God's love for his Elect alone, and His hatred to the Reprobate

"Wrath and hatred are opposed to love, which are never in the heart of God towards his beloved ones: besides, this is said after the manner of men, and according to our apprehension of things." - John Gill, The Body of Divinity, Pg. 40

God never hated the elect, nor did he ever love the reprobate

Absolute Predestination and against the Free Offer

"God is unchangeable in his purposes and decrees, there is a purpose for every thing, and a time for that purpose; God has determined all that ever was, is, or shall be; all come to pass according to the counsel of his will, and all his decrees are unchangeable. . . . the purposes of God are always carried into execution, they are never frustrated; it is not in the power of men and devils to disannul them; whatever devices and counter-workings to them may be framed and formed, they are of no avail. . . . and his purposes are called counsels, because designs wisely formed by men, are with consultation, and upon mature deliberation: and such are  the decrees of God, they are made with the higher wisdom by him, who is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working, and so are unchangeable. . . ." - John Gill, The Body of Divinity, Pg. 38

Notice that if you read John Gill, in his Divinity, how he is so systematize every doctrine presupposes another. God's immutability presupposes his knowledge and his counsel.

The divine second person of the Holy Trinity and the incarnation

"Nor is the unchangeableness of the divine nature to be disproved by the incarnation of Christ; for though he, a divine Person, possessed of the divine nature, was made flesh, or became man; the divine nature in him was not changed into the human nature, nor the human nature into the divine, nor a third nature made out of them both; was this the case, the divine nature would have been changeable; but so it was not; for as it has been commonly said, 'Christ remained what he was, and assumed what he was not;' and what he assumed added nothing to his divine person; he was only manifested in the flesh; he neither received any perfection, nor imperfection, from the human nature; though that received dignity and honour by its union to him, and was adorned with the gifts and graces of the Spirit without measure, and is now advanced at the right hand of God." - John Gill, The Body of Divinity, Pg. 37

The incarnation did not change the Son of God. Nothing was added to Him when he assumed the nature of man.

God and Time

"In his nature and essence, being simple, and devoid of all composition, as has been proved: the more simple and free from mixture and composition any thing is the less subject to change. . . . and since he is eternal, there can be no change of time with him; time doth not belong to him, only to a creature, which is the measure of its duration; and began when a creature began to be, and not before; but God is before all creatures; they being made by him, and so before time; he was the same before the day was as now, and now as he was before; 'even the same to-day, yesterday, and for ever:' though he is the ancient of days, he does not become than he was millions of ages ago, nor will be millions of ages to come; his eternity is an everlasting and unchangeable now;" - John Gill, The Body of Divinity, Pg. 36-37

Time existed after creation. God is not older now than he was when he first created.

Negative and Positive statements of God's attributes

"The attributes of God are variously distinguished by divines; some distinguish them into negative and positive, or affirmative: the negative are such as remove from him whatever is imperfect in creatures; such are infinity, immutability, immortality, &c. which deny him to be finite, mutable, and mortal; and, indeed it is easier to say what God is not, than what he is: the positive, or affirmative, are such as assert some perfection in God, which is in and of himself; and which in the creatures, in any measure, is from him, as wisdom, goodness, justice, holiness, &c. but the distinction is discarded by others; because all negative attributes some positive excellency is found." -John Gill, The Body of Divinity, Pg. 34-35

For example, God is infinite which means he is timeless. Some Calvinist and Catholics teach that we can only speak of God in the negative statements. This makes no since. For one thing, if we can only speak of God in the negative only and not in any positive statements as well then how can we know him? I mean we know what he is not, but what is God as the WCF says.

Reymond might be an Arminian

On Pg. 178 "By what they have said about his immutability, as a consequence of their understanding of God's eternality as involving timelessness, classical theists have sometimes portrayed God as One virtually frozen in timeless immobility or inactivity (this is one example of the theological mischief which accrues to the ascription of timelessness to God)." Who has said that God's immutability means that God is basically frozen in time?
"These theists correctly argue that since God is a perfect being, he is incapable of any ontological change, since any change must be either for the better or for the worse. He cannot change for the better since he is already perfect, and he cannot change for the worse since that would result in his becoming imperfect. The same holds true, it is incorrectly argued, with regard to any motion or activity on his part. Any movement must either improve his condition or detract from it. But neither is possible for a perfect Deity. Therefore, he remains in an 'eternally frozen pose' (Packer's characterization) as the impassible God. But this is not the biblical description of God." -It isn't, then what is?
"The God of Scripture is CONSTANTLY acting into and reacting to the human condition. In no sense is he metaphysically insulated or detached from, unconcerned with, or insensitive or indifferent to the condition of fallen men."
So God reacts to man's actions? WOW! There you have it Reymond is an Arminian at best, but according to the previous status he might be a humanist or atheist at worse.

Is Raymond an atheist?

This is what Raymond says, "Third, there seems to be an inherent contradiction in saying that a timeless person lives in the 'eternal present' because the referent of the word 'present' has significance only in the ordering category which includes past and future as well. Nicholas Wolterstorff points out:
In order for something to be timeless, none of these ordering relationships [past, present, future] can be applicable to that being. If a being is truly timeless, it should be impossible for it to exist simultaneously with anything else, or before anything else, or after anything else. Once it is established [or argued, as Hodge does - author] that a being does occupy one of the ordering relations, then that being is clearly temporal." - A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Pg. 175


I do not know about you but Raymond's argument is ridiculous and his support for Wolterstorff is also. So God being present means that he is temporal? At best I do not know what this means, but at worse this is pure atheism - If a being is truly timeless, it should be impossible for it to exist simultaneously with anything else...