God is love

[Iconoclast]

JonC

I’m not sure that those passages indicate that the “image of God” in fallen man is no longer present (your first verse seems to state otherwise); but I do agree that man is fallen. This is actually off topic (and I took it there, sorry) – unless you are stating that fallen man is not created in the image of God.

I offered the james verse.It shows man is created and designed to be an Image bearer.The cursing James mentions should not be in a renewed image bearer.
The image of God is in fallen man.....yet it has not escaped the noetic effects of the fall. Like a broken mirror...we still can reflect bits and pieces of God's image....the law[decalog] being inborn in all men everywhere.

The elect are progressively being conformed to the image of Jesus[rom 8:29-30].....The last Adam.1 cor 15
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

remember...after the fall...men were made after Adam's fallen image

5 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth

Do you see this?

That is why the decalog all ten commandments are put in the new heart of the Christian.
I see the love of God spoken of in reference to this in romans 13
8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

If man is created in the image of God, and is a creation of God, then God’s love would still have man as its object due to something distinctly human – i.e., God’s own image and his unique creation. This would mean that God “choosing to love” based on no quality of man as a mere expression of God’s own self may not accurately describe the love of God.

If man is.....then God’s love would .....due to something ......This would mean that God.......based on......may not accurately describe ...

JonC.....I do not do so well with this kind of musing.....it looks like a house of cards to me...one thing dependent on another....if one or two things are not correct...it falls apart.....

I see no one in scripture doing this, and have seen those who reason along this line come to several wrong conclusions. I cannot offer much on this...I know a seminary professor who does...I will see if I can get an article for you to consider...I let him know I am not comfortable with it however

 

[JonC]

Thanks. I guess the idea is to find one or two things that are incorrect so that it does fall apart. It does appear to be musing - and since it is me working through my understanding, perhaps it to a great degree musing - I am not the most articulate. Perhaps it is better to study this topic without the input of others for now. I didn’t post it here for debate, but rather to learn from others that have considered the meaning of the “love of God.”



We could say that fallen man is no longer “in the image of God,” but in the image of Adam (this may be a stretch, however, since “that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural” applies to Adam). It also seems contradicts Genesis 9:6. We could also say that man is created in the image of God yet bears the image of Adam (natural vs. spiritual). But total depravity is not really my question – I do believe that there is nothing in man that would merit righteousness, and that man is completely unwilling to turn towards God – I have a distinctively Calvinistic understanding of depravity.



My question is how we define the “love of God”? Is it Nygren’s view of agape, or does this view prevent God from loving as Paul defines love (it obviously does in many ways)- is Paul's definition restricted solely to "human love"?

 

[Iconoclast]

Thanks. I guess the idea is to find one or two things that are incorrect so that it does fall apart. It does appear to be musing - and since it is me working through my understanding, perhaps it to a great degree musing - I am not the most articulate. Perhaps it is better to study this topic without the input of others for now. I didn’t post it here for debate, but rather to learn from others that have considered the meaning of the “love of God.”



We could say that fallen man is no longer “in the image of God,” but in the image of Adam (this may be a stretch, however, since “that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural” applies to Adam). It also seems contradicts Genesis 9:6. We could also say that man is created in the image of God yet bears the image of Adam (natural vs. spiritual). But total depravity is not really my question – I do believe that there is nothing in man that would merit righteousness, and that man is completely unwilling to turn towards God – I have a distinctively Calvinistic understanding of depravity.



My question is how we define the “love of God”? Is it Nygren’s view of agape, or does this view prevent God from loving as Paul defines love (it obviously does in many ways)- is Paul's definition restricted solely to "human love"?

No...I am not being clear enough...man is still made in the image of God...but the fall damaged the image so much that it takes regeneration to begin to restore us from bearing the fallen image, to the perfect image which is the lord Jesus Christ.

Others might be able to help you more...i was not trying to discourage your study....I am just very limited when it comes to this....as i have not seen as much fruit with it.

I have some things to do...but I will try and track down the article I mentioned for you.

 

[JonC]

Thank you. I'm also going to check out some articles when I get time. I can't access journal articles from here. So, don't put yourself out, but if you do run across anything let me know.

For much of my life I never bothered to try and define God's love - but it is such a central part of Christianity I simply decided to examine the topic.

Thanks again.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I've been reading "The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God" by D.A. Carson. You might find it helpful in your study.

Sorry that's all I can contribute to the discussion at the moment.

 

[JonC]

I've been reading "The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God" by D.A. Carson. You might find it helpful in your study.

Sorry that's all I can contribute to the discussion at the moment.

Thanks. I like Carson and the title - I was starting to think I was the only one who found the topic difficult I will have to order it this weekend.

 

[Yeshua1]

Thank you for your comments and sharing your understanding.



I agree that God did not and does not need or require anything outside himself to be complete.

I am not certain that I agree with your statement that mankind is not “worth” loving (or that one individual is not worth loving). From a human standpoint, man is created in the image of God and therefore – perhaps – of some worth (if nothing else, simply because God created man). I think that this may also apply to the love of God. Not that we are “worthy” of God’s love, but that God loves us as our Creator and a creation that bears the stamp of his image. If I were to continue this line of thought, then it is because of this love that God sent his son to redeem us. I don’t know that taking depravity to mean that man is worthless in all regard is a biblical stance (again, Scripture seems to indicate that this is not the case: the example of murder previously mentioned, that we are to love others as Christ loves us, etc). I do agree that our righteousness is worthless.



I believe that God does not need external sources in any way, manner or form. That is not what I am asking. What I am saying is that if God desires our love then this is a form of “need love” as opposed to “gift love.” It does not mean that God actually needs our love for fulfillment or any other reason. It does mean that God desires the love of those whom he created.
If God loves man, who is worthless and void of any type of “good,” because that is what he chooses to do – does this not void the doctrine of creation and redemption - our understanding of the fall and restoration of that relationship which was broken?

Maybe the starting point for me should be determining whether or not the image of God in man, even fallen man, is of any value in terms of love (not righteousness). Genesis 9:6 and James 3:9 seem to indicate that man retains the description of being made in God’s image. So I am not quick to dismiss Erickson’s conclusion (in my first post).

My take on humans not being account worthy of the Love of God that nailed Jesus to the Cross is to direct us to see that its Gods Love at the Cross for sinners who deserved none of that!

trying to get us away from thinking that God sent jesus to die due to us having worth, that He saw us as deserving that, or that he had to doit in order to have love expressed

IF God had chosen to do nothing towards mankind, and gave us whatwe all deserved, would He not still be a God of Love?

For God did not need to make us to fulfill or complete Himself, but as objects of His love while never deserving it, that is Agape love!

 

[JonC]

My take on humans not being account worthy of the Love of God that nailed Jesus to the Cross is to direct us to see that its Gods Love at the Cross for sinners who deserved none of that!

trying to get us away from thinking that God sent jesus to die due to us having worth, that He saw us as deserving that, or that he had to doit in order to have love expressed

IF God had chosen to do nothing towards mankind, and gave us whatwe all deserved, would He not still be a God of Love?

For God did not need to make us to fulfill or complete Himself, but as objects of His love while never deserving it, that is Agape love!

Christ is the best example of God’s love. God loved us, even while we were sinners, and died for us. Even if we could merit righteousness by our own acts (which we couldn’t) we could never think that God died for us because of our worth. You are right, we always need to keep this in mind – we are not needed to make God complete.

I will note that agape does not always refer to a special gift love or divine love. Before it was used in the NT it had been used in the Septuagint to refer to the love of God. Before it was used in the Septuagint it had already existed in secular Greek to refer to making a choice for the good of another (not a compelled type of love). For example in 1 Jn 2:15-16 we are told not to love the world or anything in the world. Here agape is not defined as a type of love separated from human love (although we often do view agape as divine love).

But what I question here is if God does love, as Nygren’s (and Pink) would suggest, without really loving us.

 

[Yeshua1]

Christ is the best example of God’s love. God loved us, even while we were sinners, and died for us. Even if we could merit righteousness by our own acts (which we couldn’t) we could never think that God died for us because of our worth. You are right, we always need to keep this in mind – we are not needed to make God complete.

I will note that agape does not always refer to a special gift love or divine love. Before it was used in the NT it had been used in the Septuagint to refer to the love of God. Before it was used in the Septuagint it had already existed in secular Greek to refer to making a choice for the good of another (not a compelled type of love). For example in 1 Jn 2:15-16 we are told not to love the world or anything in the world. Here agape is not defined as a type of love separated from human love (although we often do view agape as divine love).

But what I question here is if God does love, as Nygren’s (and Pink) would suggest, without really loving us.

Does He love all persons equally, or does he just Love His Covenant peoples?

 

[JonC]

Does He love all persons equally, or does he just Love His Covenant peoples?

That’s a good question.

Here are my thoughts: In the OT, God’s love is shown as being focuses especially on the patriarchs and then Israel. But the Bible also gives clear indications that God’s love extended beyond Israel. I believe that God’s act of creation substantiates that He loves all. His love is not inconsistent with his judgment, so I do believe that God loves the world, all men, even though the world is condemned.

God’s love has in it both particularism and universalism. He has a particular love for his people. I don’t know that I would say he loves some more than others, but certainly he loves those he claims as his own in a more particular manner.

 

[JonC]

I've been reading "The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God" by D.A. Carson. You might find it helpful in your study.

Sorry that's all I can contribute to the discussion at the moment.

I have started this book - thank you for suggesting it. This is extremely helpful.