Me too!mattrose wrote:I think that is a crazy conception of God.
Todd
Me too!mattrose wrote:I think that is a crazy conception of God.
Thanks, Matt! There has been so many misunderstandings on this site lately that I wanted to be sure I understood you correctly. I, too, think that the concept you outline - the God who keeps the wicked alive to torture for eternity - is, well, crazy. I was also surprised recently when you got push-back on your premise that God's core characteristic is love. I had always assumed that love was the core characteristic of God, and so, I've been thinking about it a lot. Someone suggested that love takes a backseat to justice. If so, could it be just for God to punish the wicked for eternity?mattrose wrote:Hey Michelle! I didn't mean it in any clinical sense (especially since I'm not qualified to make such a diagnosis). But from my perspective, anyone who thinks that God is so bent on punishing people that he takes people that would have otherwise passed away and purposefully keeps them alive solely to have them experience torture has an insane theology in the sense of.... how could one worship a god like that?Michelle wrote:Matt, would you mind briefly explaining what you mean by 'insane'?mattrose wrote:To be clear I think this view is borderline insane...
Most defenders of everlasting misery believe that people are in some sense immortal, so God doesn't really have a choice to let them pass away. But I found a couple writers that believed the wicked would naturally pass away, but God intervenes to keep them alive for torture. I think that is a crazy conception of God.
Ahhh! This sentence sounds as if it could have been written by George MacDonald!Love cannot take a backseat to justice because justice is one component of love, not something contrary to it.
I think a lot of people these days equate the concept of justice with punishment. To me, if justice reigns, there is no need for punishment because nothing wrong has been done, only that which is right. Justice is the opposite of injustice.Michelle wrote:Someone suggested that love takes a backseat to justice.
Hi, steve7150, happy new year! Maybe I was incorrect about the push-back. Here are particular quotes which led me to my opinion:steve7150 wrote:I was also surprised recently when you got push-back on your premise that God's core characteristic is love. I had always assumed that love was the core characteristic of God,
Michelle,
I don't think there was push-back about God and love but that it lent support to a particular trinitarian view of God.
Jeremiah wrote:Hello Matt,
I'm not really in agreement with you on this, but I don't want to be prematurely critical about what you've written here. Is there somewhere on Theos where I can find more about what you're presenting?
I was hoping you can elaborate on the first and last two sentences of the above quote. They aren't obvious to my mind. That is, why can't God's other "attributes", including his lovingkindness, simply be his holiness playing out in context?I believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is essential (in the sense that it is most consistent with) a theology of love. The Bible says that God is love. I am of the school of thought that LOVE is God's core characteristic. Indeed, all other 'attributes' of God are simply His love playing out in context.
Grace and peace to you.
mattrose wrote:The major objection to my thoughts seems to be that placing love at the core of God's character is arbitrary.
To be frank, I find this utterly baffling. The love of God is what speaks most clearly through the entire biblical narrative in my opinion. It is also what speaks most clearly to my real life. It also makes sense that if the Trinity is a true doctrine, love is fascinatingly essential to what it means to be God.
But like I said, I don't really care to persuade anyone. I was just sharing my perspective. I have found it personally refreshing and, contrary to Darin's observation, persuasive in evangelism and apologetics.
Homer wrote:Hi matt,
You wrote:
But was John's statement that "God is love" meant to be any more than a partial description? What, scripturally, would cause us to think so, any more than He is holy and He is just? It would seem the greatest emphasis throughout scripture is that He is Lord, since we are informed of this over 4,000 times. And this is what Christians have historically confessed (and commanded to do so).To be frank, I find this utterly baffling. The love of God is what speaks most clearly through the entire biblical narrative in my opinion.
Now it might be objected that Lord is a description of His position, or what He does, but then love is an action word and is also what He does, perhaps best translated "charity".
In saying this I am not disagreeing with your thoughts about love among the Trinity prior to creation. God's purpose in creation may have been to share this love.
mattrose wrote:I don't base my argument on the passage in 1 John. I base it on Jesus. Jesus is God in the flesh. Jesus is fullest revelation of God there is. We know more about God through Jesus than we do through the Bible. The best the Bible can do is get us to Jesus. And what do we learn about God from Jesus? It is not primarily justice (He wasn't just... He was gracious). It wasn't holiness (He wasn't set apart... He hung out with sinners). It wasn't sovereignty (He wasn't sovereign... He laid that aside). All the attributes of God are non-essential in the sense that Jesus gave them up without giving up His deity. This shows us that the truest truth about God is nothing other than His sacrificial love.
jriccitelli wrote:'... and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?" (Rev.6:16-17)
Is this same Jesus you are talking of Matt?
So, while I was surprised by these quotes, I should have realized that they were not expressions of disagreement about God's love but were simply objections to mattrose's argument that love lends support to trinitarianism. In order to pick apart Matt's conclusion, it was necessary to prove that God's love isn't the core of His character, and, perhaps, not even that major. I think Darin did a better job of arguing, even though I couldn't buy his conclusion.jeremiah wrote:Matt,
Well then, now both of us are baffled....Wrath is love expressed in the context of rebellion.
Grace and peace to you.
No worries. I'm not one to mind the natural course of discussion. Happy New Year to you as well.Michelle wrote:Jaydam, Happy New Year! So sorry to have derailed your thread. I liked the original topic; it was thought provoking.
Yes, "justice" is clearly the opposite of "injustice".I think a lot of people these days equate the concept of justice with punishment. To me, if justice reigns, there is no need for punishment because nothing wrong has been done, only that which is right. Justice is the opposite of injustice.