual does that are "disliked" by God.

[neo-x]

@Rick

All I am saying is that God's love produces redemption for those whom he loves. We know that because of the gospel. God loved us so he saved us, out of his pure free will. Both his love and his atonement are from his own will.

To me it sounds very senseless, if God loves Satan but that love doesn't produce a chance of redemption for him. I am not sure what that love quantifies as.

My whole point is that God doesn't have to love everyone. Nor he is bound to.

[RickD]

@Rick

All I am saying is that God's love produces redemption for those whom he loves. We know that because of the gospel. God loved us so he saved us, out of his pure free will. Both his love and his atonement are from his own will.

To me it sounds very senseless, if God loves Satan but that love doesn't produce a chance of redemption for him. I am not sure what that love quantifies as.

My whole point is that God doesn't have to love everyone. Nor he is bound to.

We know that God's love produces redemption for humanity. And we know that from the gospel.

Just think about this...if somewhere in the vast universe, God created other sentient beings, are they only loved by their creator, because of Christ? Or, is there another way that God would reach them, specific to their situation?

To me it sounds very senseless, if God loves Satan but that love doesn't produce a chance of redemption for him. I am not sure what that love quantifies as.

That's good. At least you're admitting that you're not sure. I think that's what we all should say. Just because we don't understand that God could love a fallen angel, without providing redemption for that fallen angel, that doesn't mean He doesn't love all of His sentient creations, on a deeper level than an oyster.

[neo-x]

@Rick

All I am saying is that God's love produces redemption for those whom he loves. We know that because of the gospel. God loved us so he saved us, out of his pure free will. Both his love and his atonement are from his own will.

To me it sounds very senseless, if God loves Satan but that love doesn't produce a chance of redemption for him. I am not sure what that love quantifies as.

My whole point is that God doesn't have to love everyone. Nor he is bound to.

We know that God's love produces redemption for humanity. And we know that from the gospel.

Just think about this...if somewhere in the vast universe, God created other sentient beings, are they only loved by their creator, because of Christ? Or, is there another way that God would reach them, specific to their situation?

To me it sounds very senseless, if God loves Satan but that love doesn't produce a chance of redemption for him. I am not sure what that love quantifies as.

That's good. At least you're admitting that you're not sure. I think that's what we all should say. Just because we don't understand that God could love a fallen angel, without providing redemption for that fallen angel, that doesn't mean He doesn't love all of His sentient creations, on a deeper level than an oyster.

As I said, I am not sure what such love entails. Its entirely unbiblical to say God loves a fallen angel, imo.

[neo-x]

Maybe God doesn`t offer them redemption because they have already rejected Him?

How can you reject something which has not been offered to you?

Neo,

As far as I can see from scripture, angels were created as eternal(in the sense of immortality) spiritual beings, in the presence of God. They were already eternally in the presence of God. They didn't need redemption.

But we can only speculate to why the Angels that fell, weren't offered some kind of redemption.


Maybe this will help. Once we die, and are in the presence of God, if it were possible for us to reject Him, would God then be obligated to offer us redemption? And further, if He wouldn't offer us redemption, would that prove that He didn't love us?

Of course this is hypothetical, because I'm not suggesting that we can reject Him once we are in His presence.

Its a nice example rick. I would only say, when adam was made he didn't need redemption either. But he later did when he sinned. The same could be with Angels. Being eternal, which by the way I don't think angels are, for only God is eternal, doesn't mean you don't need redemption ever.

Wait...you actually believe Adam was a real, historical person? Now I'm really confused!

Perhaps you have misread me before. I have never objected to the historicity of Adam n Eve particularly. I have only objected to where it says that they were the first man and woman. Besides that I have maintained that Adam and Eve could be real people who started the Hebrew line and had an encounter with God.

[Philip]

I have only objected to where it says that they were the first man and woman. Besides that I have maintained that Adam and Eve could be real people who started the Hebrew line and had an encounter with God.

OK, so do you believe that this idea that Adam and Eve were the first humans - do you believe it was made up/pure fiction? "COULD be real people" - again, if you are not certain that the text is true, how did that get in there; how could it NOT be true? And why did Jesus confirm ALL of the OT text by framing ALL of the words of ALL of The Prophets and The Law? How could these stated facts about Adam & Eve be contained in what Jesus confirmed, and yet also/somehow be false? And when Jesus refers to the Law and the Prophets, we know precisely what was in what He was referring to. Unless, of course, one questions whether or not Jesus ever made such a statement. If NOT, it's ALL in doubt!

[neo-x]

OK, so do you believe that this idea that Adam and Eve were the first humans - do you believe it was made up/pure fiction? "COULD be real people" - again, if you are not certain that the text is true, how did that get in there; how could it NOT be true? And why did Jesus confirm ALL of the OT text by framing ALL of the words of ALL of The Prophets and The Law? How could these stated facts about Adam & Eve be contained in what Jesus confirmed, and yet also/somehow be false? And when Jesus refers to the Law and the Prophets, we know precisely what was in what He was referring to.

Don't know that phillip, but the DNA evidence I do know, and it flies in the face of it. I don't know how you can reconcile evidence against a story. For me its akin to - if I give you dna evidence that your biological parents are not the people who you thought they were, and you still cling to the idea that since you have been taught since birth the opposite therefore you pit the testimony of your non-biological parents against the evidence. I am not sure how you can reconcile that at all. I don't think you can either, you can deny it but that's just it really. It doesn't matter how good your parents are or how strong their character is, or how many other times they have been right, they are wrong about this one.

I admire your zeal Phillip - you always emphasize on the inerrancy of scriptures. But that doesn't work for me. You can quote Jesus or law or prophets but what do I do with DNA markers that show more than a couple's dna in the human dna record? I can't sweep it under the rug and pretend there is nothing odd there. What do I do with that, you tell me?

I am not sure what you think or assume when you look at my posts but I am not here trying to trivialize scripture for the sake of it. I have a genuine reason for doing so. You show me its nothing to worry about and I'll take it all back. This is not an argument for arguments sake.

do you believe it was made up/pure fiction

I have in the past replied to this particular question, numerous times. And if you do reference our previous chats you will see that I mentioned that I believe the oral stories took part lore, part truth, oral stories have a habit of doing that, and I also emphasize that the writers did not make up the story, they took it as it was. They believed it to be real.

So i don't think anyone actively made a fictional story, its just that by evidence now we know some parts are obviously false and therefore must have been part of the common lore.