 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 8/12/2003 9:21 AM (GMT -6) |   | There are a couple of dogmatic points that I think ought to limit the boundaries of a discussion on God's love.
The obvious one is that of the classical assertion of God's unconditional love and working that out systematically. If God's love is worked out in such a way that it is not "unconditional" then that should be a faithful indicator that an error has been made. We say that "God is love", and we say that "God does not show partiality", "God loves the whole world", "does not will that any should perish", etc. The specific term "unconditional" is indeed implied in these biblical assertions and has been assumed throughout church history. Enough said...
Another problem with the discussion on love here recently is its tendency to reduce the imago dei to simply "sentience" or "willing" or some other philosophical category that is not expressly relevant to the texts from which we derive our dogma regarding the imago dei. I see a reductio ad absurdum at work here...
1. If our way of imaging God is merely our sentience, then we are not distinct from angels and demons in this way. What makes us (as humans distinct from angels and demons) specifically in the image of God?
2. In another way of getting at this, it seems that the image of God in us is being reduced to what we frequently refer to as our "soul". What of our spirit and body? Do these aspects of us also participate in our imaging God (in community, of course) in some way? I suspect they do participate. I understand human beings to be made up of all three in such a way  (Greg's favorite phrase) that they (body, soul and spirit) are inseperable and all equally essential to what it is to be human. Again, our imaging of God does NOT happen in us as individuals. The prism thing fails seriously in this regard. We are a BODY collectively, not individually. (A couple or a church may be a "prism" of sorts.) We can be a prism collectively, not individually. My assumption here is that prism some how correlates to the image of God in humanity. God, of course, loves the individual as individual, but this discussion is about how we humans image God. The command to reconcile with one another and all the other "one anothers" point in this direction as well. The lack of sociality being discussed here is seriously problematic. Again, we do not image God individually. It is in our uniting with one another that we can do this. God is communal and we can only image God in that manner.
So, these questions would have to be addressed before I could agree with Greg's understanding of love and God's conditional application of that for individuals.
Additionally, since SK has been brought up  , I'd recommend people read the chapter on "loving the one who is dead" (In Works of Love) It is used as an excellent "test case" for assessing what it means to love unconditionally. Very telling...We cannot excuse ourselves and say, "I don't love John Smith anymore because he changed!" No, the only change that occurs when we track our progress in loving the one who is dead is the change that occurs in us and our faithfulness to that person....
This is a start of the problems I see with God's conditional love as expressed recently.
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/12/2003 9:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by ModesofThought
There are a couple of dogmatic points that I think ought to limit the boundaries of a discussion on God's love.
The obvious one is that of unconditiona love and working that out systematically. If God's love is worked out in such a away that it is not unconditional then that should be a faithful indicator that an error has been made. We say that God is love, and we say that God does not show partiality, God loves the whole world, does not will that any should perish, etc. The specific term "unconditional" is indeed implied in these biblical assertions and has been assumed throughout church history. Enough said...
Another problem with the discussion on love here recently is its tendency to reduce the imago dei to simply sentience or willing or some other philosophical category that is not expressly relevant to the texts from which we derive our dogma regarding the imago dei. I see a reductio ad absurdum at work here...
1. If our way of imaging God is merely our sentience, then we are not distinct from angels and demons in this way. What the makes us specifically in the image of God?
2. In another way of getting at this, it seems that the image of God in us is being reduced to what we frequently refer to as our soul. What of our spirit and body? Do these aspects of us also image God is some way? I understand a human being to be made up of all three in such a way (Greg's favorite phrase) that they are inseperable and all necessary to what it is to be a human being. Furthermore, our imaging of God does NOT happen in us as individuals. The prism thing fails in this regard. We are a BODY collectively, not individually. We can be a prism collectively, not individually. Thus the command to reconcile with one another (and all the other "one anothers"...). The lack of sociality being discussed here is seriously problematic. We do not image God individually. It is in our uniting with one another that we can do this. God is communal and we can only image God in that manner.
So, these questions would have to be addressed before I could get with anything like Greg's understanding of love and God's conditional application of that for individuals.
Additionally, since SK has been brought up (:D), I'd recommend people reading the chapter on "loving the one who is dead" (In Works of Love) It is used as an excellent test case for what it means to love unconditionally. Very telling...We cannot excuse ourselves and say, "I don't love John Smith anymore because he changed!" No, the only change that occurs when we track our progress in loving the one who is dead is the change that occurs in us and our faithfulness to that person....
There's just a start of the problems I see with God's conditional love as expressed recently.
"Time is the freedom to love."
(from Ware's "The Inner Kingdom")
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/12/2003 9:52 AM (GMT -6) | | I hope not to make the next half page a discussion of abortion.
But in the context of Modes comment, let me just point out that the virtue of being an image-bearer is something given by God, not accomplished by achieving neurons. And the even the zygote is qualified to be in communion: BOTH with God and with other fellow humans. If we fail to be in such communion with the dead, or with zygotes, it is our failures and not theirs. And they may still be in communion with their Creator even when we fail to be through them.
PoW (a.k.a. "Fred")
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/12/2003 1:49 PM (GMT -6) | | What's your definition of "unconditional love"? This is quite a dicey area in my mind. I too, like you, had always just thought that went without saying.
But even reading Jesus' own words, I get a somewhat different impression:
John 16
26In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. 27No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.
Luke 6:32
"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them.
matt 5 43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
JOhn 14:21Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."
23Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
John 15:10
If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love.
John 16:27
No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.
The bolding is mine....it seems fairly clear that Jesus is saying that in order for God to love us, we need to obey him and love others (including our enemies). There's a lot of "if....then" statements in the Gospels- which, seem to be conditional, don't you think?
If by "unconditional love" you mean that God loved us so much that he wants to save us (any and all of us)- that's a different story. It's more of a philosophical truth that "God is love" b/c of the fact that he deigns to save any of us. If we're going on the old -school thought that humans are but worthless worms who deserve absolutely nothing from god, then God looks pretty good by offering anyone salvation at all.
But since Jesus himself said so many times that we have to love others in order to receive God's love, we have to forgive others in order to receive God's forgiveness, I just don't think that God loves unconditionally... am I way off base here? I admit I don't know. It's a difficult issue. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 8/12/2003 3:05 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
What's your definition of "unconditional love"? This is quite a dicey area in my mind. I too, like you, had always just thought that went without saying.
Interesting points, I will follow your passages below with comment:
quote:
But even reading Jesus' own words, I get a somewhat different impression:
John 16
26In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. 27No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.
This one troubles me. I am glad that this is not all we have to go on.
quote:
Luke 6:32
"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them.
matt 5 43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
Both of these seem to support my position. The first one is instructing us to love even our enemies. That is my point, unconditional love. The second one states the same in different words and reinforces this with God's lack of partiality based on our righteousness. No problems perceived here.
quote:
JOhn 14:21Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."
23Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
John 15:10
If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love.
John 16:27
No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.
If one reads passages like this in the light of eternity, that is, taking the judgment into consideration, then they make sense. Those who love God will survive the judgment and then they will be all that are left to be loved by God as well. I am not satisfied with this explanation, but that's a start.
quote:
If we're going on the old -school thought that humans are but worthless worms who deserve absolutely nothing from god, then God looks pretty good by offering anyone salvation at all.
This works for me. But that doesn't change what appears to be the conditionality. My take so far is that the conditionality has to do with eternal duration, not whether one is loved by God. But those that are not receptive, for whatever reason, they will not survive the judgment ultimately.
quote:
But since Jesus himself said so many times that we have to love others in order to receive God's love, we have to forgive others in order to receive God's forgiveness, I just don't think that God loves unconditionally... am I way off base here? I admit I don't know. It's a difficult issue.
As above, I would say that the "condition" applies to the duration of an individual, not the quality of God's love for them. In the end, those that loved God will be eternally loved by God, and those that do not, will not survive the fire. This is necessary if it is to be the case that one day God will be all in all. (I Cor. 15)
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 8/12/2003 3:24 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by ModesofThought
John, do you really mean to say that Christian tradition is not basically univocal in its assertion of the unconditional love of God? What tradition are you familiar with that denies this?
I am unaware of any "univocal" statements by any church body at any time which state that God's love is, as you claim, unconditional. In the other thread I also posted several articles representing various authors from both Protestant and Catholic points of view (and not only Calvinists) who denied the assertion that God's love is unconditional. I was truly hoping you or Dr. Boyd would engage the articles I posted.
quote:
You did notice that I am making a claim from dogmatics, right?
I notice you are being dogmatic. I don't see that you have done anything other than make a bare assertion with no supporting evidence with regard to your claim that God's love is unconditional. As you are the one making the assertion, the burden of proof is on you with regard to your assertions. If I made an assertion contrary to something you believed to be scriptural truth, wouldn't you expect me to give evidence to substantiate my claims?
All I'm asking for is for you to present evidence that the majority Christian opinion in fact is "basically univocal" with regard to your major premise about God's love. (Not to mention the fact that the majority opinion could in fact be wrong, as it often is). If your major premise can be disproved, then the problems raised by the rest of the argument are dismantled.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 8/12/2003 4:53 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by ModesofThought
John, I am not going to take up your challenge. If you don't grant that "tradition" (intentionally ambiguous because of the scope of the claim) supports the notion of God's "agape" love being unconditional, then I will certianly not pursue this with you. You are right of course, the majority can be wrong, even if I did do all the work required to satisfy your inquiry. So it would be a waste of time wouldn't it?
Well, no, actually I said "not to mention the fact that the majority could be wrong." I would be quite satisfied if you could simply back up your assertion with real quotes from actual denominations or theologians throughout history that supported your claim that the Christian tradition is in agreement with your definition.
I have presented some evidence in the form of articles by various authors from various traditions that disputes your contention that God's love is unconditional, which you also certainly are entitled to ignore if you wish. I guess it's too much to expect someone to actually back up their assertions. Sad. A person could assert anything, I suppose, by this standard.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/12/2003 5:05 PM (GMT -6) | | John,
Quick note...
As far as those articles go, they are problematic to say the least...
From BOWMAN'S ARROWS: IS GOD'S LOVE UNCONDITIONAL?
By Richard M. Bowman
quote:
Conservative Christians who use the phrase "unconditional love" usually distinguish between being loved by God and being redeemed. They say that God's unconditional love abides even on those he condemns to hell. If that clarification is made, I can affirm "unconditional love." However, it is not a biblical term, and since it is used by those who are theologically liberal to argue for universal salvation, I prefer not to use the phrase "God's unconditional love." Liberal theologian Nels Ferre, for example, wrote in 1951 that heaven and hell are completely contradictory realities. He says, "If eternal hell is real, love is eternally frustrated and heaven is a place of mourning and concern for the lost. Such joy and such grief cannot go together . . . heaven can be heaven only when it has emptied hell, as surely as love is love and God is God." ("The Third Conversion Never Fails" in These Found the Way, ed. David Wesley Soper; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1951, p. 237). Ferre's point is that if God's love is unconditional, His love is eternally grieving over the lost. How can heaven be a place of eternal joy in the midst of such eternal grief? Ferre concludes that hell cannot be a reality. He affirmed universal salvation. Another option is to conclude that God's love cannot be unconditional.
Look at this stuff, man. His reasoning is PRAGMATIC more than any thing else! [Digression to Mr. Bowman: The term TRINITY is not a biblical term either!] He admits that he COULD get with unconditional love if it could be reconciled with God's wrath and judgement. He then later on basically admits that he cannot reconcile God's love and God's wrath and pits one against the other...
quote:
Rather than seeking to define "unconditional love" in such a way as to end up saying that God loves those He damns, I prefer to avoid the term altogether. I am not sure that is makes sense to say that God loves those He commits to outer darkness. It is a strange way to show love! We can certainly speak of the wondrous love of God for all persons, sinners included, without throwing in the confusing word "unconditional."
But, darnit, this HAS been done...by better people than me.
Sorry, John. But this is just ONE of the articles. None of them are really that persuasive. At least to me...
This is not to derail this very good thread, but it is to say honestly, that I don't think that Modes or Doc would (or perhaps SHOULD) give these articles any serious consideration.
Just my opinion...
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/12/2003 5:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Instead of love, can we talk about forgiveness? It's pretty clear in the Bible that God is not going to forgive us unless we repent. So his forgiveness then, is quite conditional. So God is perfectly justified in refusing to forgive someone who never asks for forgiveness. Now contrast that with the commonly accepted Christian belief that all Christians are to forgive their neighbor, "seventy times seven" times, if need be, regardless of whether the neighbor asks for forgiveness. You see this quite frequently, when a Christian is a victim of crime in his or her family -say the spouse was murdered. You hear the surviving spouse say that they forgive the murderer- regardless of whether or not the murderer has repented! Is this going above and beyond the call of duty, if even God does not have to forgive without repentance?
So why is God's love any different? The only reason I see would be if the definition of love is rendered some fuzzy feeling with no visible entailments. So we can say God is love, without ever thinking about what that should entail. If God does not forgive without repentance, why does he love without repentance? If he does love, but doesn't forgive, what's the practical difference ? If he doesn't forgive, the fact of whether or not he has love is irrelevant, since forgiveness is the operative action here that counts for eternity. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/12/2003 7:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Excellant points, John and RD (particularly for those of us who don't accept God's love as "unconditional," at least not how it is defined today). BTW, I think most of this has already been covered in other theological lists | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 8/14/2003 6:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Moving on...
I know that Electra has made this point, but I think the passage below demonstrates the unconditional love of God quite clearly:
Rom. 5:6
For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person someone might actually dare to die. 8 But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. 9 Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life. 11 But more than that, we even boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
Rom. 5:12
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned— 13 sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. 14 Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come.
Rom. 5:15
But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man’s trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many. 16 And the free gift is not like the effect of the one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. 17 If, because of the one man’s trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
Rom. 5:18
Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. 19 For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 But law came in, with the result that the trespass multiplied; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, just as sin exercised dominion in death, so grace might also exercise dominion through justification leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Notice, nowhere in here does it suggest that God conditions love toward us on the basis of what we do. That is actually the point of this passage. Love is unconditionally gracious and extended to ALL.
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/14/2003 9:11 AM (GMT -6) | | OK.
Wow! Postmillennialist status REALLY gets you noticed! Asking for my thoughts and all! Shoot… so far, everyone on this thread is BELOW ME! Y’all need to come up to MY level. Well, enough ‘bout me and my god-like (ego) knowledge…hmmm…
First, I’m either gonna have to STEAL (how’s that for a god like myself?) SK’s “Works of Love” at the U or just plain go out and buy it, seeing as a certain someone did not give me a copy that he promised to give me when I was up there (ahem…cough…ahem…MODES…cough…cough). Sure, I give you beer and a CD. And what do I get in return? Actually, yours and the Mrs. hospitality was worth it all my brother. Anyhoo, maybe I can put two thoughts together here.
Some of what I do understand of SK is that he was more concerned NOT with the image of God existing IN man, but rather, HOW MAN EXISTS IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. In “Works of Love” he says,
“As Christianity’s glad proclamation is contained in the doctrine about man’s kinship with God, so its task is man’s likeness to God. But God is love; therefore WE CAN RESEMBLE GOD ONLY IN LOVING.”
Well, then came Paul Ramsey who is a mega disciple of SK and he believes that being in the image of God, is to understand it as a relational response to God which we should live out the rest of the days our lives. And he says that it can be “entirely lost” in that a person “no longer images the will of God” but rather images one’s own will or the will of an idol. Ultimately, this seems to me to be thoroughly anthropological. For Ramsey, Christ is the image of God (Eph: 13) and THE ONE WHOSE IMAGE CHRISTIANS ARE TO BE FORMED. I would say that this not only applies individually, but corporately (as I hope to show). If Christ is truly the center of the divine image then this has implications for a Christian love ethic. For Ramsey, what this means is that we cannot “probe deep into the nature of man by employing some sub-Christian sources of insight into what it means to be man.” Modes is surely correct here:
quote:
Another problem with the discussion on love here recently is its tendency to reduce the imago dei to simply "sentience" or "willing" or some other philosophical category that is not expressly relevant to the texts from which we derive our dogma regarding the imago dei. I see a reductio ad absurdum at work here...
The Reformers were totally against what Grenz calls “faculty psychology” that the medieval theologians asserted which Ramsey asserted. CHRIST must be our reference. Not the “self” or the “I.” When we have a Christocentric focus, we can then link the active love for both God and neighbor. See the connection in all this? I have to quote Ramsey here ‘cause frankly, it’s a COOL quote.
quote:
Jesus’ pure humility and prompt obedience to God and his actions expressing pure and instant love for neighbor: these were in fact the same thing, the same image, the very image of God. Standing wholly within the relationship of imaging God’s will, “with unveiled face, reflecting as a mirror the glory of God,” and fully obedient love: there are in reality the same. There is no obedience, no response to God, there are no religious duties beyond this: Thou SHALT love.
Now, Emil Brunner comes along and he wants to correct even the Reformers “dubious doctrine of the remnant or relic of the divine image in fallen humankind” as Grenz says. Why is there a problem with this? Because “it suggests that there is a sphere in human existence that is unaffected by sin, and it forgets that EVEN SINFUL HUMANS BEAR WITNESS TO THEIR ORIGINAL RELATION TO GOD.” (Grenz on Brunner) Being that the image of God is thoroughly “personalistic and actual manner”, it does away with the Aristotelian idea of the “animal as rationale” a.k.a. “faculty psychology” or the “self” or the “I.”
More than being EPISTEMOLOGICAL (animal as rationale) is that being in the image of God is ONTOLOGICAL. By this, Brunner says that “the Word of God constitutes the human person.” That is, the Word of God spoken to humankind comes both as call (word) and a capacity to respond to that call (answer). (Grenz) Again, thoroughly relational.
Now, there is what Brunner calls, the “formal” image and the “material” image. Formal image has to do with human capabilities, etc, that distinguish it from animals and it remains despite the fall. But it is different from the “structural” view (that I think John/honorman think of it as and possibly fred in the above post) in that it is relational. This is not merely “relational” but “responsive existence” (responsibility distinct to humankind contra animal kingdom, Meph Man mentioned this) or “responsive actuality.”
Material image is “the material realization” that occurs when a person answers to the Creator’s call. A persons “finds themselves” in God and therefore they are “identical to ‘being-in-the-Word’of God.” (Brunner) Hmmmm…wonder if there is any connection to this and Electra’s “Oneness” prospect. Either way, the loss of the image of God in its material sense does not remove humans from their STANDING “before God” i.e. human responsibility is NOT negated. On the contrary, it bears testimony to and PRESUPPOSES the imago in its formal sense (relational).
The connection of love to the image of God is that man’s being lies in the Word of God (as above) therefore his nature is responsibility FROM love, in love, for love. That is man is not made for relationship per se, but responding to the Word of God (again, as above), that is responding to God’s love. Love can only be responded to with reciprocal love. Man is made for love. He cannot do without that nurturing love from the outside, not without responding to that love. In his love God created this entire world. But he created man as a being who could understand that love, and enjoy and respond to it. And that not just one characteristic among man: in this relation of receiving and giving love, man heeds his most central calling and actualizes his true essence. In love, man becomes himself…Only a life which is nurtured by the certainty of God’s love and is thus inspired to all kinds of reciprocal love, is a life which (to extent that such is possible now) has reached its destination and goal. (Berkhof)
This friends, in my opinion, is a DISTINCTLY Christian understanding (contra Aristotelian philosophical categories) of the image of God.
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/14/2003 5:26 PM (GMT -6) | | | Honorman - thanks for the props. I know we have had MAJOR and many differences, but I do appreciate the fact that youre willing to step above them - I also appreciate that you're showing your willingness to engage in the debate. Thanks. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 8/15/2003 4:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
The connection of love to the image of God is that man’s being lies in the Word of God (as above) therefore his nature is responsibility FROM love, in love, for love. That is man is not made for relationship per se, but responding to the Word of God (again, as above), that is responding to God’s love. Love can only be responded to with reciprocal love. Man is made for love. He cannot do without that nurturing love from the outside, not without responding to that love. In his love God created this entire world. But he created man as a being who could understand that love, and enjoy and respond to it.
With regard to the bold I've italici ... italisi... um ... made different than the rest of the printed quote (sheesh!), I think the rest of the quote demonstrates clearly that we are made for relationship purposes--particularly this part of the quote: "In his love God created this entire world. But he created man as a being who could understand that love, and enjoy and respond to it"; for to have been made to understand, enjoy and respond to love is to have been made for purposes of relationship. I think it is merely a matter of defining what we mean by relationship. It is not, "We are made to be in relationship, so find someone and be in relationship." Rather it is exactly what this quote states.
Starkman
(Italic ... Italiz ... I hate spelling!) | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 8/15/2003 9:38 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by ModesofThought
Note also in the Romans passage above how there is clearly a distinction made between justification and salvation. About what God did for us on the cross and what happens as a result of that. Salvation is out in front of us, justification is behind us. Abide in Christ and he will abide in you. The unconditional love is proven in the sacrifice, but the life is yet to be lived.
Modes, I have never once disputed the fact that Christ died for all mankind, and that the motive behind this act was love (John 3:16). My contention has simply and only been that each sentient being's salvation is in fact conditioned upon their acceptance of God's love (is this not consistent with the Open View as taught by Dr. Boyd?) This fact, in conjunction with the plain teaching of Scripture that God "hates all workers of iniquity," leads me to conclude that apart from adopting universalism, it doesn't seem reasonable to say God's love is without conditions.
quote:
Salvation is what we look forward to, we don't fully possess it yet. Do you not shed tears, do you not suffer, do you not struggle? Salvation is yet to be completed...
I really don't know how this relates to God's love, but yes, of course, I suffer, struggle, etc. Even Jesus had to suffer. I am unaware of how this relates at all to God's love.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
| 34 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:44 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|