The Narrow Path Ministries

Paidion wrote:Would not that Plurality also be sufficient to express that mutual LOVE? Why did God see fit to create angels and mankind?

Indeed, the plurality is sufficient. Darin asked the second question too, essentially. I responded: "Pure love, as God is, wants to create. It has no necessity to create. Love is never a forced thing. It is chosen. My wife & I love each other. But our love wouldn't necessarily be lessened if we had decided not to have children. We wanted to have children (And God blessed us with 2 so far). But it was not forced. And it was not essential to our loving relationship.

The Plurality is a sufficient expression of love (what an understatement!). But love is the sort of thing that wants to overflow.

Matt,

...Wrath is love expressed in the context of rebellion.

Well then, now both of us are baffled.

Grace and peace to you.

jeremiah wrote:Matt,

...Wrath is love expressed in the context of rebellion.

Well then, now both of us are baffled.

Grace and peace to you.

I don't think you are actually baffled by this in real life.

Any parent dealing with a rebellious child uses might use 'tough love'

I consider the concept of God's wrath is not very different from this

Matt,

Yes I understand what you're saying about tough love. But I am still baffled at this kind of equivocation. The tough love I might administer upon my children could never be poetically likened to a winepress that is trodden down expressing blood to the top of my own head. The author of Hebrews speaks of divine chastisement that all of and only God's children receive. That is the tough love of God. Which would be sharply contrasted with wrath that is treasured up for the day of his wrath. It is also said that we are not appointed to wrath, but to obtain salvation by Jesus Christ. Isn't it sensible to conclude that while wrath can be nuanced to include God's children as the object at times, when compared to the wrath against the wicked, a separate category emerges? A category in which love can not be found to abide at all?

You are mostly a conditionalist, are you not(I understand you remain uncertain)? Will the annihilation (if it be such) of the wicked be an act that follows forth from the love of God?

jeremiah wrote:Matt,

Yes I understand what you're saying about tough love. But I am still baffled at this kind of equivocation. The tough love I might administer upon my children could never be poetically likened to a winepress that is trodden down expressing blood to the top of my own head.

I think what you mean is that YOU wouldn't use a winepress metaphor for tough love. That is not the same thing as saying that the bible doesn't.

The author of Hebrews speaks of divine chastisement that all of and only God's children receive. That is the tough love of God. Which would be sharply contrasted with wrath that is treasured up for the day of his wrath. It is also said that we are not appointed to wrath, but to obtain salvation by Jesus Christ. Isn't it sensible to conclude that while wrath can be nuanced to include God's children as the object at times, when compared to the wrath against the wicked, a separate category emerges? A category in which love can not be found to abide at all?

Is it sensible? Sure. But so is my concept.

I'd rather think of God as a being with a unified core than a being playing dueling banjos.

You are mostly a conditionalist, are you not(I understand you remain uncertain)? Will the annihilation (if it be such) of the wicked be an act that follows forth from the love of God?

I believe in the eventual extinction of the wicked, but remain hopeful that some/all might come to repentance before they cease to be. If some refuse God's grace, the most loving thing for God to do is to allow them to fade from their own existence (the natural result of not being connected to the source of life).

Good morning Matt,

I think what you mean is that YOU wouldn't use a winepress metaphor for tough love. That is not the same thing as saying that the bible doesn't.

No brother, what I mean is I think by illegitimately equivocating love and wrath, you've ended up with a category error.

I'd rather think of God as a being with a unified core than a being playing dueling banjos.

That's cute and clever, but yet a strawman. I think you know that I wouldn't think of God as a being playing dueling banjos. As far as the "unified" core goes, that is not what you started out arguing for. You spoke of love being God's "core characteristic" and also God's love being the "center" from which others flow out. A singular root from which all other attributes branch out to bear their respective fruits is what I pictured. I think I see more clearly what you're trying to get at now. Indeed a consistent whole is precisely what I would argue for with respect to God's being. But somehow unifying love and wrath within one singular core, does not sound at all sensible to my mind. Perhaps I'm mistaking your words? Perhaps not.

Grace be with you.

But somehow unifying love and wrath within one singular core, does not sound at all sensible to my mind. Perhaps I'm mistaking your words? Perhaps not.










Maybe we have to consider the definition of wrath and in what context. God loved Israel yet expressed wrath toward her when she committed idolatry. Pagan nations committed idolatry yet Israel doing the same thing caused a more intense reaction from God because He loved Israel and expected more so because of that passionate love came wrath when there was betrayal. So it seems there was a connection between love and wrath.

I am wondering if the scriptural term "God's wrath" actually describes God's love as it is expressed in correcting everyone who requires correction (and that may be EVERYONE!) "Everyone will be salted with fire." (Mark 9:49)

When a human father corrects his son out of love, even his action may be described as wrath. One child may tell another, "Don't do that. Your dad will get angry," even though that child's dad almost never gets angry, but he does often discipline his children in order to correct them.

I've been thinking about Matt's position quite a bit as I've travelled over the past few days. It really speaks to me, but I haven't been able to put my finger on how to communicate my reservation. Here's how I see it -- if we begin with the proposition that the Trinity (or some plurality) is true, then I think this is a beautiful image which illuminates that relationship (if true) in a meaningful way and something very worthwhile as a meditation on the love of God and His revelation to us. However, the problem I have is that I think (as beautiful as it is), it is still dependent on a big presupposition and has low value (to me at least) as "evidence" or as a "proof" for the existence of the Trinity. This may just be where I have to leave it.

if we begin with the proposition that the Trinity (or some plurality) is true, then I think this is a beautiful image which illuminates that relationship (if true) in a meaningful way and something very worthwhile as a meditation on the love of God and His revelation to us. However, the problem I have is that I think (as beautiful as it is), it is still dependent on a big presupposition and has low value (to me at least) as "evidence" or as a "proof" for the existence of the Trinity. This may just be where I have to leave it.









Well said! If you believe in the Trinity it is a beautiful description and example of divine love but it's not evidence of a Trinity. However i have to default to John saying "God is Love" and i don't think he had any thoughts about a Trinity and any thoughts about a relationship within the context of this statement. I think a Trinity is possible at some point and might be connected to the fact God is love, but i can't intellectually process an eternal Trinity.