Originally posted on 6/20/2005.
As I prepared for yesterday’s “Father Day” sermon, I grappled with the idea of whether God’s nature is primarily holy or love? My text for the sermon was I Peter 1:14-19. The central theme of this text seems to be verses 15 and 16, “but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it it written, ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy’”. In the sermon I didn’t deal with the issue of whether God’s nature is primarily holy or love but I said that God’s holiness is manifested through His love (His love being the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ, and His sacrificial death on the cross for the sins of all mankind.) But in my studies I was intrigued by the question at hand, “Is God’s nature primarily holy or love?”
In this passage we find a title given to God “the Holy One” (v.15) which is only found in one other place in the New Testament, I John 2:20. This title is more than just an attribute of God, it signifies His very essence. God the Father is Holy, which means there is no sin in Him, He is set apart from His creation, He is pure, and absolute in all perfection. In this passage (I Peter 14-19) we see that believers are called “obedient children”. These children are called to be holy, because their (our) Father is holy! This is a characteristic of the Father! But, in I John we find that John also calls the believers children and also refers to God as Father. The difference in this book and specifically chapter 4 is that the Father is called love, “…God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” . In I Peter we are basically told, as obedient children, to obey the commands of the Father which leads to holiness. Likewise, in I John we are told that the demonstration of our love is to keep the commands of the Father. So, is God primarily holy, or is He primarily love? Does God’s love flow from His holiness or does His holiness flow out of love?
Ron,
I enjoyed your post and thought I’d give you some Love – since no fish were biting. I sense from your blog that you are leaning primarily towards “holy.” Which is good! Which after all, what else do the the churibum sing thrice concerning?
My question is this, knowing you very well, is this really a question we should be asking? I know it is purely for dialogue purposes, but the whole train of thought and line of questioning is very western – Very neat, orderly, and systematized. Would an eastern theologian be concerning himself with this? Or would the theologian be more concerned with how the two are cojoined?
In HOLY LOVE,
Jake
Jake,
Are you suggesting that holiness and love are not just attributes of God? I thought God was primarily sovereign in His nature and that His holiness and love describe His sovereignty. God is a King who is holy and loving, right? You make it sound like God is “holy love,” but how does this account for the fact that He’s the KING?
Ron,
Just for dialogue purposes, here is a quick, from the hip, shotgun analogy. I will have to think a great deal more about this before giving a good answer. But my first thought would be this.
God is Love (period)
God is Holy (period)
I know that we all agree with those statements, and that may be all we can really ever, factually, conclude about your question. I am much better at math, than history, so I will try some deductive skills here to answer this question.
Love is either a noun, or a verb. Holy is an adjective.
Adjectives can describe nouns, but nouns cannot describe adjectives.
Therefore Love can be holy, but Holy can not be Love.
Love can be a result of Holiness, or an action within Holiness.
Holy is not a result of love.
No matter how Holy God is, we do not descried His Holiness by His Love.
We can Describe His Love as Holy.
This is almost like asking, “Is a house shelter from a storm, or a place to rest?”
My answer is, “Well…am I exhausted or stuck in a storm?”
I don’t think we can quantify Holy or Love. They are both God’s nature, and depending on what we need, He can either reveal His love, or His Holiness, and sometimes both.
If I had to make a firm decision, I would say that one does not take away from the other, but God made man to reveal His love, not His Holiness. So as far as man, His love would stick out as the primary (not more important, just more profound to us) than His Holiness. But in saying that, it almost sound sacrilegious.
We are predestined to be like Christ in His love for others. Romans 8:?
God’s greatest gift to mankind was His son, Jesus Christ. He sent His Son out of love, not out of His Holiness.
So from mankind’s perspective, Love is the “primary,” but not more important, nature of God. Don’t ever confuse “primary” as “greater” or “more important.
Grace is the greatest gift of all. God extends grace through His love, because of His love.
Therefore, because the angels (all forms), can not experience God’s grace, maybe God’s Holy nature is primary to them, Jake…
Just a quick thought, I reserve the right to change my mind, or be proven wrong.
-Matt
Anonymous-sc,
Ah, good argument from the other side – Dark side. I be careful to label anything about God as “just attributes.”
Now,young apprentice,it seems that you to have fallen into the . trap. You to are attempting systematize like any good westerner, which we all do, and put God in a box by labeling him King.
But just for fun, young apprentice, you must remember that before God was ever King (Sovereign) in his nature – he eternal existed as Father, Son and Spirit.
To be King, it presupposes that he must first have a creation, a kingdom and subjects to rule over. However, in the Triune Nature of God, the Fatherhood has always existed, and to argue against would be, shall I say “___itical.” Therfore, his holiness and love preceed his kingship. God is one who is holy and One who is love.
To be sovereign, he must have creation to rule over. However, the fat
But Jedi Master Jake, just because God is Trinity does not make His sovereignty secondary to anything else. God is ONE God who determines all things. He is all powerful; He is ONE. We as people need to understand the Trinity as merely the different ways in which God relates to us humans. As each dispensation comes and goes we can understand God, and His functions in salvation, in a new way. But throughout each period of history God is still the Almighty Sovereign who exercises His power and will over all creation. God does not need a creation/creature to be sovereign and all-powerful. God can do what He wants!
I’s agree with Jedi Masta Jake…may da force b with u
Lafundah
Matt, and the others,
Just a quick quick question to Matt before I get the heart of my comment. I am curious why you would say that God sent Jesus only out of love and not holiness. As Ron pointed out, God is not only holy, but He has also called us to be holy. Yet, how are we to do that on our own? It is not possible without God doing something to enable us to live according to the standard that He has called us to. So, being the loving Father that He is, He sends us His Son. As you wrote, God is love and God is holy, therefore, if He is both, then how is it possible that the action of sending His Son was purely an act of love? If He is both holy and love, then you cannot bifurcate the two when it comes to His actions.
Now, on to the heart of my inquiry. It seems that most of these responses has at the heart of it a basic presupposition that has not been addresses. Most of these posts presupposes that God can be know. Is it not a bit presumptuous of us as finite beings to attempt to try and figure out an infinite being. Is God not a mystery that must be entered into and recieved by faith? How is it even possible that we are able to say He is this or that, both, or even neither? Rather, should we not see the grandness of God and the limitness of our humanity and just accept God as God, whatever that means? Why is it that we feel compelled to try and figure out an infinite God when we are finite beings whose minds are finite as well?
Is He holy or love? Is it loving holiness or holy love? Sounds like a mystery to me that is beyond our understanding and is thus a mute discussion of pure theoretical speculation.
Accepting the mystery of God,
BFR
Anomymous,
You are viewing Christianity as a passive existence, rather than an active existence. Why would we discuss whether God is primarily holy or love? What is the importance, as Jake pointed out, between understanding God as mainly sovereign or mainly Father?
The fundamental Augustinian-Calvinistic view of God is that we are passive beings. God chooses some to heaven and some to hell (see arumements on: Theodore Beza, Jacob Arminius, freewill, predestination, infralapsarianism, supralapsarianism, etc.) Being a depraved person, we can not do anything about this situation. Only God through the blood of Jesus Christ can save (justify) a person. This view still views man as a sinner even after justification. The focus is on what God does for us.
The other view is more Wesleyan-Arminian. This view also says that humans are sinful, but that the Holy Spirit can turn a heart toward God so that the person actively seeks God for salvation. The person at this point only compares him/herself to the holy loving God. This view also says that God has done something for us in that salvation is only through the blood of Jesus Christ, but it goes further to say that God can and does something in a person. There is a cleansing that takes place in a person. This cleansing is by the the blood of Jesus Christ. This is much more active.
Active also means that I can participate in this “relationship” with God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and through the mediation of Christ. The logical conclusion is that God is Father. Passive christianity is only one sided, it lacks relationship terminology and is not (or very little)paticipatory. This leads to the logical conclusion that God is primarily sovereign. This type of view leads followers to a very functional idea of christianity. A beleiver and follower is never truly have assurance of their salvation. There will always be sense of pressure and heavy load which Christianity ought not to have. Is this what you want?
Anonymous,
I appreciate your critique of the posts and you are quite correct that a lot about God we can not know – a great mystery. Yet, God’s general revelation in which Paul addresses in Roman’s one states that humanity is “with out excuse,” because “what may be known about God has is plain to us, because God has made it plain” to us. “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature has been clearly seen.” In addition, God’s special revelation has gone into greater detail through his Word and his Son. We can know God. Now I seriously doubt that you are arguing from an agnostic position, and I suspect that you have attended a little school in Jackson, MS.; so, therefore, you are not as postmodern as you may sound.
Now, I will agree with you that we are finite and God is infinite and yes, we have inclination toward sin due to Adam and so on. Yet, we must also recognize how we have been created and who we are in Christ. Humanity is not simply the “dust of the earth,” but the pinnacle of Creation. We are the ones that angels are envious of. We are the ones who have been created in God’s image. We are the ones who have been created a little lower than elohim! We have been given the ability the think and reason, and use those faculties to truly pursue the Almighty!
That is what ultimately theology is – the pursuit of the Almighty. It is good and healthy to ponder these things we are discussing. After all, great men of faith have done it through out the ages. It may just be theoretical speculation, and you are allowed to believe it is moot.
In regard to my original post, I really wasn’t concerned over if God was primarily love or holy. My question to Ron was “should we even be asking the question?” I was having a little fun with my colleague the “aspiring good doctor” Adkins who has great affinity for the Eastern Church and Eastern way of the thought. The Eastern mind would not concern themselves with whether or not God was primarily holy or love, but would focus more on the beauty of the fact the He is both holy and love. Good dialoguing with you.
Jake
I think that one thing we’re missing in this discussion is that God reveals Himself to us in different ways throughout salvation history. In the O.T dispensation, God was a God of wrath. Then during the dispensation of the Son He reveals Himself as a God of love. Our current dispensation, that of the Holy Spirit, is one of mission. God may reveal Himself to us as wrath, or love, or mission, but through it all He is the KING who is sovereign, majestic, and glorious – AND mysterious. Like I said before, God can do what He wants. We cannot fully understand Him because we are completely sinful through and through. All we can do is let Him make us bow before Him – even though we don’t really “let” Him, He just does it according to His perfect will.
Who of you can question God? You, Ron? You, Jake? You, Matt? None of us can, He does what He wants and none of you can do anything about it.
for anonymus.
1 corinthians 2:12ff
12Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. 14The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16″For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
p.s. – your comment, “In the O.T dispensation, God was a God of wrath” is completely uninformed. that’s not the picture of God the OT in the least. just as in the NT, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit has and will always be a holy and loving God.
BTW that’s my thoughts on the issue: holy and loving
Anonymous,
How can you say that wrath is “not the picture of God the OT in the least?” Any good Bible student can see how God reveals Himself in the O.T. The word “wrath” occurs over 140 times in the O.T. alone. Maybe you don’t like the word “wrath.” How about “judge?” Another 100 times. Or maybe you would like to look at the 1883 times the word “king” appears? Sadly for you all, the word “love” occurs only 139 times, falling far short of a combined 2600 references to king, wrath, or judge. We all know that these words don’t all apply to God in their immediate contexts, but the point of this is that the general theme in the O.T. is one of how Israel is to fear the awesome God of wrath and judgement – they are relating to a KING.
Maybe God revealed Himself in this way to accentuate His love as revealed in the dispensation of the Son? We all already know that the revelation of Christ’s love ushers in a dispensation of the church’s mission as a response to grace (which is irresistible, by the way). So maybe the portrayal of God as wrath serves to show us just how amazing grace really is. Who knows? One thing we can ALL know for certain: God’s nature changes all the time. Who are YOU to question God? He can do what He wants.
P.S. From now on, if someone is referring to me, please refer to me as “anonymous-s.” I’m getting confused by all this anonymity. Thank-you.
Anonymous SCR,
You never cease to amaze me. You certainly are dogmatic! Here is what perplexes me – I have never witnessed till now pluralism within the strains of Calvinism – a work of art! A touch of Darby here, a dab of Beza, and a little Packer to top it off!
I found this quote interesting:
“One thing we can ALL know for certain: God’s nature changes all the time. Who are YOU to question God? He can do what He wants.”
Are you suggesting that God’s Nature really changes? If we were a church tribunal we would have had ample charges on for outright modalism. Now, you’ve put yourself at the stake claiming that God’s nature changes all the time! Wow.
From your perspective, if God can really do what he wants, then why doesn’t he just make everyone good? And make everyone believe?
Jedimaster Jake
The real problem here is that we are discussing God, who is supernatural (from a human perspective), and we are trying to discuss Him with a natural intelligence.
I am not sure which anaymous I am replying to here, but, when I say that, “God sent His son Jesus out of His Love, not out of His Holiness,” I am not saying that God was not Holy when He sent Jesus.
God sending the Son to die for us was an act of Love. It was out of Love for man that He sent His son. He did not send Jesus Christ to die for us to prove to us that He is Holy. Although, it is because that He “is” Holy that He was able to send His Son.
-Matt
Jake,
Too much Ury, not enough Friedman–I’ll man the trenches you guys man the teaching podiums–that’s just a little jibe for fun.
This is why I haven’t commented on this site!
Hey, I just wanted to write a quick apology. I meant that last blog completely in jest. Ron, my compliments to you and Sean and McGuire on this website-it really is interesting. And I wish every pastor was asking the same questions you are on Father’s Day–it would make for a healthier church. I wish I was sharp enough to comment on this topic–but 1 1/2 years out of seminary and my gears are rusted. Maybe you guys will help sharpen my learning.
To ?,
All this anonymity is confusing. I am the anonymous one who signed off as BFR. The only two people that I am sure responded to my post specifically was Jake and Matt.
First to Matt. From your post I didn’t get the feeling that you believed God was not Holy when He sent his Son. My comment was directed at the fact that you said He is holy and love but you then seemed to seperate the two when it came to the sending of His son. My comment was directed toward an apparent inconistancy in your line of thought, yet you seem to rectify this a bit in your last post.
To Jake – Last night was my first post and I have only been to this blog a couple of times so forgive me if I am missing something, but you lost me when you threw in something about going to a school in Jackson, MS. Out of curiosity I searched for schools in Jackson and found a Millsaps College and a Belhaven College. Have you attended one of these schools? I’m just curious as to why you would make that statement. Yet, in your comment you also seem to imply that someone with an agnostic position could not attend the particular school that you have in mind. Is it not possible for someone to attend a school that has an opposing view to their own for the purpose of grounding themselves futher in their beliefs? Just a thought.
Well fellas, I would love to continue to dialogue, I have a lot more thoughts on the matter, but at this point I am not sure who is addressing who. I will continue to read the posts however and perhaps join in on some other discussions. As I said, last night was my first post and I have really enjoyed this format.
Thank you for your responses and your comments. I look forward to posting again.
BFR
BFR,
Good Chatting. I was assuming that you were someone I knew from Seminary. I suppose it is possible for an agnostic to go to the school I was referring to, but highly unlikely. Now Bellhaven and Milsaps an agnostic could fit right in. Good Dialoguing.
Jake
anonymous-s
alright, here’s the deal… my comment concerning God in the OT not being wrathful was a poor attempt at a quick answer. so forgive me. God is wrathful in the OT…i hope i did not give the impression i think otherwise.
my response (admittedly, more clear in my mind than what was written) was more directly dealing with the idea “God was a God of wrath. Then during the dispensation of the Son He reveals Himself as a God of love.” which at best is easily misconstrued. Exodus 34:6-7 appears to be missing from the discussion (and this is by no means the only occurrence of this description). certainly, He “does not leave the guilty unpunished,” but isn’t He also abounding in love?
you say: “the point of this is that the general theme in the O.T. is one of how Israel is to fear the awesome God of wrath and judgment – they are relating to a KING.” although it is true the Israelites were to fear God, it is definitely not the whole story and i probably wouldn’t say it is the general theme of the Israelite people. is not the “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”? if fear is the general theme, it seems odd to me that Duet. 6:4-9 takes such a prominent place in the life of Israel. though it does have a part, i don’t think they are to love solely based on fear. it seems the Israelites, just as we find in the NT, are to love in response to God’s graciousness delivering them when they didn’t deserve it, and stuff like that…
i know the numbers on how many times terms appear in the Bible. and just to be clear, there’s no debate in my life questioning whether or not God is the King, if He is the Judge of all the world, or if He is a God of wrath against unholiness.
but here’s where i may be confused. i would say God is as wrathful in the OT as He is in the NT. just as i would say is as loving, holy, and gracious in the OT as He is in the NT. we’re not dealing with two different Books, nor are we dealing with a God who changes, and we’re not dealing with two different gods. i am dealing with One Holy Trinity; who yes, has revealed Himself over time, but is the same God yesterday, as He is today, and will be forever.
this may not be any clearer than yesterday. sorry…
-scott|e.
Scott,
I’m glad you’ve joined the discussion. You need not be so concerned over your posts with Anonymous S. I’m sure you’ve noticed he’s a little over the top. You might ask how long he has been a practicing dispensationalist?
Jake
OVER THE TOP??? Look, Jake, just because I am passionate does not make me a quack! Besides, I’ve been reading your comments very closely and you sound more like a Pelagian nutcase than you do an Armenian nutcase.
Anonymous,
I’m just not prepared to separate myself from my tried and true dispensational theology. Besides, I’m not sure that the texts you quoted are even reliable. I think that there is some serious lack of internal or external support that they were even in the original documents. Therefore, I’m not sure than any of us can conclusively say anything other than that God’s nature changed dramatically from wrath to love to mission (just like Darby said). The “persons” of the Trinity are really God putting on various “masks” and making different appearances throughout salvation history. Think of water and it’s various “states.” I guess in the end I’m just a dispensational purist.
Good chatting with you Scott. Feel free to have the last word, but remember, God can do what He wants.
i don’t guess i need a last word after that post. what in the world are you talking about?
-scott|e.
Let me help Scottie out here for a minute. God action of wrath flows out of His holiness. He doesn’t sin in His wrath. It is a righteous wrath. When God acts out in wrath, it is because His children need punished for their sin. God then disciplines His children because He loves them (Hebrews 12:9-13). Don’t miss this…especially you, Anonymous-S.
ron,
my question “what in the world are you talking about?” wasn’t because i was missing anything in the discussion…but arose from a helpless state, with half of me wanting to laugh and the other half wanting to cry.
simply, i don’t take my theological cues from water rather than the Biblical text. with that said, i do enjoy to drink to water, but i am not going to allow the simplicity of the analogy to guide my theology, especially when it goes against Biblical Revelation.
so, when the reliability of the text is questioned and then a person, at his own discretion, disregards seventeen centuries of what the Church has said and agreed on concerning God as three persons, what exactly are you supposed to say in response…
it would seem to me a few other subjects need to be discussed before responding anonymous-s. i just didn’t want to seem too negative…i guess.
ron…i’m with you. it would also seem to me that Isaiah would be another place to go to understand the cause and purpose of God’s judgment.
scott|e.
To all,
I guess I have been a little arrogant on this site. I’m sorry for calling Jake a nutcase. I’m sorry for insulting almost two millennia of church history. I’m sorry for coming across as “over the top.” I’m sorry for being born. I guess then that this is the end. Goodbye cruel world….
Just kidding.
So let me get this straight. None of you guys think that God’s nature has changed? And something else, you guys claim to be Wesleyan. Wasn’t Wesley’s theologian Fletcher a dispensationalist? Doesn’t dispensational theology teach that God’s nature changes? Maybe you guys just really aren’t true Wesleyans. I think John W. would be extremely disappointed with you ALL.
Anonymous SCR,
You’ve gone soft on us. Wesleyan or not, it is still heretical to claim that God’s nature changes. He is the same yesterday, today and forever.
As for one of early methodisms church fathers, Jonathon fletcher dispenstationalism was quite different than Darby’s. First off, it was not deterministic. Secondly, it was not modalistic. It did claim that God at different times revealed himself in three different dispensations: Father, Son and Spirit.
However, all three existed since the beginning. In addition, all three were and are active throughout each dispensation. It just outlines an age in which a particular dispensation is dominant.
One last thing, even though Fletcher’s dispensationalism is not herectical, is not one strictly adhered to by methodism.
Hey, anonymous-s, why don’t wear the hat of a liberal protestant next.
Thanks,
Jake
Jake,
Thanks for clearing up the Fletcher thing for me. I must say that I am somewhat disappointed that he’s not a true dispensationalist.
Now, on to another point. Are you saying that the three “persons” of the Trinity are different? How then is God ONE? And as for quoting, “He is the same yesterday, today and forever,” doesn’t that just refer to Jesus? I am getting confused.
This will be my last post on here. That’s a good idea, maybe I should embrace liberal protestantism. I’m a conservative evangelical, but I’m starting to think my worldview is wrong. For example, maybe I should stop supporting abortion. Maybe I should start believing that Scripture is inspired. Maybe I should start believing that justification is by faith alone. I don’t know, these things just run counter to my traditional conservative evangelical background.
Thanks for talking with me. I’ll keep an eye out for any further comments directed towards me.
-Alone and confused-s
Just as a note, I was backing your well articulated comments, Scott. If I were you, I wouldn’t take anything from the ex-anonymous-s, now “confused-s”. Maybe I should have asked the question of whether God is first three and discuss how the three are one, or is God one with a discussion of how the one God is three. Poor confused-s, I don’t know how you have time to comment so much between all of the pro-abortion and homosexual rallies. I’m sorry, I’m being presumptuous. I can’t quite nail down your views. Define for us your view of God as “holy” and God as “love”. Maybe I have missed something in my original article.
To Ron & Jake (and anyone else),
As I have been sitting back and just reading the posts the last few days, I couldn’t help but be amused by the fact that all of you have proven my point. Here all of you are assuming that you can know God and yet not only can you not agree on whether He is holy or love, but you cannot even agree on how God has revealed Himself and worked throughout history. Which brings me back to my point – how is it that we can even know God? You say that God has revealed Himself to us, and done so to the extent that none are without excuse. If this was the case though, then why is there such a stark disagreement here between several of you and anonymous-s? If we can truly know God and if He has revealed Himself to the extent that you say He has, then would He not reveal Himself the same way to all of us? Why would He reveal Himself in different ways to different people? Why would He confuse people in such a manner? Or would you esteem that if someone has come to a different understanding of God than you have that they have not truly recieved God’s revealation? Why is it that you insist on declaring that your understanding of God is the only one?
Once again, your lack of being able to agree just proves my point that God is a mystery to be accepted and believed as such, not a subject to be figured out by minds that are not capable of entertaining an infinite God.
Still accepting the mystery of God,
BFR
bfr,
I wrote this article because I knew that it would be somewhat controversal, and I’m glad that you agree. Yes, God is a mystery, yet He has made Himself known…to a point. Jake has also made a good point when he accused me of thinking like a Westerner. The article was purposely written from a western point of view. Jake knows that I study and love Eastern Orthodoxy. Your point is well taken and sounds similar to Eastern Orthodoxy(i.e. “mystery”).
I exegeted two seperate passages that seem to parrallel one another (look carefully at the original article again). One focuses on God’s holiness. Obviously that group of people needed that specific message. The other focused on love, and again that group of people obviously needed that specific message, so is God’s essence holy or love? It is both. The Eastern Orthodox would never, as Jake the Great pointed out, talk about one essence of God without talking about the opposite. They hold to paradoxes, for instance: God’s transcendence and His immanence, or His essence and His energies, etc. This, bfr, is a mystery! He encapsulates all of these paradoxes and much more. I find this to be one of the most beautiful attributes of God. I brought up the paradox of holy and love, because they seem to be the simplist essence of who God is, for instance, someone brought up God’s wrath in the OT. Why was God wrathfull in the OT? Because He is Holy. At times He relented from His wrath out of His love, or He restored His people later out of His love. This is a mystery. How can we truly understand all of this? How can we stand before this holy God? By His grace…because He loves us. He demostrated His love for us by sending His Son into our world to live and tell a great message of how we might be in relationship with such a holy God. This act of the incarnation is love. It didn’t stop there. He loved us to the point of death. That is love. It didn’t stop there. The mystery of the resurrection showed us His power over death. It didn’t stop there. He now sits in heaven interceding for you and me. It didn’t stop there. He sent the Holy Spirit to council, guide, empower, encourage, and lead His Church so that they may save souls from eternal hell. It didn’t stop there. He is making a place for believers to dwell in His very presence for eternity.
What a mystery! What a holy God! What a loving God!
BFR,
I wouldn’t use Anonymous-S as an example that no one can agree. If you really think about it, all Anonymous-S has done is cause everyone else to not only solidify their own position, but to come together in unity. Ron’s initial question was meant to provoke thought, and I think that Anonymous-S was (is?) interested in the same thing. What emerged has been a very good dialogue.
If you notice Anonymous-S’ beliefs you will see that he/she is not even right in his/her dispensationalism. No good dispensationalist would suggest that God’s nature has changed, nor would they label dispensations as “wrath,” “love,” and “mission.” I think Jake was right when he labeled this theology as a rare hybrid of many different persuasions. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that, in the end, the true motives of Anonymous-S were to stimulate discussion and force others involved to rethink and articulate what it is that they truly believe. It wouldn’t be the first time anybody has done that on this site. But then again, I could be wrong about all this.
I agree that ultimately God cannot be “known” absolutely. But He has revealed Himself to us. I’m not saying that we subject our theology to our own independent and subjective experiences of His revelation — as though He reveals Himself to me as “_____” but He reveals Himself to you as “_____”. I think Scripture forbids that. The time for special revelation ceased in the first century. That does not mean that we cannot know Him personally in a unique relationship. My relationship with my father is far different than his co-worker’s, but that does not mean that a.) he is two different people, or b.) we cannot really know who he is.
I think in the end we need to discuss and articulate who God is. For too long in the West we have focused primarily on what God does at the expense of who He is. This dialogue is healthy, even though we may not arrive at a perfect understanding of His being. We can at least know what He has already revealed, and I think that is what we are trying to discuss here. Were the early Fathers in the first four centuries of the church wrong to think about and try to articulate who God is? Thank God for all of us that they did not leave Him simply to mystery.
With all that said, we should all be careful not to presume to know God absolutely. That would be putting Him into a “box.” But I for one want to know Him as He really is. I don’t want to pretend I know Him more than I can possible know Him, but I also don’t want to miss out on who He is because I have left Him completely to mystery.
BFR,
As always, I enjoy reading your astute comments and receiving your sarcasm.
Now, here is the problem, with all of this anonymity I don’t know how serious take your comments. Either you truly are an agnostic individual or an acquaintance of ours playing the “Devil’s advocate.” Either way, it is still very entertaining, and it does lead to lively discussion.
So, in regard to “proving your point,” if you throw out Anonymous –S’s comments, all on this blog are pretty much in agreement. In addition, if you survey all of Christendom, you quickly discover that all agree on what are deemed primary doctrines concerning the Godhead, divinity of Christ, nature of salvation, and of so on; where denominations do differ is on what we characterize as secondary doctrines, such as the mode for baptism, or what kind of bread to use for the Lord’s Supper. Our inability to agree on the “nonessentials” does not prove that we cannot “know” God.
Ultimately, I can’t prove to you that you can know God or even God exists! I can plead my case about the intelligent design of Creation. I can talk about how general revelation points to God! I can talk about the special revelation we have in Jesus Christ. I can use a very western argument and give you factual data that supports that Jesus Christ walked on the earth, suffered and died. However, I cannot prove to you that He was raised from the dead! Ultimately, it becomes a matter of faith.
But, to continue the argument, if we acknowledge that Jesus was a historical figure, we must ask, who was Christ (ontological speaking)? Here I will simply quote CS Lewis’s argument, because he states it so eloquently (CS Lewis you will recall spent time as an Atheist and Agnostic before coming to faith in Christ):
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else He would be the devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
In regard to special revelation, in John 17, “Jesus has made the father known.” As Paul states it, “Jesus is the image of the invisible God.” According to Scripture, we can know the Living God through Jesus Christ. In agreement with Sean, “we should all be careful not to presume to know God absolutely.” However, He has revealed enough of Himself through revelation that we can be in a relationship with Him.
I am done for now, as you implied – I should be doing something else.
Question – if you find what we are doing so silly, trite or even moot – why do you continue to spend so much time logged on reading?
In Christ,
Jake
PS – When will you reveal yourself? There is great security and power in mystery!
Hey fellows! Did you miss me? Sorry I did not post yesterday, I was too busy to respond to your lengthy responses. Now, forgive me if I do not address all of the points that you all raised, but then again, none of you answered all of my questions either.
First, let me say that it would seem that we are at a bit of an impasse. But let me take a little different approach at this subject. In your latest responses you basically say that God is a knowable mystery. Now, let those last two words go through your mind a couple of times – knowable mystery. Knowable mystery?! Don’t the rules of logic say that something is either a or b but not both at the same time? A knowable mystery does not make any logical sense. If God is a knowable mystery, then does that make Him an illogical God?
Ron,
It appears that you are a good judge of what could be considered controversial. At first I was baffled by your admiration of eastern theologians, after all, we are westerners and they are easterners – what could they possibly have to offer to us? However, since you said I sounded like one then I am beginning to think that maybe they are not so bad after all.
Jake,
In regards to my anonymity – I have keep it this way because I do not want to be dismissed outright without being heard. Since it appears that you have a great deal of education, let me ask you if you knew of people who as soon as they said something in class or in the hallway was automatically dismissed because they are viewed a mere simpleton who had nothing of any significance to contribute to any “intelligent” conversation? Welcome to my world. I have remained anonymous for the expressed purpose of being taken seriously. Since you don’t know who I am, then you are left with two choices – dismiss me or take me seriously.
As to why I keep coming back – I will be completely honest with you, when I read the passion given in posts like Ron’s last one, I can’t help but coming back and reading more.
BFR
bfr,
EXACTLY! God is “knowable-mystery”! This does not mean He is illogical, rather it means that His logic is a mystery: “Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” (I Cor. 1:20, 25) Therefore, God is a God who is outside of this world, but in His desire to be in relationship with us, He is hospitable by opening up Himself to be known, but even then we obviously can’t comprehend all of who He is. He is “knowable-mystery”.
BFR,
Keep reading and commenting, we are glad you are commenting.
Something you must remember, rules of logic do not apply with God. He is beyond logic. There is nothing logical about the Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ, the resurrection or really any of it. You yourself said, “we are finite, and God is ininite.”
All that we can know about God, is what he has revealed to us through His General and Special Revelation.
The Scriptures are a form of God’s special (written) revelation and John’s gives a little insight into the purpose behind the scriptures, “Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
Ultimately, what has been written concerning God is for persuading us to believe.
Anyhow, I think I’m going to move onto a new topic. Look forward to continual dialogue. I believe some new interesting topics have been posted.
Jake
Jake,
I’m just wondering…why you want to move onto another topic? Have you exhausted God’s holy-love?
Ron,
I wasn’t aware that we really got to actually disgussing that! Perhaps we should make a new post on HOLY LOVE.
Jake
Maybe Jake can utilize his mad theology skills and write us up a treatise on holy love??? Jake, what say you?
Yeah, Jake, what do you think about a treatise to holy-love?
Hey,
Thanks for the great dialogue. Actually, since there was little discussion on “holy-love” I would enjoy reading what your thoughts are on this matter.
BFR
bfr,
Has your questions been answered?
Sean,Thank you for all the enlightning
dialogue. The only complaint I have to
register is concerning the pictures
you have posted.The gentleman with the
horns and “thinning” hair is he really
a shaper of young minds?Curious in MS.
We hope to retool you like we did him!
3
3,
If the Ron Adkins I know now is a product of your supposed “retooling,” I am in for a very long two years in MS. But with that said, I’m sorry about the pictures. The only two that I had to choose from were the one with the horns or a close-up of his balding scalp. I can change it if you wish, but then again, I don’t think I want to….
Ron,
Thank you very much for asking me. To be honest that was the last thing I expected to recieve. Unfortunately, it seems that I have ruffled a few feathers so I think that it would be best if I let things cool off a bit.
I will continue to read the discusstions and I look forward to posting in the future. Once again, thank you for asking.
BFR
P.S. How about that genuine love-holy discussion – is it not going to happen?
bfr,
It seems like you and me are the only ones dialogueing on the topic at hand. My original hope was that someone like yourself would come along and challenge myself and others, in hopes that through each others scripture reading, traditions, experiences, and reasoning we might find ourselves a little closer to the truth (thus, the name “truth dialogue”).
It appears that we christians throw words around without really comprehending the deeper meaning. I attended a Greek Orthodox Cathedral last January, and like their theology, the whole service was centered around the incarnation, and atonement of Jesus Christ. It was refreshing. In most evangelical-Prostestant church these topics are not talked about because they are too simple. The Orthodox church talks about the sacrifice of Jesus Christ every Sunday. They are in awe of the fact that God sent His only Son to earth to live among us and then die for our sins…all for the reason that we might be in relationship with Him! They realize that we in ourselves are not holy. God will not relate to anyone who is unholy. Jesus Christ came to make this possible, but He didn’t just do something for us, but He actually can do something in us. This is where the Wesleyans and the Orthodox align very closely. So, we have discussed what some people believe ought not to be a moot point. Why? Because “we all know that stuff, of course God is holy and God is love and it doesn’t matter which is primary.” I say, “Aren’t we to be like our Father?” “Should we strive to know more of who He is?” “He will reveal more of who He is as we desire to know more.” I find this true throughout the Old Testament and the New Testament.
I will consider to delve a litte deeper into another article that will address the same issue,…even if it is only you and I in serious dialogue.
Regarding Holy Love,
I want to know if anyone on this Blog wants to buy a popup trailer. Its been stored in shed for three years. Was used as saw horse temporarily, but is in good shape. Will trade for good fishing boat or $1000.
SWU,
Will you trade for a double wide with axles. The A/C runs cool, and it has beautiful paneling throughout. Ask for pics…
Hey Ron,
I heard about this blog and I decided I needed to come and check it out. I’m not sure which is better, the “serious” dialogue or the classified section.
All I know is that I hope Ury doesn’t read any of this section on Holy-Love. I can’t beleive that none of you Wesley grads have discussed the relation of God’s triune and eternal existence as a community to this discussion. I guess thats what happens when you go back to yankee land though.
Also, whats the deal with this Sean guy? It looks like 90% of the articles and posts are from him. Does this guy have a job? Your not sending us a desk jockey are you?
Well, anyway, great site. I’ll be in touch.
Texas Redneck
TG (aka: Texas Redneck),
How are you? I’m glad to see that you have entered the arena of truth dialogue. I want everyone to know from this point on the “Calvery” is here to save this blog article. Please, Texas Redneck, give us a treatise on God as holy-love. And, again welcome to the blog site! Write, my friend, write!
Dear Prof.Adkins, Texas Redneck has been
posting but you folks haven’t figured out
his alias yet! 3
To all,
Thank-you for your comments. This will be the last one for this topic. I hope for us all to see a serious treatment of the concept of God’s triune nature as holy love.
Thanks again.