The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum God's love

Can we speak about God's benevolence as love (agape) even when shown to the reprobate? Obviously, this would have to be distinguished from the saving love that He has for His elect. Personally, I would answer "yes" to the question. Thoughts?

I personally think not. Is there any text that specifically states that God has a universal love for all mankind, i.e., for every man, woman and child without exception? Over the years some have offered the following three texts for supporting their view that God loves all, albeit not necessarily salvifically:

1. This is without doubt the most quoted text to support the universal love view. The word 'love', in the Greek is agapaw, which is claimed to always mean an unreserved, sacrificial love, etc. However, the CONTEXT of this verse actually teaches anything but what it is so often claimed to teach; a universal love of God for all mankind without exception and the free will of man to choose salvation. I have several times here exegeted this text so I won't do it again, but in a nutshell, the passage says, "For God loved the world in this manner, sending the only begotten Son into the world in order to save the elect in all the world so that they would not perish." The definition, understanding of the word "world" is where the focus should be, not on the word 'love'. Here are but a couple of articles available on The Highway which deal with John 3:16 in detail:

- The 'World' of John 3:16 Does Not Mean 'All Men Without Exception'
- An Exposition of John 3:16 (John Owen)

2. If one is honest, it has to be admitted that no where in this passage does it specifically state that God loves all men without exception. What it does say, however, is that God is perfect and we (Christians) are to be likewise perfect. And how is this perfection to be expressed in this case? It is to be benevolent to all men as God is benevolent to all men through His providential care, etc.

3. The problem here is the translation. The word 'love' in the Greek is philanthropia, i.e., benevolence, kindness which, e.g., the ASV translates: (ASV) "But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man, appeared,". Thus, this text is immediately proven to be inconsequential and offers no support for a universal love of God to all mankind without exception.

Actually, all that needs to be shown to refute the universal love of God view is but one text that says otherwise. And, there is more than one text that does just that. And secondly, one can come to understand God's relation to fallen mankind by the record of how He deals with them historically; destruction, wrath, etc. So, here are a few texts that clearly show that God does NOT love all mankind without exception:

Thanks for the reply!

Do you think that part of the problem might be in our English use of the terms love and hate? We tend to use them as mutual exclusives. I don’t think the Scripture uses them that way. For example, we are told to love our enemies (Matt. 5:44) and our brother (1 Jn. 3:14) and also to hate our enemies (Ps. 139:21) and our brother (Lk. 14:26). To my knowledge, no one is going to say that Christians have to either love or hate. Why then should we say that God cannot both love and hate at the same time (see Calvin’s Institutes 2.16.4)?

I think a good working definition for hate (Heb. sane, Gk. miseo) is “to reject.” This seems to harmonize well as we reject anyone that comes between us and God (Lk. 14) and God predetermined to eternally reject Esau (Rm. 9). It does not necessarily mean that God has no kind of love (agape) for the reprobate.

1. No, I do not think the problem is the English use of the terms 'love' and 'hate'. But rather, I think it is the predominance of bad theology, aka: idolatry that presupposes that God loves everyone, albeit differently. The Scriptures certainly do use the terms in the way I have expressed. This type of thinking also effects how many understand the atonement. It is not uncommon to read/hear people assert that "in some way" Christ died for everyone. But that's another topic.

2. Institutes of the Christian Religion 2:XVI:4 when read in CONTEXT is speaking about God's eternal love for the elect, those who God determined to redeem in Christ. With them, Calvin writes 2:XVI:3 God has a hatred and wrath due to the sinfulness that they possess by nature (cf. Eph 2:3; et al). However, since it was God's eternal good pleasure to save a remnant of the fallen human race, it was antecedently, absolutely necessary that the Son take upon human flesh and suffer God's infinite wrath in their room and stead. Nothing in Scripture speaks of God's 'love' for the reprobate. However, as I wrote previously, God does express His goodness and kindness (philanthropy) toward all men indiscriminately.

3. Methinks that is YOUR "working definition" for the word 'hate', but unfortunately it is without warrant. Consulting A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Arndt, Bauer & Gingrich; 524:D), there is no mention whatsoever of 'rejection' in regard to the use of the word misew. The usage of that word is restricted to "hate, persecute in hatred, detest, and abhor". This is why I provided the references in my previous post and especially, Malachi 1:1-3, from which Paul quotes in Romans 9:11-13, that vividly describes God's hatred for Esau and his descendents. In that passage, the issue was Israel's contention that God did not love them due to the suffering they were experienced at God's hand. And thus, God through the prophet explains that they being Jacob's descendants received manifold favor and blessings vs. the wrath and hatred of God for those from Esau.

4. Hyper-Calvinists insist that not only does God have an eternal hatred of the reprobate (true), but that EVERYTHING that God does for them in this life stems from that hatred (false). In short, they reject any form of kindness or benevolence toward them whatsoever. That is NOT my view.

5. Lastly, the Scriptures teach that true believers are to emulate God's holiness and show kindness to unbelievers. But we are likewise to 'hate' all enemies of God.

I have found that few are even privy to this passage of Scripture and usually get upset when it is brought to their attention due to their presuppostion that only 'love' is to be felt and expressed toward all men because 'God is love' and loves everyone.

However, Matt. 5 calls that "kindness or benevolence" to our enemies love (vs. 44). How are we loving our enemies when we show kindness to them but not when God shows kindness to them? Could we be splitting hairs at the point we try to distinguish? Again, thank you for your time in discussing.

It is true that Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote that we (believers) are to love our enemies by showing kindness to them. However, there is no warrant to extrapolate that truth and then reverse it and thus state that God loves all men.

1. I would much appreciate it if you would respond to my rebuttals by point rather than simply making assertions. I have provided texts which clearly state that God hates people and not just things, actions, sin, etc. (cf. John Gerstner's excellent article Does God Love the Sinner and Hate Only His Sin?).

2. Can you provide one apostolic sermon where unbelievers are being addressed and they are told that God loves them?

3. The overwhelming predominance of biblical teaching where God's love is mentioned is addressed to believers to explain why it is they were saved. Can you give any biblical example where it states that God loves everyone indiscriminately?

4. I have to wonder at this juncture why it is that you find it so important to be able to state that there is a universal, indiscriminate love of God toward all of mankind without exception? Could it be that you think that being able to say to unbelievers that God loves them that somehow this will pluck the strings of their heart and move them to "ask Jesus into their hearts", etc.? Is your focus here to establish this view as being an aid to evangelism? If not, what exactly are you trying to accomplish?

I had the privilege of listening to a lecture on the holiness of God where this topic was mentioned. And the speaker asked if anyone could possibly imagine that Noah as the flood waters were engulfing the residents of that place and they were drowning unfurled a banner over the transom of the ark which read, "Smile, God loves you"?

To me it isn't a matter of "splitting hairs" but getting an essential truth about God, sin, sinners and redemption right.

Thanks to you too for your time in participating in this important topic of discussion.

Thanks again for your reply. I intend to respond more in depth, but I don't have time at the moment. For the sake of clarity, would you also say that the incarnate Christ did not love the reprobate in any way? I am asking sincerely.

The LORD Christ came to redeem those whom the Father gave Him. He didn't pray for the world but for those whom the Father gave Him. He gave Himself as a ransom to redeem those for whom the Father gave Him. He was the propitiation for those whom the Father predestined to be saved through Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Christ loved His own until the end. Christ came to find the lost sheep and bring them home. And I could go on and on and on, but I think you get the point. The LOVE of Christ was and is the LOVE of God which is redemptive in nature and God's love always accomplishes that which He has purposed.

What do you make of these passages:

The LORD Christ was compassionate, kind, and generous toward all men, but He had no love for the reprobate, for being the incarnate second person of the Trinity, the Son, He was one with the Father who did not extend His grace, mercy nor love to those whom He determined not to save. There cannot be nor is there any dissimulation within the Godhead.

Again, there is no love whatsoever extended to the reprobate... but God does grant them goodness, benevolence and kindness which they all without exception reject, ridicule and even hate and which will be brought as evidence against them on that last day when the books shall be opened and all their deeds shall be made known.

Before attempting to answer, please allow me to give you some background on the question. Only a year ago, I was a hyper-Calvinist. I know that the use of the term is somewhat subjective, so to be clear:

I denied the offer of the gospel
I denied common grace
I described God’s benevolence as “fattening the reprobate up for the slaughter
I denied any kind of love of God for the reprobate
I believed that evangelism meant trying to persuade people of election and reprobation.
I spoke of God commanding everyone universally to repent but never promised remission of sins

I think by the definition of most, I was a hyper-Calvinist, but like most hyper-Calvinists, I would never have called myself that. Honestly, it was my current pastor that helped me see it as well as a multitude of reading I did from Calvin and some others. I have also in the past year spent very much time studying the Three Forms of Unity and am in 100% agreement with these confessions as accurate interpretations of Scripture.

In researching hyper-Calvinism on the-highway, I came across postings that distinguished between God’s love and His benevolence, and I simply wanted to have a discussion to see how such a distinction is understood. Of course I have an opinion on the matter, but since I am fallible and subject to error, I am willing to be wrong if I see sufficient biblical proof that there is a distinction.

At this point, I’m going to try to briefly answer the questions that were posited.

I do not believe that God hates the sin of the reprobate but loves the sinner as if He has no hate for the person of the reprobate. The Scripture says He hates the person. This may be on account of the sin in which the decree of reprobation leaves the sinner, but it would be foolish to try to impose on Scripture such a division.
You have quoted many verses that speak about love for the elect and hate for the reprobate. I agree with all of these verses: God does love the elect and God does hate the reprobate. The particular love that He has for the elect results in salvation. But I think you create a false dichotomy. Please correct me if I’ve misunderstood you, but you conceded “we are likewise to 'hate' all enemies of God” and “we (believers) are to love our enemies by showing kindness to them.” Haven’t you agreed that it is in fact not a contradiction that believers simultaneously exercise both love and hate? How is it by necessity a dichotomy when it comes to God?
Furthermore, do we not love different people differently? I love my wife differently than I love my children and differently than I love my neighbor. To define love only in the context of marriage, for example, would not then do any justice to the love that I have for my children or my neighbor. However, if my neighbor sought with me the same expression of love that I have to my wife, I would reject her. In the words of Charles Hodge:
“By the love of God is sometimes meant his goodness, of which all sensitive creatures are the objects and of whose benefits they are recipients. Sometimes it means his special regard for the children of men, not only as rational creatures, but also as the offspring of Him who is the Father of the spirits of all men. Sometimes it means that peculiar, mysterious, sovereign, immeasurable love which passes knowledge, of which his own people… are the objects.” (Systematic Theology, Part 3 Ch. 8, sec 2 point 4)
Concerning providing one Apostolic sermon that proves that sinners are to be addressed with God’s love: I never stated that the unsaved were to be addressed that way and through the course of this discussion I have distinguished God’s love of benevolence from His love for the elect. I never stated that the object at stake here being able to tell the unconverted that “God loves you.” I’m not trying to “pluck any heart strings.”

I would like to provide Scripture proofs that I believe support my proposition.

My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. (1 Jn. 3:18)

If we are to demonstrate our love through actions, Christ being our chief example, only searching for the word “love” is inadequate since love is more clearly witnessed through its outworking.

Love suffers long and is kind… (1 Cor. 13:4)

If suffering long (longsuffering) is an outworking of love, even God’s longsuffering to the reprobate in Rom. 9:22 cannot be divorced from His love. We know that God “is kind to the unthankful and evil” (Lk. 6:35). We both agree that God is benevolent and kind to the reprobate. Hasn’t God Himself defined kindness as an outworking of love? Isn’t the thrust of Matt 5:43-48 “love all of your enemies the same way God loves all of His?” Isn’t it splitting hairs to say that when we show kindness it is love, but not when God shows kindness? Also, in the Hebrew thinking, isn’t a “son” one who represents His master?

If loving our enemies is commanded of us and in part fulfills the second table of the law, how did Christ obey and fulfill that law and satisfy God’s perfect requirements if He did not perfectly love all of His enemies? Didn’t Christ leave us a perfect example of how we are to love? Are we under obligation to believe that the rich young ruler whom Jesus loved had to be elect (Mk. 10:21) or to believe that those whom Christ asked His Father to forgive were only the elect out of the ignorant ones (Lk. 23:34)? How can we separate Christ’s compassion, kindness and benevolence from His love?

Lastly, I would like to consider Jn. 3:16 in context. I do understand that in reformed theology there is not a consensus on this passage particularly, but in my understanding it is one of the most beautiful proof-texts about God's universal love.

1. I believe the immediate context is Christ being lifted up before everyone as the serpent was lifted up by Moses (v. 14). With this allusion, we don't have the luxury to say that the serpent was only lifted up for those it healed, but it was lifted up to everyone with the promise of healing for whoever looked. However, we can certainly say that the only ones that were healed were the ones that looked. Therefore, the context seems to be Christ indiscriminately offered in the gospel.

2. If the word "world" in this context only meant the elect, the inclusion of unbelievers in the context who are condemned for their unbelief is irrelevant.

3. Further, Christ specifically is said not to condemn, since the condemnation stems from unbelief, not Christ offered (v. 18).

4. The phrase "but that the world through Him might be saved" is not speaking about the certain salvation of the elect but the promise of salvation offered in the gospel. It is indeed a universal promise which in the final analysis will only save the elect and condemn the reprobate because they did not believe.

5. The verses are neither proof-texts for election or proof-texts that everyone has the ability to believe. The ability is spoken of earlier in the chapter (being born from above) which of necessity has its genesis in God, not man. Also see Jn. 6:44 as a proof of who believes and why they believe.

I believe Calvin interpreted this passage correctly.

I hope all of this helps...

Thanks for sharing that personal information and I think that it does help shed some light on why you have taken the position you have taken. FYI, I had the unfortunate experience of doing part of my theological studies at the PRC seminary. To say that some of the things I heard taught there was painful would be an understatement.

Let me respond further by simply saying this... Even if, for the sake of argument, we say that God has some expression of love (which I much prefer to regard as philanthropia, benevolence, kindness, longsuffering, i.e., not meeting out immediate judgment upon sinners, in what context do you think it would be proper to state, "God loves all men"? Given the overwhelming abysmal condition of the visible church, especially in the West, to make such a statement would only confuse at best and even encourage unbelievers in their sin. I put out the challenge for you to find one instance in the apostolic preaching where it was said that "God loves you" to demonstrate that the Gospel preached by the Apostles and disciples never included that statement. But rather the focus was upon the fact that God is HOLY and that all men are under judgment and liable to everlasting punishment lest God in His infinite mercy grant them repentance unto faith in Christ.

IF, as you have suggested, that I am 'splitting hairs', then I am more than comfortable with that and will continue to describe God's interaction with the world at large as benevolent. As one example, Paul wrote:


Next to last, I would like to make a brief comment on the doctrine of "Common Grace". I reject the term for no other reason than the grace of God is hardly 'common', but always and efficacious salvific. Yet, as I have also commented previously, I totally reject the hyper-Calvinist view that holds that God only provides for the reprobate in order to damn them, further if possible, which I find obnoxious and biblically unwarranted. Louis Berkhof asked Herman Hoeksema if he would thank his unbelieving neighbor after he pulled his car out of a ditch. And Hoeksema responded with a resounding, "NO!" for the reprobate can do NOTHING good and thus is not worthy of any thanks. I am going to assume that you would disagree with that response if for no other reason than one would have to presume that the neighbor was one of the reprobate... which knowledge belongs to God and only God.

And finally, what seems to be quite consistent is that those who have left one particular theological 'system' for one that is antithetical to it, is that one tends to 'swing' too far the other way and thus unfortunately goes too far the other way. Semi-Pelagians converting to the Reformed Faith too often embrace hyper-Calvinism to some degree. Baptists who become Paedobaptists more often than not embrace presumptive regeneration or even baptismal regeneration. While Paedobaptists who go over to Credobaptism tend to fall into Sandemanianism and assure 5 year old children whose Sunday School teacher led them in the "Sinner's Prayer" and they profess that they "Asked Jesus into their hearts" that they infallibly saved.

QUESTION: Is it possible that you are over-reacting against the false teachings of hyper-Calvinism in wanting to defend that God loves all men, albeit in different ways? IF the matter of difference between us is simply semantics, then does it really matter if I believe it to be wiser to speak of the benevolence, kindness, goodness of God vs. the love of God for all men?

Thank you for sharing some of your experience with the PRC.

The circumstance to speak about God's love first and foremost is with Christians as we are to love and stir one another up to good works. We do this knowing that Christ obeyed perfectly the same command that He expects us to keep. Viewing God in Christ loving His enemies has helped me tremendously when it comes to how I relate to others, both believers and unbelievers. I think it's easier to emulate Christ in loving my enemies believing that He did too.

Concerning common grace: Although I personally have no problem with the wording, especially when considering passages like Is. 26:10, I am by no means married to the term. It's the doctrine that I stand by. Yes, the words have been abused by some, but I'm not ready to throw them out unless it is too big a distraction.

One other thing that makes me uncomfortable with saying that God has no kind of love for the reprobate is it tends to force an interpretation on some verses, particularly Jn. 3:14-18. I strongly believe that if such doctrine didn't restrain, many more reformed people would interpret this passage more naturally in its context as both Calvin and Luther did.

Is it possible I've over-reacted because of my background? I'm sure it's possible, although I believe I've given sufficient evidence of my position and it has ample support among reformed writers.

Concerning semantics, I think we are mostly in agreement with differences in terms. I think the biggest difference is how it affects our interpretation of certain scriptures. I also find it difficult to understand how you can logically say that Christ was our perfect example when His requirements for fulfilling the second table of the law were different than ours. I don't think, however, that your thinking on the matter will have any substantial negative effect on your overall theology.

1. Your entire position seems to rest on reason, i.e., looking at the life of Christ and then concluding that He 'loved' all men. Contrariwise, my position rests upon the entire biblical record, especially how God interacted with mankind throughout the beginning of history. When I view the life of Christ I must maintain the oneness of the Godhead and not bifurcate the Father from the incarnate Son in any way whatsoever. For example, we can clearly see that God has loved only certain people from the beginning, e.g.,

You must admit that there is a perspicuous distinction between the people of Israel and all the other peoples of the earth which is stated as God having 'loved' them. And remember, that not all Israel was of Israel; the nation being a shadow of the visible church. In fact, the overwhelming population of Israel throughout history died in unbelief. On many occasions we read where the Jews were called to repentance and faith in God else they would perish. The Gospel was preached among them in order to redeem the elect. But rarely did God send the gospel to any other nation on earth. Only in the New Testament do we see the universal proclamation of the Gospel and God's holiness and wrath were foremost in that message. I had the privilege of serving as a head judge for the theology debates held by an association of homeschoolers. One of the contestant's held the premise that there is a hell because God is love. Needless to say, her presentation was unintelligible; it made no sense because it was 'non-sense'.

Let me stress once again, that I hold that God is kind, benevolent, and longsuffering toward all men. But I find little evidence to conclude that God has a 'universal love' for all mankind, no less than there is a 'common grace' given to all mankind. There is nothing 'common' about God's grace. It is always salvific in nature and efficacious in its application. I insist that speaking of universal love and common grace diminishes the actual, real love of God which He has for those whom He has eternally foreloved to be redeemed in Christ. God's love and grace are incomprehensible, or should be to those who have been given a heart of flesh, a mind to understand and eyes that can see the truth of God and all that exists.

2. I am wondering where you ever got the idea that I believe, "...how you can logically say that Christ was our perfect example when His requirements for fulfilling the second table of the law were different than ours." I certainly don't hold to any such silliness as that. IF you are referring to the SUMMARY of the law, e.g., as found in Matt. 22:37-39, then again we differ in the use of the word 'love'; "love thy neighbor as thyself". a) The first command is that WE love God completely. b)The second command is OUR duty to show kindness to all men and care for those in need, etc. Yes, Christ fulfilled all the law perfectly by loving God, His Father, with all His heart, soul, mind and strength, and He loved all men as Himself, i.e., He was benevolent to all men, but He LOVED His own and gave Himself for them and them alone. From this I simply cannot formulate a doctrine that God has a universal 'love' for all mankind when the wording is so rarely found vs. God loving a remnant of fallen mankind from all eternity, sending His Son to redeem them through His atoning sacrifice, adopting them as sons and filling them with His Spirit. There are far more passages which openly state that God hates sinners and even more that demonstrate this fact than there are passages which speak of some kind of 'love' for all mankind.

3. In regard to John 3:16, I will stand upon my exegesis of the original text and dispute the English translations or at least the understanding of the wording of the English translations which has become so popular. John Owen, Arthur Pink and John Gerstner, as but 3 examples, held the same interpretation and understanding as my own.

4. Yes, Christians can speak without end about the love of God, but that is AWAYS and FOREVER the redeeming love of God in Christ which plucked them out of the pit they once lived and set them in the heavenlies with Christ as adopted sons to share in the glory of God.

I really do appreciate your concern, Pilgrim, that my position rests too much on reason. I do feel like I've posited sufficient scriptural evidence, both concrete and inference as consistent with WCF 1.6. However, I confess that human reason can and does often fail when it comes to interpreting scripture and understanding God to the extent He has revealed Himself. Another hard lesson that this recovering hyper-Calvinist has learned. In the end, we live by faith, not reason.

The only difference I was referring to between Christ's obedience and ours is that, according to my understanding of what you've stated, you believe we are to love our enemies and show them benevolence while Christ hates His reprobate enemies and shows them benevolence. Please correct me if I've misinterpreted you in any way.

I also want to be clear that I'm not in any way trying to divide the Godhead. I primarily have focused on the Person of Christ because he was our example that fulfilled the law in our stead.

I also wholeheartedly agree with you that the love God has for His elect is particular, unique and infinite. At the end of the day, all we can do is stand back, marvel and praise God for His grace to us and seek to live a life of thankful obedience to our God and Father.

Thank you for a good discussion.

You have not misunderstood me. That is my position. I have already quoted the following passage of Scripture, but it is certainly relevant in supporting my view. David, as a type of Christ wrote:

How does this text fit with your view that Christ loved His enemies and we are to love our enemies but neither Christ nor believers our to hate our enemies? My view is that both Christ did and we are to show benevolence to God's enemies but without contradiction, we are to hate them with a perfect hatred as God surely hates them (note: hatred does not mean 'reject' as was shown from BAG Greek Lexicon and numerous Scripture references).

I have no doubt you are not trying to divide the Godhead. But lest we forget, all that Christ spoke was what the Father gave Him to speak. All that Christ did was 100% consistent with how God has declared concerning Himself didactically and by example in the WHOLE Bible. (Jh 10:30) Thus, since it is an indisputable fact that God hates sinners, His wrath is relentless upon them, in fact He cannot even look upon them without being filled with anger because He is infinitely holy (Ps 7:11, 90:11; Isa 13:9; Hab 1:13, Rom 1:18; et al).

QUESTION: If the LORD Christ loved all men, why did He not pray for them? (Jh 17:9) And likewise, why did David constantly pray that God would destroy all his enemies with His fierce anger?

Again, I am NOT disputing the fact that benevolence and kindness is shown the the world of sinners by God and we are to do likewise.

I think we’re talking past each other. You said:

“How does this text fit with your view that Christ loved His enemies and we are to love our enemies but neither Christ nor believers our to hate our enemies?”

My position from the beginning of this discussion is that I don’t believe that “love” and “hate” are mutually exclusive terms in the Scripture. God can both love and hate the same object. I believe that this is also true for believers, as there is a sense that the believer despises all workers of iniquity. The benevolence that believers are to show to unbelievers is called love in Scripture, and so it seems logically that you would also have to admit that both “love” and “hate” are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Concerning the BAG lexicon’s definition: I have no problem with the definitions that you provided. God rejects reprobate sinners because He despises and is repulsed by them. I think we’re making a distinction without a real difference.

You said:

“[S]ince it is an indisputable fact that God hates sinners, His wrath is relentless upon them, in fact He cannot even look upon them without being filled with anger because He is infinitely holy…”

I agree with this statement. I think you only believe that it’s inconsistent with what I’m saying because you cannot reconcile simultaneous love and hate.

Question in regards to God’s “hatred for the workers of iniquity”: Does God hate all unjustified sinners, both elect (prior to faith) and reprobate? If Yes, how do you reconcile His eternal love for the elect? If no, how do you reconcile that we were “children of wrath, just as the others”? I would pose that they cannot be reconciled unless God can simultaneously practice both love and hatred.

Again, let me reiterate, I believe the Scriptures and experience demonstrate that we express love differently to different people. The love I have for my wife is particular and despises all others. The love God has for His elect is particular and despises all others. Therefore, it seems silly to create a dichotomy between different kinds of love when our modus operandi is to express love differently to different people.

You also make the argument for your understanding of God’s hatred because He is infinitely holy. I agree. However, He is also infinitely loving, infinitely just, infinitely merciful. How do we understand an infinite being with multiple absolutes? I am hesitant to make an argument like yours since it seems to take one of His attributes without fully taking into account the incomprehensibility of God.

At the bottom of this, I believe our understandings of God’s love in relation to the topic at hand are irreconcilable because we are starting from a different premise. In summary, if I’ve understood you correctly, you are arguing that love and hate are a dichotomy, I am arguing that they can be simultaneous. I do believe, however, that what is irreconcilable has to do more with vocabulary than concept. I think we mostly agree conceptually.