God hates me.

Mark Driscoll:

Some of you, God hates you. Some of you, God is sick of you. God is frustrated with you. God is wearied by you. God has suffered long enough with you. He doesn’t think you’re cute. He doesn’t think it’s funny. He doesn’t think your excuse is “meritous”. He doesn’t care if you compare yourself to someone worse than you, He hates them too. God hates, right now, personally, objectively hates some of you.

The inspired word of God:

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:8 NAU)

HT – here as well.

He gets a lot wrong, a lot. No offense, Pastor Mark, but the love of God is much more demonstrated through Christ. Mark may also want to read Ephesians 2. Or the New Testament.

Maybe even Rob Bell.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Post By Joel Watts (10,058 Posts)

Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, analyzing Paul’s model of atonement in Galatians. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

Website: → Unsettled Christianity

Connect

21 thoughts on God hates me.

  1. The quote chosen to critique must presume that no one is going to watch the whole posted video. If you watch the beginning I think you might have noticed that Driscoll explains that God is more then one thing. Which would seem to anser your critique. This video is mainly about one atribute of the atributes of God. It is more then just a little unfair to claim this is all Driscoll believes about who God is. Which, funny enough, is a distinction Driscoll makes in the video.

    • The problem is, Brent, I do not believe that Driscoll understands what God’s wrath is very well. No one argues that “god’s wrath is lollipops”; he’s just overexaggerating, and he probably has not really encountered alternative understandings of it besides his own Calvinist view point.

      In any case, God’s wrath comes forth from God’s love, and secondly, there is no such thing as “objectively” hating anything. That’s just not a possibility, since hate means directing your passion towards disliking people or things.

      • This is the second time I have seen somebody say something is “not possible” when it comes to God.

        Sorry. Doesn’t compute.

        • Jay, I guess the first time was when you read 2 Timothy 2:13? There are things God cannot do, not because he lacks omnipotence but because he cannot deny his own fundamental character. Also of course there are things he cannot do because they are logically contradictory.

        • You know what doesn’t compute?

          The idea that hatred can be at all attributed as objective. No one can “objectively” hate something or someone else. Hate is about subjective bias that is not in a thing or persons’ favor.

          Therefore, it is impossible for “objective” hatred to be attributed to God.

        • Josh,

          Simply put and understood in scripture, from the Old Testament to the New,

          God’s wrath is him moving his presence away from us, and allowing us to experience the consequences of our sinful actions. From what happened to King Saul and his lineage to when the Hebrews were exiled to Romans 1, God leaves us to our own undoing. God’s wrath.

  2. Hey guys, great discussion so far, but here is one of my issues:
    God is the same in the OT as he is in the NT, yet in this blog post Joel states

    “He gets a lot wrong, a lot. No offense, Pastor Mark, but the love of God is much more demonstrated through Christ. Mark may also want to read Ephesians 2. Or the New Testament.”

    Yes God is love, but he is the same in the OT as he is in the NT and as he is today. So while I’m not agreeing a hundred percent with Driscoll (mostly because I want to study God’s Word in regards to such matters before landing) we must NOT ignore the OT scripture that say God hates the wicked. Just as we can’t ignore the verses that say God is love.

    • It doesn’t say God “objectively” hates the wicked for one, and two, in the New Testament, Jesus dies for God’s friends and God’s enemies. Not to difficult to counter Driscoll with Scripture.

      • Ok, but, God did not change when Christ died. And who are God’s friends? All have fallen short. Without his grace we are all sinners and enemies of God. All I’m saying here is Christ hated the wicked in the OT, so why wouldn’t he hate the wicked in the NT? (to run with this point). You see, if you say “Well because Jesus came, and now God’s more loving and less wrathful” you’re saying God changes. Now maybe some commands from God have changed, but scripture clearly states that God doesn’t change.
        Joel, What about the Gentiles?

        • No, Josh,

          God’s character never changes. Yes, God’s hates sinners, but only out of his holines and love. God’s wrath spouts forth from God’s love. That is why so many times in the Hebrew Bible God relents YHWH’s punishment, like in Exodus 33 or we can go with his openness to receive our repentance. Based on this, hate is not an attribute of God. The idea of repentance refudiates God “objectively” hating anyone. Its God’s will that all will repent (thats in Acts), and we should keep it that way.

          Driscoll is letting his dedication to double predestination get in the way of biblical exegesis.

          Who are God’s friends? People of faith, Abraham and Moses and Noah, friends of God, as well as the disciples of Jesus. Christ as Logos is in the OT, but Christ as a disincarnate soul, isnt.

          • Yes Craig I agree, but I’m just advocating for the text in the OT.

            RODOFA, I agree with most of what your saying (I think). When you say his wrath is derived from his love do you mean his love of holiness? because I’m pretty sure God’s holiness and disdain for sin is where his wrath comes from. I don’t know if I completely agree, but it makes sense that God cannot objectively hate something, but what about passage where God sets himself against people (not saying I disagree in regards to this matter, but just running you logic out). And I agree God longs for all to repent too. I believe God hates sin, and that it’s awful effects break God’s heart as well.

            Out of curiosity, what is double predestination?

          • Actually Driscoll claims not to believe in double predestination. See his new article FAQ: Predestination and Election, which is a good introduction to the subject, probably not written by Driscoll himself. But not surprisingly it uses the Bible selectively, and ignores the verses which more or less contradict its conclusions like 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, and even John 3:16.

  3. @Josh

    “When you say his wrath is derived from his love do you mean his love of holiness?”

    I mean both God’s holiness and God’s perfect love. God is holy in that God’s actions here on Earth are holy and just, and God is love, because God is Creator and chose to create creation out of love, so that we may respond to God in love. God is also love in that God sent His only begotten Son to die for our sins. God’s wrath is a response out of love for us, because sin is not good for us, it separates us from God, and therefore makes us more likely to not show acts of love towards God.

    God does not objectively set himself against people out of hate. It is out of love, since God wants all people to know him. Take King Saul for instance, Saul loves God at one point, even as one among the prophets, but then Saul sins and disobeys God, and God responds to Saul’s choice wrathfully, but in love. Pharaoh faces God’s wrath not because God hates him, but because God wants Pharaoh to know YHWH. God “hates” Esau (the Gentiles) because God first loves Jacob (the Jews). But it is not anything that the Jews did to deserve God’s favor, nor the color of their skin, but God’s own freedom to love. That’s the story of Israel in a nutshell.

    Now, as for predestination, Mark Driscoll is a neo-Calvinist. Some Neo-Calvinists (not all), affirm the idea that from the beginning of time, God chose a select group of individuals to go to heaven, and the rest, the reprobate to go to hell. They argue over when (did this happen before or after the fall?) but basically, this doctrine is the teaching of predestination. This doctrine has to be read into the biblical text, as part of eisegesis, in order to get this conclusion. Obviously, this involves a God who hates people from the time they were born

  4. Peter,

    That is a good point. I do think the idea of God hating is related to the calvinist notion of predestination. at the same time, Driscoll did use Arminian arguments in his ABC Nightline debate to put on a good face for his views. So, his site denying Double Predestination isnt surprising.

Leave a Reply, Please!