Introducing Christian Doctrine by Millard Erickson

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).

 

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).

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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:

 

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.

 

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:

And yet Jesus said this:

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:

 

WOW, so much shorter

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.....

What ya think?