Introducing Christian Doctrine by Millard Erickson

[TCGreek]

1. On the Incarnation Erickson says, "In thinking about the incarnation, we must begin not with the traditional conceptions of humanity and deity, but with the recognition that the two are most hully known in Jesus Christ" (CTse, p. 752).

2. Paul would agree with Erickson: "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form" (Col 2:9, NASU).

 

[tinytim]

In Dr. Larry Crabb's Understanding People, he lists Emotions as part of the image of God---I concur.

I also am going to come down on the side that God has emotions... maybe not as flighty as ours.. but he has them...

Simply because I believe Jesus did... And since:

Joh 14:8-9 KJV
(8) Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
(9) Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?

 

[TCGreek]

I also am going to come down on the side that God has emotions... maybe not as flighty as ours.. but he has them...

Simply because I believe Jesus did... And since:

Joh 14:8-9 KJV
(8) Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
(9) Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?

That's a good text, Tim.

John 1:18 would be good too: "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him" (NASU, italics mine).

 

[tinytim]

This is from a sermon a couple weeks ago...

According to the New Testament, Jesus is the perfect image of God.. He is God. ​

John 10:30 I and [my] Father are one.
•Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

•Col 2:8-9
•(8) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
•(9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

 

[John of Japan]

Concerning human emotions and God's emotions, consider the fleshly element. Current research connects emotions with chemical elements in our physical bodies. God the Father and Spirit (so very obviously) do not have a physical nature, so their emotions will have no tint of fleshly element (again so very obviously). And of course Jesus, in the hypostatic union, is perfect Man as well as God, and so would not have sinful fleshly emotions, though as tinytim rightly pointed out He had on earth perfectly normal human emotions.

I am currently teaching the Bible once a week to a young Christian going through chemo. Every time I see him his first words are, "Oh, I've been so afraid, so afraid." He tells me that the doctor says this emotion is a chemical result of the chemo. By the time we get into the Word of God for awhile his fear goes away and he livens up. And also, he reads the Bible himself 5 pages a day on his own, and he says that also helps him overcome the wrong emotions.

Now I am not saying that we can blame our bodies for sinful emotions. In counseling I never allow that. I'm just saying that element is there. "Walk in the spirit and ye shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh," amen? Theology always, always should have practical Christian life application.

 

[skypair]

We can imitate that love by loving our neighbors as we love ourselves.... yet we will always fail to do so in a perfect manner such as God.

But this should show us that God's love is not just for His chosen, right?

You are right that we are to love our neighbors -- now who does that mean that God loves? EVERYONE! With what purpose? So we can borrow a cup of sugar? No. What is the biblical purpose for which we imitate God and love our neighbors? To bring them into the knowledge of the Truth, right?

God loves us all. Rom 2:4 says "Or despisest thou the riches of His and forebearance and longsuffering ... the goodness [I would like to say 'love' here] of God leadeth thee to repentance."

skypair

 

[skypair]

I agree. God does not have emotions as we know emotions to be. Emotions means you must learn something. God knows all things.

I believe love is a "truth" regarding "The Truth," God. I believe that in the Father resides the unemotional aspect of it --- seeking the best for others, most of whom do not, will not, get emotional over it nor respond.

I believe, if we could disect that trinity (which we can't), that the emotional part of love is "Embodied" in and communicated through the Holy Spirit of God and Christ.

But it is just like my paradigm suggests -- we receive the Word. We do not receive the larger "All Truth" that is God. There is a purpose for this "impersonal" love and, for our part, when we reflect it then we seek to return God's best from every aspect of ourselves.

skypair

 

[tinytim]

JoJ, and Sky, you both bring up a very important point...

Theology must be practical...
If we fail to use what we are learning, we will be like an old, dirty, stinking sponge...

We will sit here, soak up all the knowledge, but it will sour, and we will begin to stink... but if we use the knowledge that God gives us, it will be OK..

Sky, you bring up a very important aspect when discussing the love of God.
And this is one reason for even having this thread. I wanted to demonstrate to the other students that are looking on, how theologians (or at least theologian wannabes.. me!) discuss the different aspects of theology.

Now we need to do this without getting emotional, (pun intended) and we can just lay out what we believe and why we believe it. Let's not try to convince each other that they are wrong.. let's just lay it out.

So, here we go:
Looking at the attributes of Love, Mercy and Grace are they for everyone or just the chosen?
If they are just for the chosen, does that mean the unchosen have a skewed view of God since they don't get to see all his attributes?

I, not being Calvinistic, believe that Love, Mercy and Grace are extended from God, but if we don't receive them, they are useless to us.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

I've been following this thread all along. I have to say for pure discussion, civility, and content, this has to be one of the top 10 threads of all time on the BB.:thumbs:

 

[tinytim]

And this is just the beginning....
This Thursday starts "The Work of God"

Next Thursday will begin "Humanity"
then "Sin"
then "The Person and Work of Christ"
Then "The Holy Spirit"
then "Salvation"
Then "The Church"
Then "The Last things- Eschatology"

We will have over 10 more weeks of good stuff...
So Stay tuned for more good things comin at ya!

 

[reformedbeliever]

JoJ, and Sky, you both bring up a very important point...

Theology must be practical...
If we fail to use what we are learning, we will be like an old, dirty, stinking sponge...

We will sit here, soak up all the knowledge, but it will sour, and we will begin to stink... but if we use the knowledge that God gives us, it will be OK..

Sky, you bring up a very important aspect when discussing the love of God.
And this is one reason for even having this thread. I wanted to demonstrate to the other students that are looking on, how theologians (or at least theologian wannabes.. me!) discuss the different aspects of theology.

Now we need to do this without getting emotional, (pun intended) and we can just lay out what we believe and why we believe it. Let's not try to convince each other that they are wrong.. let's just lay it out.

So, here we go:
Looking at the attributes of Love, Mercy and Grace are they for everyone or just the chosen?
If they are just for the chosen, does that mean the unchosen have a skewed view of God since they don't get to see all his attributes?

I, not being Calvinistic, believe that Love, Mercy and Grace are extended from God, but if we don't receive them, they are useless to us.

I believe that God loves, has mercy, and extends grace to everyone in a common way. He causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
I do believe He has entered into a relationship with those whom He foreloved, which will be a saving relationship. This does not mean that there are people out there that want to have an intimate relationship with God, but can't. There is no such thing as a non elect person just begging to be saved. Whosover shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

 

[Allan]

Looking at the attributes of Love, Mercy and Grace are they for everyone or just the chosen?
If they are just for the chosen, does that mean the unchosen have a skewed view of God since they don't get to see all his attributes?

I, not being Calvinistic, believe that Love, Mercy and Grace are extended from God, but if we don't receive them, they are useless to us.

As I have stated earlier, I think that 'Love' is one of those attributes we ascribe to the essense of God or absolute Attribute of God. However those things which flow from the absolute attribute (ie. mercy and grace) are Reletive attributes of that essense. Yes, in truth they are all attributes of God, but for the sake of distinction between Absolute and Reletive attributes with regard to Theology I keep that distinction.
Ex. Scripture states that God is Love, but it does not state that God is mercy or grace. Therefore Love is the essense of God while mercy and grace are attributes of His divine essense or nature. (with respect to the absolute and relitive distinctions)

There are a few to some, who hold that God only has one kind of Love and that is His convenent love. However, this is not a view we see from the scriptures.

God's love, as His other attributes we must first understand is beyond our full ability to grasp, yet God has revealed it to us with some depth.

I will try to keep it short and if further clarifications are needed I will expound.
We definitively know about God's covenant love for His people, that is indisputable (or at least should be). But is that the extent of God ability to love.
I believe there are distinctions of Gods love just as there is with man.

We were made in Gods image and therefore made with the compacity to love.
Now we to have a 'type' of convential Love that we ascribe as 'marriage'.
1. We are commanded (as men) to LOVE our wives as ourselves.

2. We are also commanded to LOVE the brethren. Even to prefer them above all others - world.

3. However scripture also states that we are to LOVE our neighbors (nonbrethren).

4. Yet, God does not stop there but even commands us to LOVE our enemies.

Are we to love them all with the same LOVE we give to our wives? (I HOPE NOT raying: ). :laugh:

So if we are not to LOVE in each of the above in the same specific manner as that with and of our wives, does that mean that all other love given in not true or genuine love? Of course not!

What we see is distinctions of the aspect Love but it is still genuinely love.

NOW, with the above in mind that these are all commands of Gods to be fulfilled that we might walk in righteousness and Holiness. We are the physical representation of God (when we do these things) as Christ was at all times. Remember the scripture 'Be ye Holy as I am Holy" God has revealed to man to be in the likeness of Himself. In fact we were predestined to be conformed to the image of His dear Son, who is not only like the Father but also IS the Father in oneness. Therefore when God commands us to LOVE our enemies it is because God Himself loves even His enemies. Is not the wicked, rebellious, stubborn, and hardhearted enemies of God by their very fact they are these things? And if God ONLY loves His children (as in there is only one type or aspect of Gods love) then He should take great pleasure in dealing justice and death to the ungodly who are not His children.

But the scripture states that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and that He continuously stretches out His arms to a disobedient and gainsaying people, commanding all men everywhere to repent, these are among a multitude of others. God does not ask us to do something He Himself is not already doing. We are His workmanship made (to be made) in likeness of Him.

The next part:
God commands we are to LOVE our wives:

Col 3:19Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them

And yet Jesus said this:

Luk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

So does the bible contradict itself? God forbid! No it does not.
What we see in the passages above is a disinction of love that when contrasted one love to another they appear as polar opposites. It is seen as preferential Love of one 'over and above' the other in such a distinquishing way that the only proper rendering of the preference is love and hate (loving less than) .

So we do not geniunely Love God but disinginuinely or love dishonestly our wives but our Love for God is to be far more exceedingly greater than that of EVEN our wives whom we are to love and give ourselves for just like Christ did for us. Therefore when God states "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated" we can know it is refering to the same manner as already seen for a couple of reasons.
Now I know some don't agree here but that is Ok, I am merely setting forth my point:
1. Scripture states that neither had done any good or evil
...1a. God does not hate without Just cause
...1b. Scripture states that God hates (loathes, detests) the 'wicked' and those who pursue it. Neither of these two had done anything, so from whence or by what Justice does God hate Esau yet (as in detest and loathe)? Therefore if God does not yet hate Esau for any evil, then this must be something OTHER THAN to specifically detest or loathe.

2. This is dealing not with whom God is angry, but chosing or prefering one over another. (regardless of if you hold Rom 9 to Election of salvation or to purpose)

There are more but this should suffice for now. Also, add to that Thayers Lexicon (1889) states with reference to the word "meneo" - "Not a few interpretors have attributed the significance to "love less, postpone in love, or esteem to slight" (though there are a couple of passages listed to these definitions, this is shown with specific regard to the the passages of Luk and Rom mentioned above).

So God does love His creation, and even extends in common form that love to all, but God also has a specific or covenential love that supercedes or prefers above all others to whom He has chosen to ascribe it.

See, I told you it would be short :laugh:

 

[Allan]

I believe that God loves, has mercy, and extends grace to everyone in a common way. He causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
I do believe He has entered into a relationship with those whom He foreloved, which will be a saving relationship. This does not mean that there are people out there that want to have an intimate relationship with God, but can't. There is no such thing as a non elect person just begging to be saved. Whosover shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

WOW, so much shorter

 

[skypair]

And this is just the beginning....
This Thursday starts "The Work of God"

Next Thursday will begin "Humanity"
then "Sin"
then "The Person and Work of Christ"
Then "The Holy Spirit"
then "Salvation"
Then "The Church"
Then "The Last things- Eschatology"

We will have over 10 more weeks of good stuff...
So Stay tuned for more good things comin at ya!

Consider doing so on new threads, Tim. This one is a "barn burner!" Image trying to keep up with more than one issue! :laugh:

skypair

 

[skypair]

But is that the extent of God ability to love.
I believe there are distinctions of Gods love just as there is with man.

We were made in Gods image and therefore made with the compacity to love.
Now we to have a 'type' of convential Love that we ascribe as 'marriage'.
1. We are commanded (as men) to LOVE our wives as ourselves.

2. We are also commanded to LOVE the brethren. Even to prefer them above all others - world.

3. However scripture also states that we are to LOVE our neighbors (nonbrethren).

4. Yet, God does not stop there but even commands us to LOVE our enemies.

Perhaps you don't have a broad enough definition of love if it doesn't cover all these situations, eh? Think about my definition. Can you "hope the best" for all these groups despite what they think of you? Then that is "love" and you only have to deal with different "intensities" to realize the closeness or distance of various relationships. But love is simply that -- hoping the best for others, right?

I mean -- I'm not ready to "teach" this yet. Just want to postulate this as the unemotional Truth that stands behind the Holy Spirit's expression.

skypair

 

[tinytim]

Consider doing so on new threads, Tim. This one is a "barn burner!" Image trying to keep up with more than one issue! :laugh:

skypair

Yeah, we will not discuss them all at the same time, but one at a time... for instance this Thursday we will start discussing the Works of God... and beat that for a week, then move on to Humanity...
If we move at this rate we will have to start threads with the title we have on this one but with the suffix "Part..X"

That way, we can be on the same page at the same time.

 

[Allan]

Perhaps you don't have a broad enough definition of love if it doesn't cover all these situations, eh? Think about my definition. Can you "hope the best" for all these groups despite what they think of you? Then that is "love" and you only have to deal with different "intensities" to realize the closeness or distance of various relationships. But love is simply that -- hoping the best for others, right?

I mean -- I'm not ready to "teach" this yet. Just want to postulate this as the unemotional Truth that stands behind the Holy Spirit's expression.

skypair

First, I did not set forth any definition of love but set forth distinctions of Love.

Secondly, I would readily agree, DO NOT 'teach' your postulation to anyone please.

Love is not about 'hoping for the best'.
This is from Ryrie's "Basic Theology" on Love.

F. Love

1. Meaning. Like many Christian terms love is more often discussed than defined. Even the dictionary offers little help. Love consists of affection and also of correction. Babies are cuddled and corrected and both are true expressions of parental love. Furthermore, both are done by parents in the belief that they are doing the best thing for the child at the time. Love seeks good for the object loved. What is good? In God it is the perfection of holiness and all that that concept implies. Love in God is seeking the highest good and glory of His perfections. This implies no selfishness in God as it would in human beings.
....

4. Some related words. Closely related to love are goodness, mercy, long-suffering, and grace. While distinctions are made, they are not exact. Goodness may be defined as God’s benevolent concern for His creatures (Acts 14:17). Mercy is that aspect of His goodness which causes God to show pity and compassion (Eph. 2:4; James 5:11). Long-suffering speaks of self-restraint in the face of provocation (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 3:15). Grace is the unmerited favor of God shown to man primarily in the person and work of Jesus Christ. All of these concepts are related and stem from the love of God who is love.

5. A heresy. The heresy of universalism grows out of an unbalanced concept of the attributes of God. It teaches that since God is love He will ultimately save all people. But God’s perfection of love does not operate apart from His other perfections including holiness and justice. Therefore, love cannot overpower holiness and save those who reject Christ and die in their sins. Furthermore, universalism in reality does not have a proper definition of love since it sees only the affection aspect of love and not the correcting aspect. Finally, universalism contradicts direct statements of Scripture (see Mark 9:45-48).

 

[skypair]

Allan,

Even the dictionary offers little help. Love consists of affection and also of correction. ... Love seeks good for the object loved.

This is what I was saying. Dr Rogers taught something similar. I don't see what your objection is??? It is totally abstract from the "ooey gooey" emotionalism, is it not? The feeling of "I love that person for how they look?" or "what I can get out of them?"

I think it is you needs to go back to the basics. You quote what you do not seem to comprehend.

skypair

 

[Allan]

Allan,

This is what I was saying. Dr Rogers taught something similar. I don't see what your objection is??? It is totally abstract from the "ooey gooey" emotionalism, is it not? The feeling of "I love that person for how they look?" or "what I can get out of them?"

I think it is you needs to go back to the basics. You quote what you do not seem to comprehend.

skypair

Your arogence is truly becoming a sight or maybe it is just something sad to see.

Hoping for the best, is NOT in any shape, form, or fashion the same or in the likeness of "seek[ing] good for the object loved". One describes the inability of the one to actaully do anything for the one loved but is wishfully desiring good TO them, while the other ascribes the ability to convey that good TOWARD the object it loves.

 

[Jarthur001]

well.....

There are a few things I disagree with.

Let me start this way...

Is God perfect in all His ways? How about the emotion that we call wrath? There has been 3 pages given to Gods love. God is indeed love. What of Gods wrath?

Pink.....

Now the wrath of God is as much a Divine perfection as is His faithfulness, power, or mercy. It must be so, for there is no blemish whatever, not the slightest defect in the character of God; yet there would be if "wrath" were absent from Him! Indifference to sin is a moral blemish, and he who hates it not is a moral leper. How could He who is the Sum of all excellency look with equal satisfaction upon virtue and vice, wisdom and folly? How could He who is infinitely holy disregard sin and refuse to manifest His "severity" (Rom. 9:12) toward it? How could He who delights only in that which is pure and lovely, loathe and hate not that which is impure and vile? The very nature of God makes Hell as real a necessity, as imperatively and eternally requisite as Heaven is. Not only is there no imperfection in God, but there is no perfection in Him that is less perfect than another.

What ya think?