God Hates What and Loves Whom?

“From the holiness of God flows a mortal and implacable hatred of sin. It is as much the nature of holiness to ‘hate iniquity, as to love righteousness’ (Ps. 45:8). Sin is ‘an abomination to his soul’ (Prov. 6:16), that is, to his very essence, and essential holiness: and neither sin only, but also the sinner is the object of his hatred. ‘For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination to the Lord thy God,’ (Deut. 25:16). He therefore separates from himself, and from his chosen people, all whom he cannot make partakers of his favour: and so he cannot but inflict upon them that punishment which is the effect of his hatred. According to Solomon’s reasoning, Prov. 16:5, ‘Every one that is proud in heart, is an abomination to the Lord.’ And the consequence is, He shall not be unpunished. In the same manner David reasons, Ps. 5:4, 5, 6, ‘Thou art not a God that hast pleasure in wickedness.’ Thou hatest sin, and the sinner too, because of it. ‘Thou hatest all the workers of iniquity.’ And surely the fruit of this must be exceeding bitter: ‘Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing.’ And thus from the holiness of God, arises a hatred of sin and the sinner; from hatred, punishment.”

Herman Witsius,

Economy of the Covenant Between God and Man, 1.5.28

Herman Witsius on Romans 5:12

"By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Romans 5:2

To illustrate the apostle’s meaning, we must observe these things: 

1st. It is very clear to any not under the power of prejudice, that when the apostle affirms that all have sinned, he speaks of an act of sinning, or of an actual sin; the very term, to sin, denoting an action. It is one thing to sin, another to be sinful, if I may so speak. 

2dly. When he affirms all to have sinned; he under that universality likewise includes those who have no actual, proper, and personal sin, and who, as he himself says, have not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, verse 14. Consequently these are also guilty of some actual sin, as appears from their death; but that not being their own proper and personal sin, must be the sin of Adam, imputed to them by the just judgment of God. 

3dly. By these words  ἐφ' ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον for that all have sinned, he gives the reason why he had asserted that by the sin of one man death passed upon all. This, says he, ought not to astonish us, for all have sinned. If we must understand this of some personal sin of each, either actual or habitual, the reasoning would not have been just and worthy of the apostle, but mere trifling. For, his argument would be thus, that by the one sin of one all were become guilty of death, because each in particular had, besides that one and first sin, his own personal sin: which is inconsequential. 

4thly. The scope of the apostle is to illustrate the doctrine of justification he had before treated of. The substance of which consisted in this, that Christ, in virtue of the covenant of grace, accomplished all righteousness for his chosen covenant people, so that the obedience of Christ is placed to their charge, and they, on account thereof, are no less absolved from the guilt and dominion of sin, than if they themselves had done and suffered in their own person, what Christ did and suffered for them. He declares that in this respect, Adam was the type of Christ, namely, as answering to him. It is therefore necessary, that the sin of Adam, in virtue of the covenant of works, be so laid to the charge of his posterity, who were comprised with him in the same covenant that, on account of the demerit of his sin, they are born destitute of original righteousness, and obnoxious to every kind of death, as much as if they themselves, in their own persons, had done what Adam did. Unless we suppose this to be Paul’s doctrine, his words are nothing but mere empty sound. 

Herman Witsius, Economy of the Covenants  1.8.31

Herman Witsius: Our Mediator Must Be Both God And Man

Had he been God only he could neither have been subject, nor have obeyed, nor have suffered: if mere man, his obedience, subjection, and suffering, would not have been of sufficient value for the redemption of the elect. Nay, a mere creature is so bound to fulfill all righteousness for itself, that its righteousness cannot be imputed and imparted to others: and should we suppose a man truly and perfectly holy, but yet a mere man, who, according to the law of love, offered himself even to die for his brother, he himself would doubtless obtain a reward by his righteousness; but could merit nothing for a guilty person, unless perhaps exemption from punishment at most. And therefore it behooved our Surety to be man, that he might be capable to submit, obey, and suffer; and at the same time God, that the subjection, obedience, and suffering, of this person God-man, might on account of his infinite dignity, be imputed to others, and be sufficient for saving all, to who it is imputed. 

Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man 2.4.20

Notable Quotes 10

Some think that Adam was not deceived, and did not believe what the serpent had persuaded the woman to, but rather fell, out of love to his wife, whom he was unwilling to grieve; and therefore, though he was conscious of a divine command, and not exposed to the wiles of Satan, yet that he might not abandon her in this condition, be tasted the fruit she offered; probably believing, that this instance of his affection for the spouse whom God had given him, if in any measure faulty, might be easily excused. To this they refer the apostle’s words, 1 Tim. ii. 14. "For Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, was in the transgression." But this carries us off from the simplicity of the divine oracles; the design of the apostle is plainly to shew, that the woman ought not to exercise any dominion over her husband, for two reasons which he urges: 

1st. Because Adam was first created as the head, and then Eve, as a help meet for him. 

2dly. Because the woman shewed she was more easily deceived, for being deceived first, she was the cause of deceiving her husband, who was likewise deceived (though not first) but by her means: for we commonly find in scripture, that some things seem to be absolutely denied, which we are to understand only as denied in a restrictive sense: John vi. 27. and Phil. ii. 4. are instances of this. Nor can we conceive how Adam, when he believed that what he did was forbidden by God, and that if he did it he should forfeit the promised happiness, nay, incur most certain death, (for all this he must know and believe, if he still remained uncorrupted by the wiles of Satan,) would have taken part in the crime only to please his wife. Certainly if he believed that the transgression of the divine command, the contempt of the promised felicity, and his rash exposing himself to the danger of eternal death, could be excused only by his affection for his wife, he no less shamefully erred, nor was less deceived, if not more, than his consort herself. Nor can it be concluded from his answer to God, in which he throws the blame, not on the serpent’s deceit, but on the woman whom God had given him, that the man fell into this sin, not so much by an error in the understanding, as giving way to his affection; for this subverts the whole order of the faculties of their soul, since every error in the affection, supposes some error in the understanding. This was doubtless an error, and indeed one of the greatest, to believe that a higher regard was to be paid to his affection for his wife, than to the divine command. It was a considerable error to think that it was an instance of love to become an accomplice in sin; because it is the duty of love to convince the sinner, and as far as may be restore him to the favour of God, which certainly Adam would have done, had he been entirely without error. In whatever light therefore we view this point, we are obliged to own that he was deceived: the only apology Adam would make, seems to be, that his beloved consort had, by her insinuations which she had learned from the serpent, persuaded him also, and that he was not the first in that sin, nor readily suspected any error or deception by her, who was given him as an help by God. 

Herman Witsius, Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man I.VIII.IX

Notable Quotes 1

It is a matter of the greatest moment, that we learn distinctly to consider the covenant of grace, either as it is in its substance or essence, as they call it, or as it is in divers ways proposed by God, with respect to circumstantials, under different economies. If we view the substance of the covenant, it is but only one, nor is it possible that it should be otherwise. There is no other way worthy of God, in which salvation can be bestowed upon sinners, but that discovered in the Gospel. Whence the apostle, Gal. 1:7, has beautifully said, which is not another. And that testament, which was consecrated by the blood of Christ, he calls everlasting, Heb.13:20, because it was settled from eternity, published immediately upon the fall of the first man, constantly handed down by the ancients, more fully explained by Christ himself and his apostles, and is to continue throughout all agesm and, in virtue of which, believers shall inherit eternal happiness. But if we attend to the circumstances of the covenant, it was dispensed at sundry times and in divers manners, under various economies, for the manifestation of the manifold wisdom of God...

We therefore maintain, agreeable to the sacred writings, that to all the Elect, living in any period of time, 1st. One and the same eternal life was promised. 2ndly. That Jesus Christ was held forth as one and the same author and bestower of salvation. 3rdly. That they could not become partakers of it in any other way, but by a tru and lively faith in him. If we demonstrate these three things, none can any longer doubt, but that the covenant of grace must be, as to its substance, only one from the beginning. For, if the salvation be the same, and the author of it the same, the manner of communion with him the same, it is certain the covenant itself cannot be more than one.  Herman Witsius, Economy of the Covenants III.II.I & II

Witsius on the Free-ness of Election

The freeness of election consists in this, that God, as the absolute Lord of all his creatures, has chosen, out of mankind, whom and as many as he pleased; and indeed, in such a manner, as that no good which he foresaw in such a man, was the foundation of that choice, or the reason why he chose one rather than another. This appears,

1st. Because the Scripture asserts, that the most free will of God was the supreme reason or cause of election, Matthew 11:26 - "Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight." Luke 12:32 - "It is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." Above all, the apostle is full in vindicating this absolute power of God, Romans 9, where among other things he says, verse 21: "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"

2ndly. At the same time also, that the Scripture refuses consideration of any good foreseen in man, it maintains this most free and gracious good-pleasure of God, Romans 9:11 - "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth..." 2 Timothy 1:9 - "Not according to our works, but according to his own purpose."

3rdly. Neither faith, nor holiness, nor any thing truly good can be considered in man, unless bestowed out of divine grace, Philippians 1:29 - "Unto you is given to believe on Christ." Ephesians 2:8 - "Faith, not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." But the bestowing of this favour can proceed from no other cause than the election of grace, and the benevolent good pleasure of his will. And consequently these benefits cannot be presupposed as preparatory to divine election.

4thly. The Scriptures expressly declare, that we are chosen to faith, holiness, and to perseverance in both, which being the consequents and fruits of election, cannot be the antecedent conditions of it, Ephesians 1:4 - "He hath chosen us, that we should be holy and without blame," or have it begun on earth, and consummated in heaven, John 15:16 - "I have chosen you and ordained you that you should bring forth fruit." I have chosen you from eternity, called and ordained you in the appointed time, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 - "God hath from the beginning chosen you to truth." Election is as well to the means, as to the end. All these passages, and many others of a like nature, have been so fully and solidly defended by our divines against the objections of the Remonstrants, that I have scarce anything to add.

Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man 3.4.24