God is Love and the Trinity

God, Christ, & The Holy Spirit
User avatar
psimmond
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Sharpsburg, GA
Contact:

Re: God is Love and the Trinity

Post by psimmond » Sun Apr 02, 2017 6:43 pm

Homer,
I read your post as an argument for the trinity: Since God is love (and has always been) and since love requires at least two parties, God must be more than two persons.

And I agree with mattrose's first comment after your OP that many will not find this to be a convincing argument for the trinity.
Let me boldly state the obvious. If you are not sure whether you heard directly from God, you didn’t.
~Garry Friesen

User avatar
21centpilgrim
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:17 pm

Re: God is Love and the Trinity

Post by 21centpilgrim » Sun Apr 02, 2017 9:46 pm

My point is that God has always been what He is. To assert that He was not always holy, gracious, compassionate ect. is to assert that God's essence changes.

If God told His creation an aspect of his essence or who He is saying "I am B".
Does the creation say "we can not trust that you are B because B could not function without ..........."
Does that warrant any merit?

Imo, this is the weakness of the opening and common assertion.

I hope I am clearer this time around.

thank you
Then those who feared the LORD spoke with each other, and the LORD listened to what they said. In his presence, a scroll of remembrance was written to record the names of those who feared him and loved to think about him.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: God is Love and the Trinity

Post by Homer » Sun Apr 02, 2017 10:56 pm

My point is that God has always been what He is. To assert that He was not always holy, gracious, compassionate ect. is to assert that God's essence changes.
It has been said that the Christian religion took the word agape and infused it with a new meaning. Love is an action word in Christianity, an attitude of affection/benevolence to another. So how was god "love" prior to creation?

User avatar
psimmond
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Sharpsburg, GA
Contact:

Re: God is Love and the Trinity

Post by psimmond » Mon Apr 03, 2017 7:13 am

Homer wrote: It has been said that the Christian religion took the word agape and infused it with a new meaning. Love is an action word in Christianity, an attitude of affection/benevolence to another. So how was god "love" prior to creation?
It sounds like you're talking about early Christianity, and if so, I'd never heard this before about Christianity infusing agape with a new meaning; however, I do think modern Christianity has given agape a meaning different from its first-century meaning. Today, preachers say agape is the highest love and refers to the sacrificial love demonstrated by God. But this is simply untrue. Agape just means love. It can be sacrificial, but it can also be selfish. For example, David's son Amnon agape his half sister before he raped her (Septuagint); The Pharisees agape the chief seats in the synagogues; 1 John says not to agape the world, etc.
Last edited by psimmond on Mon Apr 03, 2017 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Let me boldly state the obvious. If you are not sure whether you heard directly from God, you didn’t.
~Garry Friesen

User avatar
psimmond
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Sharpsburg, GA
Contact:

Re: God is Love and the Trinity

Post by psimmond » Mon Apr 03, 2017 7:47 am

21centpilgrim wrote:
My point is that God has always been what He is. To assert that He was not always holy, gracious, compassionate ect. is to assert that God's essence changes.

If God told His creation an aspect of his essence or who He is saying "I am B".
Does the creation say "we can not trust that you are B because B could not function without ..........."
Does that warrant any merit?
I don't think it does warrant any merit for reasons I've already expressed. It's kind of like saying God's essence is anger because he demonstrated anger toward his creation. I think it's confusing attributes with abilities, which are related but not the same.
Let me boldly state the obvious. If you are not sure whether you heard directly from God, you didn’t.
~Garry Friesen

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: God is Love and the Trinity

Post by mattrose » Mon Apr 03, 2017 10:17 am

From my perspective, God's essence is love. God is love. God is a relationship between Father, Son & Spirit.

Everything that God does flows out of this divine-love. Out of love, God creates. Because God creates, God is holy (set apart from creation). Out of love, God creates creatures with the ability to love. Out of this ability, sin is made possible. Because of sin, too, God's love is seen for all its purity (by contrast, this is another aspect of holiness). In response to sin, God is merciful and gracious. The experience of pushing God away welcomes wrath (A consequence of desired separation from the source of all that is good). I would consider these the actions of love in various contexts.

Other things are true about God simply because God is the un-made maker. God is all powerful (able to do anything). God is all knowing (knows all that exists and potentialities). God is all wise (does what is best). God is all present (available any where at any time). I would consider this divine attributes.

Actions... attributes... there is plenty to say about such things. But I, personally, don't see much reason to over-complicate the divine essence. It is love. It is pure love, no doubt (love will always need to be defined). Because it is pure, you could certainly argue that holiness is just as much the essence of God as love is (God is love AND God is light), but I am content to simply say that love is pure

Someone else may say that holiness is loving. That doesn't really bother me. In fact, I had a good conversation with a friend the other day that comes at it from that perspective (holiness is essence... love flows out of holiness). We talked about our ministerial contexts and, I think, it made sense why we each came to the topic like we did. He's in a very un-churched context. People think they're fine without God. They don't see the need to be 'holy'. They feel like they're already loving. If they believe in God at all, they assume he loves them (even to the point of not caring what they do). It makes sense that he'd want to focus on holiness. In my context, though, most people have a church history, but they've been taught that God is all about rules and regulations. They think God's a scrooge. They need to hear that God loves them.

User avatar
psimmond
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Sharpsburg, GA
Contact:

Re: God is Love and the Trinity

Post by psimmond » Mon Apr 03, 2017 10:45 am

Mattrose,
"God is love" is only said by one biblical writer--the author of John/1 John. Would you have a problem with someone saying God's essence is Holiness or Righteousness, not love? (It seems like you are choosing love as the essence of God because that conforms with your theology.)

I think it might make more sense to say love is a product of God's moral perfection, i.e. holiness.
Let me boldly state the obvious. If you are not sure whether you heard directly from God, you didn’t.
~Garry Friesen

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: God is Love and the Trinity

Post by mattrose » Mon Apr 03, 2017 11:14 am

psimmond wrote:Mattrose,
"God is love" is only said by one biblical writer--the author of John/1 John. Would you have a problem with someone saying God's essence is Holiness or Righteousness, not love? (It seems like you are choosing love as the essence of God because that conforms with your theology.)

I think it might make more sense to say love is a product of God's moral perfection, i.e. holiness.
Well, I'm not sure why I would switch my theology to 'God is holiness' (something never stated in Scripture) from 'God is love' (something stated in Scripture). It seems to me that THAT (such a switch) would be the move motivated by attempts to... theologize.

If the primary meaning of 'holy' is seen as 'set apart'.... I hardly think God was set apart from anything before creation

If the primary meaning of 'holy' is seen as 'righteous' or 'pure'... then I have no problem seeing that as God's essence

But I would simply see purity as an adjective describing love. I recognize this is a choice I'm making in my theology. I just think it is a good one.

User avatar
psimmond
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Sharpsburg, GA
Contact:

Re: God is Love and the Trinity

Post by psimmond » Mon Apr 03, 2017 11:35 am

Here's an appropriate quotation from "God the Almighty: Power, Wisdom, Holiness, Love"by Donald G. Bloesch:

"P. T. Forsyth reacted sharply against the deemphasis of God's holiness in liberal theology: 'The love of God has ousted the glory of God, and the grace has been declared at the cost of the holiness.' He was adamant that the 'prime thing in God is His holiness. From His holiness flows His love.' Forsyth aimed for a blending of divine holiness and love, though he gave a slight priority to the first. Similarly David Wells says that what defines God essentially is holiness, of which love is an inescapable manifestation."

BTW, I'm not saying I'm right because other smart people agree with me, but it is good to know I'm not alone. :lol:
Mattrose wrote: Well, I'm not sure why I would switch my theology to 'God is holiness' (something never stated in Scripture)...
Is there a reason you think God's essence should be stated as a noun (holiness) rather than an adjective (holy)? Because "God is holy" shows up in both the Old and New Testaments.
Let me boldly state the obvious. If you are not sure whether you heard directly from God, you didn’t.
~Garry Friesen

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: God is Love and the Trinity

Post by mattrose » Mon Apr 03, 2017 3:09 pm

psimmond wrote:Here's an appropriate quotation from "God the Almighty: Power, Wisdom, Holiness, Love"by Donald G. Bloesch:

"P. T. Forsyth reacted sharply against the deemphasis of God's holiness in liberal theology: 'The love of God has ousted the glory of God, and the grace has been declared at the cost of the holiness.' He was adamant that the 'prime thing in God is His holiness. From His holiness flows His love.' Forsyth aimed for a blending of divine holiness and love, though he gave a slight priority to the first. Similarly David Wells says that what defines God essentially is holiness, of which love is an inescapable manifestation."

BTW, I'm not saying I'm right because other smart people agree with me, but it is good to know I'm not alone. :lol:
I think because I am not coming at things from a liberal perspective, I don't see as much danger in my emphasis on the love of God coming at the cost of God's holiness. I come from a (holiness) denomination that has a much greater history of legalism (in the name of holiness). I don't have liberal roots.

Perhaps that is why I prefer to think of holiness flowing out of divine love. I am more drawn to a theology of love by guys like Pinnock and Oord (and preachers like Boyd, Cavey, Zahnd) than I am to a love flowing out of holiness mindset of some of the guys you mentioned.
Is there a reason you think God's essence should be stated as a noun (holiness) rather than an adjective (holy)? Because "God is holy" shows up in both the Old and New Testaments.
I believe in progressive revelation (so my emphasis is NT) and I believe Jesus is the ultimate revelation. Jesus was holy (perfectly so), but in a way that really goes against the grain of what 'holiness' comes to mean by most religious people. His holiness didn't cause Him to remain 'set apart' from sinners. People watching Jesus would have never questioned His love, but they certainly did question His holiness.

So from my perspective (because of Jesus) it makes more sense to define holiness under the umbrella of love.

Post Reply

Return to “Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology”