John 15:24 + 25 - Hating Christ without cause

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
The reason I bring up these verses is because Calvinists teach that God consigns people into a condition from which they will hate Him.
Here Jesus says that they saw His works and yet still hated Him, this speaks of a choice in the face of evidence

Yes you are correct but there is more. The verses say they hated both their own God, the Father, as well as Jesus.

Jesus is alluding to something he has been preaching/teaching all through this Gospel - he did not speak his own words or do his own works. He tells us that it was the Father abiding in him that did the works. For this reason, they had all seen both the Father and Jesus.

The implication of Jesus' words is as you have stated in your post.

22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He who hates Me hates My Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well. 25 But they have done this to fulfill the word that is written in their Law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
You are wandering off into defending elements of calvinism that I was not addressing. I beieve a main point was that God did not cause them to hate Him. They actually understood ideas about Him, but rebelled against what they knew.
Honestly, I had a difficult time with your post, following how it related to the cited verses and my comments
Seth?
 

His clay

Well-known member
You are wandering off into defending elements of calvinism that I was not addressing. I beieve a main point was that God did not cause them to hate Him. They actually understood ideas about Him, but rebelled against what they knew.
Honestly, I had a difficult time with your post, following how it related to the cited verses and my comments
I addressed your post dead on. What you just wrote as being your main point is what I explicitly covered. What of my post then did you not understand?

It was truly not my aim to be enigmatic.
 
Last edited:

His clay

Well-known member
Do you deny in your theology God determined that?

or that God works to accomplish what he determines?
How are your questions related to what I wrote? You don't seem to be addressing what I wrote with your questions.
To the opening post, I wrote the following.
======================

Apples and oranges. God's decree is not the same thing as Jesus' detractors not having an adequate justification for their hate. Thusly, the op appears to be making an argument built off a faulty conflation, thus committing a fairly obvious category error and/or equivocation fallacy. The op would have to demonstrate the equivalent significance or meaning of the words used (cause in one sense means the same as cause in the other sense), rather than using undefined similarity (cause and cause). As such, the opening post's verse is good, since all scripture is profitable for doctrine, but it is not good for use as an argument against Calvinism.

In short, there are different types of causation; beware equivocation. Not having an adequate judicial reason for the charge of sin, thus legitimzing the hatred of sin....This is obviously not the same as choices not having reasons or causes, nor is it the same as God's eternal design for creation.

The verse is addressing the bankruptness of their hate towards Christ; not whether God elects unconditionally or has an eternal decree. Nor does the verse eliminate the innate moral opposition of the unregenerate toward God. Rather, the verse actually demonstrates the depravity of the people who hated Christ. They had absolutely no judicial grounds for doing so. No mud that they slung ever stuck to the spotless lamb of God. The connections to John 8 and the love, hate, hearing, and truth issues are remarkable; so it seems appropriate to quote.

42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.
43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.
44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.
46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?
47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God." (John 8:42-47 ESV)
 

His clay

Well-known member
You are wandering off into defending elements of calvinism that I was not addressing. I beieve a main point was that God did not cause them to hate Him. They actually understood ideas about Him, but rebelled against what they knew.
Honestly, I had a difficult time with your post, following how it related to the cited verses and my comments
I will try again, but radically simplified (from my earlier post #31 & quoted again in #98). The opening post utilizes the word "cause" in a way that is divorced from the context of the verse. I provided the meaning of the word in context, which then meant that the opening post's criticism of Calvinism was unjustified because the "cause" of the verse wasn't addressing Calvinistic causal issues. I then provided a passage from John 8 that illustrated my points and illuminated the contextually accurate "cause" of the verse you were using.

"Which one of you convicts me of sin?" i.e. they hated him without a cause.

In light of the above, how then does my post not address your main point?
 
Last edited:

Alexander the adequate

Well-known member
I will try again, but radically simplified (from my earlier post #31 & quoted again in #98). The opening post utilizes the word "cause" in a way that is divorced from the context of the verse. I provided the meaning of the word in context, which then meant that the opening post's criticism of Calvinism was unjustified because the "cause" of the verse wasn't addressing Calvinistic causal issues. I then provided a passage from John 8 that illustrated my points and illuminated the contextually accurate "cause" of the verse you were using.

"Which one of you convicts me of sin?" i.e. they hated him without a cause.

In light of the above, how then does my post not address your main point?
I disagree that jesus was saying He was sinless (despite the fact that He is) that just was not His topic there.
The hate toward Him was not based on whether or not He was a sinner. the hate was based on jealousy and conviction of their own sin
 

Alexander the adequate

Well-known member
Welcome back. We were just wondering what you think about the change in Civic. But I guess we'll never know...
In the last two months since I have been posting, I do not recall having seen any posts by that poster. So I don't know what you are talking about. But what is the change you see?
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
Choosing means deciding between alternatives. It is rational. But doing something without a reason is irrational.

A choice is not only between alternatives, but also for specific reasons. The question of 'why' can be asked of any person doing an action. A specific reason for why the action was made. So the prophecy is not the reason, for that argument begs the question, but the immediate rational cause is indispensable, there is always a rational reason why we choose to do something, be it conscious or unconscious in nature.

To say that man hates without reason, only means that their reasoning is unjustified, not that it is non existent!


Doug
 

fltom

Well-known member
How are your questions related to what I wrote? You don't seem to be addressing what I wrote with your questions.
To the opening post, I wrote the following.
======================

Apples and oranges. God's decree is not the same thing as Jesus' detractors not having an adequate justification for their hate. Thusly, the op appears to be making an argument built off a faulty conflation, thus committing a fairly obvious category error and/or equivocation fallacy. The op would have to demonstrate the equivalent significance or meaning of the words used (cause in one sense means the same as cause in the other sense), rather than using undefined similarity (cause and cause). As such, the opening post's verse is good, since all scripture is profitable for doctrine, but it is not good for use as an argument against Calvinism.

In short, there are different types of causation; beware equivocation. Not having an adequate judicial reason for the charge of sin, thus legitimzing the hatred of sin....This is obviously not the same as choices not having reasons or causes, nor is it the same as God's eternal design for creation.
I noted their hatred was determined if you consistently apply Calvinist theology

if it was determined it of course had a cause

In Calvinist theology the is always a cause and that cause is God
 

His clay

Well-known member
I noted their hatred was determined if you consistently apply Calvinist theology

if it was determined it of course had a cause

In Calvinist theology the is always a cause and that cause is God
If we grant all that you say, then what? How does that relate to the issue raised in the opening post?

Will you say that Calvinism asserts causality while the opening post points to scripture that says the opposite?
 
Top