Does God love people in hell?

I never said God wouldn't judge and punish the wicked. We are talking about his love for them and his genuine desire to see all come to faith and repentance. A father may spank a child he loves and a judge may sentence a loved one to prison, but that doesn't negate the love. That is the subject of the post, right?

 

It's interesting to me how many have voted "no" in this poll. I believe this is reflective of the tendency of some (often young people newly infatuated with Reformed doctrine) who insist that God cannot possibly love those who never repent and believe.*

The mainstream of Reformed theologians have always affirmed the love of God for all sinners. John Calvin himself wrote regarding John 3:16, "[Two] points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish."*

 

Sure, but that wasn't my point. The question of the OP is regarding God's love for those he punishes/judged/condemns. My analogy of spanking (and prison which was ignored to focus on the lessor so as to divert the point) was only to redirect you back to the question of the OP. Does God love those he condemns?

To quote scriptures about how God condemns people to hell doesn't even address the question of whether or not he loves them, it only affirms that he does condemn some to hell, which has already been established and is kind of obvious.

If that is the correct interpretation of this passage then can you explain to me why Paul believes that some of those who are hardened might be provoked by envy and come to salvation? (Rm 11:14)

Even most reformed scholars would disagree with this assertion. You may want to study, pray and seriously consider why that is.

 

Totally hardened from birth? Please go to the thread titled "Total Depravity = Hardening?" and pick up on this point of the discussion there so we don't derail this thread and repeat too much of the same arguments...

Then you are not very versed in the Reformed faith and with all due respect, should study this particular point and pray about why many of your persuasion would not go as far as you have gone with regard to God's nature of love. I've already provided one quote from Calvin himself, so with a little research you should be able to find many more and study the subject for yourself.

 

This is a question I have thought about before, and I am persuaded in the other direction, although I have not and will not answer the poll. "Love" must be meaningless if God 'loves' people suffering horribly who cannot escape nor cease to exist. It's hard enough to continue believing He loves people here on earth sometimes; one example, for me, was a news story of a housefire in Dallas. There were several children on an upper floor who could not get out, and their bodies were found huddled together in the middle of a room; the oldest positioned as if to try to shield the others. Imagine a parent or a firefighter standing outside listening to their screams and saying "I love those chidlren in that room," and doing nothing.

If God loves people in hell, how is His love of any value? Because he could turn it up another million degrees?

 

I'm not sure how that video addresses the point of our contention.

So, are you saying men aren't born totally hardened? Please expound...but go to other thread if you don't mind.

There are certainly different brands of the Reformed tradition but as MacArthur explains here the Pink brand is not consistent with the historical position; here is an excerpt:

Reformed theology has historically been the branch of evangelicalism most strongly committed to the sovereignty of God. At the same time, the mainstream of Reformed theologians have always affirmed the love of God for all sinners. John Calvin himself wrote regarding John 3:16, "[Two] points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish."

Calvin continues to explain the biblical balance that both the gospel invitation and "the world" that God loves are by no means limited to the elect alone. He also recognized that God's electing, saving love is uniquely bestowed on His chosen ones.

Those same truths, reflecting a biblical balance, have been vigorously defended by a host of Reformed stalwarts, including Thomas Boston, John Brown, Andrew Fuller, W. G. T. Shedd, R. L. Dabney, B. B. Warfield, John Murray, R. B. Kuiper, and many others. In no sense does belief in divine sovereignty rule out the love of God for all humanity.

We are seeing today, in some circles, an almost unprecedented interest in the doctrines of the Reformation and the Puritan eras. I'm very encouraged by that in most respects. A return to those historic truths is, I'm convinced, absolutely necessary if the church is to survive. Yet there is a danger when overzealous souls misuse a doctrine like divine sovereignty to deny God's sincere offer of mercy to all sinners.

We must maintain a carefully balanced perspective as we pursue our study of God's love. God's love cannot be isolated from His wrath and vice versa. Nor are His love and wrath in opposition to each other like some mystical yin-yang principle. Both attributes are constant, perfect, without ebb or flow. His wrath coexists with His love; therefore, the two never contradict. Such are the perfections of God that we can never begin to comprehend these things. Above all, we must not set them against one another, as if there were somehow a discrepancy in God.

 

I suppose he would considering babies have no hand eye coordination, no understanding of consequences and an insatiable desire to be feed and cared for, but once again I'm not sure what this has to do with our discussion.

We are born with Original Sin, and thus enemies of God, but no where does scripture teach that we are born unable to respond to God's appeal to be reconciled.

Again, I'm not sure what that has to do with the historical Reformed view of the love of God for the reprobate...

I'm not attempting to defend the historical Reformed view, only report it. I don't think what Reformers teach God does to non-elect reprobates is very loving either.

 

That is like saying to you child, "If you doing drugs you cannot please me." Would that in any way imply that the child was unable to plead for your help to get off drugs so as to live pleasingly? Of course not. This verse only tells us that as long as we remain in the flesh we cannot be pleasing to God, just as it says in Heb 11 that without faith its impossible to please God. It says nothing about man's inability to respond to the powerful message of reconciliation.

We both affirm that one must move from being "in the flesh" to "in the Spirit," and whether that is accomplish effectually by God or by the free response of man to accept God's appeal is not addressed in this passage.

I'll let you take that up with John MacArthur and all those sources he sited in that article.

 

No. God does not love the people in Hell, and neither will we. We will wash our feet in their blood. Ps. 58:10

 

could you post something that gives a clue on this"reformed view"

 

I already did back on post 29.

It is an article written by John MacArthur...

 

Well, the whole "which came first" debate has been hashed out ad nauseam here and everywhere else, so I won't go there. I'll just say for anyone reading this thread, go to a bible software search and type in faith/belief and life/salvation and you will come up with dozen of verses which clearly indicate that life comes through faith not the other way around.

But its not just him, look at his research regarding the historical Reformed view...that was the point I was attempting to make.

 

8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Clearly shows God's love for sinners, the enemies of God we are commanded to love. If this doesn't describe those in hell, not sure what does. Does God command us to love everyone including our enemies, yet He does not?

 

That's more of a "do as I say, not as I do" kind of command WD.