Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Misconceptions
Adebnego at Parableman is taking a look at Jonathon Edwards, and a lot of people are arguing with him about it:
Furthermore, the word "love" though oft-appearing in the Old Testament, rarely if ever appears there as some that God expresses towards man, rather it appears as something between people, or that people exhibit to God. I really do not understand people that seem to argue that somehow God's fundamental character changed between the Old Testament and the New. Such a changable God is more worthy of mythology that Judeo-Christianity.
But, all that aside, the argument that love and punsihment or love and condemnation are mutually exclusive is entirely specious. Does not love desire the best for its object? Would not love, born of infinite wisdom and truth, then be willing to visit punishment on its object for its own betterment -- much as one spanks a child to prevent it from doing something harmful? Would not love be willing to condemn or kill a few for the sake of many?
Let's put this a different way would not love demand justice? Love "does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;" (1 Cor 13:6) Would not failing to condemn the condemnable consitute "rejoicing in unrighteousness?"
I am remined of this passage from "The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe."
However, I have had a number of discussions with people who argue that, whenever we look at God's judgments, we have to remember that "God is primarily love". In other words, when we want to properly understand God, including his justice and wrath, we have to begin by understanding "God is love" and then apply that to understanding all his other attributes.He briefly answewrs this arguement rather well too:
I think this is a fundamentally flawed approach. God isn't primarily anything. He is who he is, as in his famous declaration to Moses in Exodus 3. If we elevate any one of God's attributes to primacy, it will inevitably lead us astray. If we think God is primarily love, passages about God's judgment, anger, and wrath, will sound strange and foreign to us. But likewise, if we primarily think of him as angry and wrathful, we won't properly understand why God would send Jesus Christ in order to pay the price for our sins so that those who trust in him can be saved.Abednego is right on here, but I'm not sure he goes far enough. In the first place, the oft quoted "God is love" appears only in one chapter in one epistle, twice in I John, Chapter 4 -- that's it. When such an oft-quoted phrase is so limited in it's appearance, I would have to agree that in can hardly be used as the ultimate descriptive of God.
Furthermore, the word "love" though oft-appearing in the Old Testament, rarely if ever appears there as some that God expresses towards man, rather it appears as something between people, or that people exhibit to God. I really do not understand people that seem to argue that somehow God's fundamental character changed between the Old Testament and the New. Such a changable God is more worthy of mythology that Judeo-Christianity.
But, all that aside, the argument that love and punsihment or love and condemnation are mutually exclusive is entirely specious. Does not love desire the best for its object? Would not love, born of infinite wisdom and truth, then be willing to visit punishment on its object for its own betterment -- much as one spanks a child to prevent it from doing something harmful? Would not love be willing to condemn or kill a few for the sake of many?
Let's put this a different way would not love demand justice? Love "does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;" (1 Cor 13:6) Would not failing to condemn the condemnable consitute "rejoicing in unrighteousness?"
I am remined of this passage from "The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe."
"Is - is he a man" asked Lucy.People who deny the judgement of God, the existence of hell are trying to turn a lion into a housecat. That is a dangerous game indeed. Lions don't tame well -- they have been known to turn on those that train them.
"Aslan a man!?"said Mr. Beaver sternly. "Certainly not. I tell you he is the King of the wood and the son of the great Emperor-beyond-the-Sea. Don't you know who is the King of Beasts? Asian is a lion - the Lion, the great Lion."
"Ooh!" said Susan, "I'd thought he was a man. Is he - quite safe, I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion."
"That you will, dearie, and no mistake," said Mrs. Beaver; "if there's anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they're either braver than most or else just silly."
"Then he isn't safe," said Lucy.
"Safe," said Mr. Beaver; "don't you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you."
