|
|
Post by Brookhouse on Aug 29, 2014 17:48:53 GMT
Ephesians tells us we have been blessed with every spiritual blessing in heavenly places. My observation is that we generally live well below this and do not enter into the fulness of this in the present. How do you feel about this?
|
|
arete
New Member
Posts: 49 
|
Post by arete on Aug 29, 2014 22:05:43 GMT
“It would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, and Other Addresses
|
|
|
|
Post by Brookhouse on Aug 30, 2014 10:31:41 GMT
Good quote.
I've been thinking more lately about whether Jesus's outlook and mine really match and they don't (obviously it's mine that needs to change!)
Jesus "who for the joy set before Him..."
I may quote the verse but am realising I'm not living my life as I could/should "for the my set before me too".
That joy, the quality of which Lewis refers to, seems all too often a 'head concept' and not enough the inspiration of my heart. I'm probably judging here (unfortunately it won't be the first time!)
"The joy of the Lord is our strength" - an interesting concept (and truth) that I definitely have not got my head round yet.
|
|
arete
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by arete on Sept 1, 2014 18:56:23 GMT
I am a thinker and not much of a feeler. However, heart as used in the OT involves more than emotion. It stands for emotion, but also intellect and will.
But my belief in total depravity means that neither my head nor my heart have any redeemable quality apart from the redeeming work God does within me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brookhouse on Sept 3, 2014 19:50:46 GMT
While I believe I cannot save myself, I am told to work out my salvation. I must therefore shoulder a personal responsibility for the degree to which my salvation is worked out. I am told that I am to be holy as God is holy. Only God in me can accomplish that but I have a part to play and am responsible for my response. Do you agree?
|
|
arete
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by arete on Sept 4, 2014 20:40:46 GMT
I believe justification is wholly monergistic. And I am a monergist. For any not familiar with the term, that means I believe that man adds nothing to his justification except the sin he must be saved from. A dead man cannot choose to be made alive. Therefore the work of justification is God's alone and even the faith I espouse is a gift from God. I believe that everyone dead in sin chooses only sin and never God until he regenerates and justifies them.
I believe sanctification is synergistic. That I have work to do, but even that is wholly empowered by the Spirit ad apart from him I can do no good thing. I believe that he superintends and uses my meager efforts as he sanctifies me.
For this discussion, I would then lay out salvation as a word that encompasses justification, sanctification and glorification (being saved from the penalty of sin, the power of sin and one day saved from the presence of sin).
|
|
|
|
Post by Brookhouse on Sept 4, 2014 22:08:24 GMT
Agree with the theology you describe.
Jesus calls us to know God. God is Spirit. The knowledge is not merely intellectual knowledge but also therefore experiential spiritual experience (otherwise knowing would not be knowing). Paul talks in terms of "it seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit", "bowels of compassion", "groaning within", "joy unspeakable" and "knowing" God. We have the ministry of reconciliation. Reconciliation is a relationship word and not an accounting word although Jesus was careful to point out that the smallest part of the law and prophets would be fulfilled.
I think what I'm trying to say is that while the systemisation of the theology is very helpful and can produce elegant (and true) descriptions of Christianity, the other side of the truth of Christianity is that it's a life, Jesus' life, lived out from within us in very real ways with Jesus describing this as rivers of living water (His life) flowing out from our innermost being to others and a lost world.
I love the legal side of the Gospel, the true descriptions of what it is, how grace works, justification by faith, His substitutionary atoning death etc but the Christian life we're called to live is His living life lived out in us today as in Galatians 2.20, "no longer I but Christ".
Since Christ is now to be my life, the life of Jesus in me through the Holy Spirit, I wonder if our language should reflect more Christ within us living His life out from our centre as the Creator of us as New Creations?
|
|
arete
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by arete on Sept 4, 2014 22:36:39 GMT
I love systematics. I do shudder at times when people say Christianity is not a religion; it's a relationship. Such a false dichotomy. As if the two are somehow mutually exclusive.
I like systematics and the depth they bring because it prevents me from living the life you describe in shallowness. Many believers wade ankle deep in the truths of Scripture. In my "depth" perhaps I have made it to mid-calf compared to the true depth of God's truth. I simply don't want to live as shallowly as possible.
As for our language, it must be biblically based. Every right way to truly reference our Christian walk has already been made and said by the NT authors. Every place in Scripture that it references God's work in us (Father, Son and Spirit) should regularly be re-said by us. And even more as the broken Image of God is being conformed to the Image of the Son until it is truly restored in Heaven
|
|
|
|
Post by Brookhouse on Sept 7, 2014 19:45:30 GMT
Before I share my thoughts about the faith of Christ in us, the man in the attached video says some useful things as a primer. The faith of ChristI only came across it a few minutes ago, I haven't checked out anything else he has to say so don't know whether I would agree with him on other things too. The scriptures he (and I) refer to are below, as he says though, they're only to be found in the KJV. Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference. Romans 3:3-4 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me, and gave himself for me. Galatians 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. Philippians 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. Revelation 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. Ephesians 3:11-12 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him. Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. James 2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. Heb. 12:2 Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith More later in the week hopefully! |
|
arete
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by arete on Sept 8, 2014 20:17:26 GMT
The first hurdle for me is that this is based in the KJV only. And which KJV since there have been a few? If the systematic defense or apologetic hangs on one particular English translation, then the case is weakened.
That is a lot hanging on a preposition translated into a version of English no longer is use and bound by English grammar. This may fall into the category of Anglisizing, an exegetical fallacy according to some like Carson and Mayhew as putting an inordinate value upon English over the original language.
Prepositions are a little more ambiguous in their lexical form and require the context for sure. Even more, how has the use of "of" changed in English from 1611 until 2014?
For instance Romans 3:3-4 in the ESV 2001 is
What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written,
here the stress would appear to be less on the "of" and more on the idea of faith/faithfulness.
3:22
the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
The preposition here is based off of the name "Jesus" as it is conjugated in a manner that requires the translator pick an appropriate preposition. Given the context of chapter 3 as a whole, I would prefer the ESV as a current English equivalent.
Unfortunately, I cannot devote the time needed to look at these other references. I have a full schedule. But given what I know of Koine prepositions and how they are embedded in the term they modify, I think the argument stands or falls based upon a preference for an English version instead of the original languages.
But then, I have a jaundiced eye toward anything that looks as if it might be steeped in KJVonlyism. I was raised in such an environment and it was not a very edifying experience. I also have pastors who treat me as an adversary and even evangelize me as I am obviously not saved since I do not take a KJVonly stance.
Looking forward to more as we both deal with full schedules and a desire to fellowship across a vast expanse made small by technology.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brookhouse on Sept 9, 2014 6:16:57 GMT
Good response Arete, listening to the video wasn't where I was intending to go (as I said, I only saw it a day ago). It got me thinking though that God does all He does by faith (Hebrews 11) and Jesus' faith is God's faith (since Jesus is God) and His faith is what keeps the Church (and Universe) going (He upholds all things by the word of His power).
Hence my salvation is safe in the faith of Jesus' own believing which cannot now be neutralised by our unbelief as it was in Nazareth (Mark 6).
Jesus now has untrammelled freedom and rules in righteousness, which He does by exercising His faith.
'Like Father, like Son'.
Don't worry about replying immediately, I have a lot more free time than you these days!
(Note to anyone else reading this, please feel free to join the conversation, it's open).
|
|
arete
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by arete on Sept 9, 2014 18:22:52 GMT
I find it better ground for security in salvation in the sovereignty and omnipotence of God. If he decrees it comes to pass. That may be the working out of soteriology. Since I believe in the doctrines of grace, commonly called Calvinism, I would tend to see salvation in terms of sovereign decree.
And yes, I hope men from your group will join and engage the topic. I love the iron on iron process of working out a biblical theology.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brookhouse on Sept 12, 2014 6:48:46 GMT
As a matter of interest Arete, do you think the focus on systematics (and I agree, studying the structure of scripture and it's analysis produces endless benefits) can become a focus in itself and ultimately a barrier in our Christian life to fully following Jesus? My first experience of Christianity was in a Calvinistic church. It got me grounded in the Word and loving God as a result. I really appreciated understanding something of the Sovereignty of God and have throughout my life done my best to surrender to Him as a result. Later in my walk, for various reasons, I became 'Charismatic'. I felt however, I'd lost something of those amazing foundations initially and the wonder of the authority of scripture.
I've found over the years though that just as 'Charismatic' can quickly turn to 'flaky', the love of systematics can lead to more discussion and focus on systematics than on Jesus, what He said and what He clearly expressed as His desire. Do you think that's an unfair comment? The strong Calvinists I've met have also tended to be cessationist (but from what you've said that's not your position).
I'm hoping that through this site men will provoke me, and we will all provoke each other, to seek God as never before and find the truths that I wrote about in today's blog (Colossians 1.9). We serve the living God and in our desire to be men for Jesus, He, as the author and finisher of our faith, must remain our principle model.
Don't get me wrong, I really value those who study the scriptures systematically and know I have a lot to learn.
Ps I agree with you about the security that comes from acknowledging God's omnipotence. I lost that sense for a number of years and couldn't put my finger on what had gone wrong in my Christian life. God brought me back and I realised again that like the objectivity of maths, God's sovereignty is an established fact external to me, not reliant upon my experience of it (although it takes faith to enjoy and appropriate it at a personal level).
|
|
arete
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by arete on Sept 12, 2014 18:51:49 GMT
I am what most would call a cessationist, but I prefer the label sufficientist. I do believe certain gifts have ceased as they have at regular intervals in Scripture and these will resume when the rest of the Joel 2 passage and the two lampstands of Revelation appear.
Systematics is really grouping the teachings of God into categories that help folks make sense of the 66 books. Systematics is based in truth/word of God or else it is false. Jesus is the living Word and he is the way, the truth and the life. Therefore, systematics pursued end with the person of Christ. So I do not see how a focus on one is not focus upon the other.
We know God's person, character and will through his word. To understand the word better is to know him better. I believe there is a false dichotomy presented to the church that Christianity is a relationship and not a religion. As if the two are mutually exclusive. Likewise, the Living Word and the written Word are not mutually exclusive. To know and love one requires the knowing and loving of the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brookhouse on Sept 15, 2014 13:05:55 GMT
I was thinking today that the voice of scripture, the voice of Jesus, the voice of the Holy Spirit and the voice of God the Father all speak as one. A large part of my theology (I don't know what you'd call it and I believe all scripture is inspired by God and His desired expression) is governed by the fact that if the OT is Christ prophesied and the NT Him revealed then our proper focus should be Christ, the Lord.
What I have found (not necessarily with you) is that those heavily into systematics become so attracted to it that the normal discourse one would expect among disciples ("What did He say, what did He mean, what does he want me to do?") gets drowned out. "Systematicism" (you've inspired me by introducing me to a new theological term 'sufficientist') draws people into loving the systematic structure and deceives them into self righteousness (you have come across this way but I've met many who have) in the same way Charismatics, being open to the leading of the Holy Spirit are often misled thinking it is the Holy Spirit when it is their own selfish desires and the lusts within.
For me, the great place of refuge is always to go back to Jesus as my reference point and ask first, what did God say when He walked here on earth about this?
It saddens me that while wonderful hymns and songs are sung about Jesus, too many Christians judge Jesus by what scripture says elsewhere rather than first "What did Jesus, as the One who came to announce, demonstrate and explain say about this?" It is through Christ we are to understand the rest not make Him an icon in an exhibition finding out about him by reading all the commentary.
Christ is God's expression of Himself and to me the delight is in learning to know him more and more and thus through Him, the Father.
|
|
|
|
Post by dpreacherman on Sept 15, 2014 13:28:28 GMT
I am intrigued by the terms cessationist and sufficientist and how these affect one's life. Do you think it possible to have a dialogue with God in the here and now? Which are the gifts that have not ceased?
|
|
arete
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by arete on Sept 15, 2014 23:21:30 GMT
Classic cessationists believe the sign gifts have ceased, particularly those that marked apostolic ministry - such as: prophecy, tongues, and healing. To break it down a bit more:
Prophecy is the spoken Word of God given by God through prophets and is eternal in its scope and is therefore new revelation that is normative for all believers. Prophecy precedes the written word which is the Word of God written down and normative for all believers in all times
Tongues is the supernatural ability to speak a real language not known to the speaker, or perhaps the speaker speaking his language but the recipients hear him in their own native tongue. This was a sign that the message spoken was from God. Tongues like every other gift was not one that every believer had, any more than every believer was a prophet.
Healing still continues. God often answers prayers for healing in supernatural ways. However, the gift of healing as evidenced in Christ and the apostles has ended. Peter's shadow passing over could heal. Many have claimed this apostolic gift but have never demonstrated it in the manner of Christ or the apostles.
These sign gifts are seen as God establishing the veracity of the apostle's message (the Gospel) with supernatural proofs. Once established, the proofs were not necessary.
How it affects life?
When I want to hear prophecy or the Word of God out loud, I read the Bible out loud. I do not follow men who claim to be prophets. I especially disdain so called "prophecies" that are generic and sound like horoscopes more that the "Thus saith the Lord" messages of Isaiah, et al.
When I need healing, I pray first to God and then I pray for my physicians and I go to the doctor.
When I wish to dialog with God, I pry to him and I meditate on his word. His word is eternal and continues to speak to men. His written word is not suspect the way I suspect the things people "hear" or the words so called "prophets" utter.
|
|
|
|
Post by dpreacherman on Sept 25, 2014 13:55:11 GMT
The sign gifts may well have established the veracity of the apostle's, and Jesus' message but there is more to it than that. The primary quality attributed to God is that he is love. The sign gifts, miracles, are also demonstrations of the love of God for his children. Jesus is portrayed as a deeply compassionate man moved to perform miracles by the suffering of the folk around him. Jesus said that he would be with us until the end of the age, still with us now, why would he not continue to exercise the primary facet of his nature?
We are a fallen humanity, some operating in faith, some in presumption, some even in deception or crassness. It isn't the words that people say that carry the power of God, it is the life of faith that is lived. There are many who claim to be prophets who are not, there are many of us who have uttered what turned out to be prophetic words on some occasions, but mere words from the flesh on others. That is why the apostle Paul cautions us to test the words given. Folk operating out of a false gift, or presumption do not invalidate the true gift. We are right to suspect words given under the notion of prophecy, but that simply means we take them to God and ask for his guidance, which on occasion may come through scripture, other times may come through a sense of peace (or lack of it), or some other way.
In my own journey of faith I wish to simply draw close to God, to be intimate with him. I read scripture, pray, worship him in private and publicly. Sometimes speaking, sometimes in silence. A good deal of the growth in faith I have comes through dialogue with other Christians who in varying measures build me up, or challenge me.
|
|
arete
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by arete on Sept 25, 2014 20:49:29 GMT
"The primary quality attributed to God is that he is love"
Chapter and verse on that and how it applies to sign gifts if you would please. I want to follow the line of reasoning.
This is because I don't believe that God has a primary attribute, but that he is 100% of all of his attributes 100% of the time and that these all are operative with no contradiction whatsoever. So while God is love, he is also holy, sovereign, etc...
And also because I read his miracles as demonstrations not primarily of his love, but his sovereignty, his might, and to declare the veracity of his messengers.
I ask this of you because I am currently working through an excellent video series on the "Attributes of God" by Steven Lawson through Ligonier. And also, because my expereinces or any other person's experiences are anecdotal and not true tests of Scriptural Truth.
Also, any thoughts why the churches that believe in prophecy, healing and sign gifts tolerate false teachers? For one instance, I would point to Todd Bentley who was endorsed, never decried and is currently preaching again. For those unfamiliar, he ran a "revival" in Florida and was punching and kicking people and calling it a movement of the Spirit. He was hushed up after awhile, but is back teaching and "prophesying".
Thanks for considering my request.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brookhouse on Sept 30, 2014 18:23:43 GMT
While dpreacherman is considering that one, re your point regarding 'the primary quality of God is that He is love" I certainly take your point that God is holy and wise and all the other attributes He is in His perfection. However, He has primarily chosen to do the choosing, of us and of Israel (John 15.16, John 3:16, and Deuteronomy 7:7-8). These demonstrate a God who chooses to deal with us on the basis of an initiating lover. The first thing he did in Genesis, His very first act, was to bless (Genesis 1.28) which is an act of love. The bible says God is love (not has love but s love) 1 John 4.18. The dual sided law of the universe is a love law on both sides - Love God with everything and your neighbour as yourself (Luke 10.27). Oh, and there's the small matter :-) of 1 Corinthians 13.
Over to you dpreacherman...
|
|
|
|
Post by Brookhouse on Oct 1, 2014 8:07:50 GMT
Sorry dpreacherman, a few more have come to mind:
John 15:9-17 - Jesus is clearly emphasising love here without any detriment to all the other perfections of God.
Also John 14:20-21, 23
To emphasis God's love is not to diminish His holiness, sovereignty or justice, it is merely to recognise His character.
See Paul's prayer in Ephesians 3:14-19 which affirms the same.
Also Romans 8:37-38
|
|
|
|
Post by dpreacherman on Oct 7, 2014 18:33:39 GMT
Some of the below isn't quite as I first intended, I wrote it all then lost it when my internet connection decided to drop out.
This is the rewrite.
Oft quoted and oft overlooked.
John 3:16
Yes, God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes
in him may not be lost but may have eternal life.
Love is the motivation for God sending Jesus. There may have been other motivations but they are not mentioned.
1 Corinthians 13:1-3
If I have all the eloquence of men or of angels, but speak without love, I am simply a gong booming or a cymbal clashing.
If I have the gift of prophecy, understanding all the mysteries there are, and knowing everything, and if I have faith in
all its fullness, to move mountains, but without love, then I am nothing at all. If I give away all that I possess,
piece by piece, and if I even let them take my body to burn it, but am without love, it will do me no good whatever.
Here love is a pre-requisite before any spiritual gifts or miracles have any value. Everything has to have a context of love.
Since we are made in the image of God, then if all this applies to us then I would expect that God would keep to the same principle.
This even applies to the sacrifice of one's life, so the crucifixion and death of Jesus is also first a deed motivated by love.
1 John 4:7-8
My dear people, let us love one another since love comes from God and everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God.
Anyone who fails to love can never have known God, because God is love.
This is developing the Corinthians passage by picking up on the converse principle.
"Anyone who fails to love can never have known God, because God is love."
If we attempt to work in the absence of love then it is simply "cymbal clashing" and not of God.
Jesus was fully God and fully man, none of his deeds had a higher motivation than love.
Whilst we can obviously assume that God is sovereign, God is holy, perfect, good etc
he is first identified as love, everything else follows.
"why the churches that believe in prophecy, healing and sign gifts tolerate false teachers"
I am aware of the ministry of Todd Bentley and that he had a fall from grace. However I have never heard him speak or read any of his material.
The biblical principle when someone falls from grace is firstly the possibility of restoration.
This is most powerfully portrayed in the story of King David and his relationship with Bathsheba.
David was at first blind to his sin until challenged by the prophet Nathan, then David sincerely repented as recorded in Psalm 51.
David's restoration was so complete that Bathsheba was the mother of King Solomon and Jesus bore the title Son of David.
In the NT we have Jesus story of the Prodigal Son, restored to a full relationship with his father.
These stories refer to the restoration of someone who to begin with was in right relationship, then fell.
This is distinct from the conversion/repentance of sinners who had not known God before.
Our fallen natures dislike this restoration, we want to point the finger away from ourselves, as did the elder brother!
As I said before I don't know much about Todd Bentley, but I suspect there was a lack of oversight of his ministry before it went awry.
Jesus had his Father, the 12 had Jesus, the apostles had the Holy Spirit, the early churches had the apostles.
Oversight is important.
Jesus has given us a simple test to apply for the ministry of folk.
Luke 6:43-45
"There is no sound tree that produces rotten fruit, nor again a rotten tree that produces sound fruit.
For every tree can be told by its own fruit: people do not pick figs from thorns, nor gather grapes from brambles.
A good man draws what is good from the store of goodness in his heart; a bad man draws what is bad from the store of badness.
For a man's words flow out of what fills his heart.
What's the fruit of the ministry?
|
|
arete
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by arete on Oct 8, 2014 23:31:37 GMT
Brookhouse,
I would contend God's first act in Genesis is to create. The next thing he did was to judge by his pronouncement that things are good and man very good. And even then, I would not suggest that the temporal order of his actions necessitate a hierarchy of any sort other than the temporal.
The verses you both list for love...
Just as many verses speak on the other attributes of God. Are there any verses more inspired than the others? Is the reality that John 3:16 is often memorized a means by which to determine a primary attribute?
I do not deny that love is active in every way listed in these verses. As a believer I share a belief in these verses with you. But I fear that mankind loves himself and loves to make the Gospel primarily about himself. And so, he is moved by and memorizes the portions he loves most.
I would contend that love does motivate God in salvation and that this love is directed at more than the men God saves. I would contend that the Father's love for the Son is see in the extreme lengths the Father will go to to purchase a spotless bride for his Son.
And to say that there are no other motives listed for a Savior? How about God displaying his glory to his creation? How about mercy? Grace? Lovingkindness? How about restoring the Image? God's glory? While these are not in John 3:16, they are found elsewhere. And all Scripture hangs together. Or it falls apart.
Again, I am not denying that God's love is active in salvation or creation or anything else. I agree that God is love even as the Scripture says. But to focus on 1 attribute of the multi faceted nature of God, in whom, all the attributes exist in their fullness with no contradiction, I believe is to make a caricature out of the Most High. Even as the caricature artist exaggerates one physical trait in his drawing, some believers focus one a few parts of God that make them feel warm and fuzzy and pay less attention to, or even ignore, the majesty of the fullness of the Godhead.
I cannot agree that we focus on love and then all else follows. I believe that all is all, all of the time.
And this is worrisome:
I hope it is a misunderstanding on my part. There is no assumption as I understand it. God says he is sovereign, holy, good, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brookhouse on Oct 12, 2014 21:43:35 GMT
"And to say that there are no other motives listed for a Savior?"
I believe in rhetorical analysis that there's a name for that type of argument! (one which extrapolates one's opponent's argument beyond what they actually say and then demolishes it because of its obvious falsity.)
The point in discussion here is whether God has a primary attribute. The answer can be objective in which case it is beyond humans to comment since we are not in a position to comment or else it can be from a 'what it seems to be to us humans in terms of God's revealed truth via scripture and the life of Christ'.
Without gainsaying anything of God's undoubted attribute of infinite holiness and every other infinitely good aspect of His being I would choose to believe that love is His primary character trait, certainly in regard to humankind.
My reasons for saying this are twofold. One is that the commandments, the laws expressing the nature of the lawmaker, are love commandments (thou shalt love). Secondly that our deepest need, as those made in His image is love, to love and be loved.
All sin is ultimately breaking of God's laws of love. To make God into a personalityless being, devoid of any primary characteristic, enables man to subtly regain control by turning the debate into one where we are in control as the arbiters of doctrine deciding what is and what is not.
God is Spirit and the essence of His Spirit of Holiness is that He expresses Himself initially and foremost in blessing i.e. in loving grace. All the other infinitely wonderful characteristics of God, His justice, sovereignty, wisdom and all else, are used to express His Father heart. This was the revelation of Jesus.
This was the express reason Jesus came, to bring the revelation of the Father heart of God that so loves that He will send His Son to die to express that love. Less than this diminishes all that God has done to express Himself in Christ.
|
|
arete
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by arete on Oct 13, 2014 20:32:19 GMT
Nowhere is Scripture is God described as "love, love, love." But the angels do declare that he is "holy, holy, holy". That is a rough paraphrase from Ligonier, possibly Sproul.
As for the argument, I believe the official term is ad absurdum. And I wasn't going there intentionally. Merely pointing out that there are other reasons.
The argument in the thread seems anthropocentric. In point: "I would choose to believe that love is His primary character trait, certainly in regard to humankind."
The Calvinist in me, has a hard time with pursuing a discussion anthropocentrically as theocentrism - or the Sovereignty of God, is the common starting point for our (Doctrines of Grace) theology.
Even in the phrase, "I choose to believe" is troublesome for me.
And this: "All sin is ultimately breaking of God's laws of love. To make God into a personalityless being, devoid of any primary characteristic, enables man to subtly regain control by turning the debate into one where we are in control as the arbiters of doctrine deciding what is and what is not."
Where in the Scripture is sin described as breaking the law of love? And have I ever indicated that I believe God to have no personality? God;s word controls doctrine. Not our intellect and definitely not our feelings. I am not sure how to respond for 2 reasons. One, I am not sure how much of your post is theoretical and how much is directed to me. Two, I am not sure that I am communicating clearly enough that I do not deny God's attribute of love. But I do deny that he has a primary attribute which I do not believe makes little of his love, but makes much of all he is.
I would also contend our greatest need is not love. Our greatest need is a right relationship with God which includes love and righteousness and holiness. Our need, like God is not one dimensional, but multifaceted.
There are some lovely concepts here. And I have never denied that God is loving and responds to us in love.
But I will never agree that he has a primary attribute without clear Scripture apart from lovely feelings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brookhouse on Nov 1, 2014 18:10:11 GMT
Just to conclude this discussion (unless you feel more needs to be said) I think my take on this is that the main motivation for sending Jesus was love as per John 3.16 but as to whether this is God's primary characteristic or not let's respect each other's differing positions without necessarily agreeing with each other. 'Disagreement in a spirit of love' - is that OK?
Bless you.
|
|
arete
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by arete on Nov 3, 2014 20:32:41 GMT
And I will stand firm on the main motivation for sending Jesus is the main motivation for all things - to glorify God (Isaiah 43:6-7; Romans 11:36; 1 Corinthians 10:31; Ephesians 3:21; 1 Peter 4:11; Revelation 1:6, 7:12.
For God to be glorified, all his attributes must be declared, including love.
Proverbs 27:17
I can respect a person and definitely a brother.
|
|
