God IS Love

[seer]

It seems that many Calvinist have trouble with this claim made by John. Example: Calvin's commentary on 1 John 4:8


"But the meaning of the Apostle is simply this, -- that as God is the fountain of love, this effect flows from him, and is diffused wherever the knowledge of him comes, as he had at the beginning called him light, because there is nothing dark in him, but on the contrary he illuminates all things by his own brightness. Here then he does not speak of the essence of God, but only shews what he is found to be by us."

First Calvin says that God is the fountain of love, then he seems to backtrack and actually suggests that love is not an "essence of God." Not an immutable attribute. But of course, this seems a bit dishonest. Scripture tells us that God IS Holy, that God IS Righteousness. Do we now have the privilege to suggest the holiness and righteousness are NOT essential attributes of God? But merely traits that are "found to be by us?"

The reason Calvin and other Calvinists hedge on this text is because of it's broad and logical implications. If love is an essential, immutable attribute of God, then God could not act in an unloving manner towards any of His creatures. Even His holy and righteous purposes must be informed by His love.

God could not treat any man in an unloving way, any more than He could treat men in an unjust way. Both would be completely out of character.

[Jaltus]

Love leads to punishment.

Also, you seem to have an unbalanced view of God. Is God made up of equal attributes, or is one more important than the rest?

Is God ruled by His attributes, ro does He rule over them?

[seer]

Love leads to punishment.

Of course...




Also, you seem to have an unbalanced view of God. Is God made up of equal attributes, or is one more important than the rest?

The question is, do God's attributes pull Him in different directions? When dealing with any individual does God's just nature pull Him in one direction while His love pulls Him in another? Or do they both work in concert seeking an end for that individual that is both just and loving?


Is God ruled by His attributes, ro does He rule over them?

If God rules over His attribute then it is a least possible for God to deny His attribute of perfect truthfulness and lie. Agreed?

[joelkaki]

I don't think you can exalt one attribute over another. And even if you did, I don't think it would be love. It would be holiness. That is the only attribute raised to the superlative degree with regard to God. (Holy, Holy, Holy). But I don't think you can raise one above the other.

Joel

[seer]

I don't think you can exalt one attribute over another. And even if you did, I don't think it would be love. It would be holiness. That is the only attribute raised to the superlative degree with regard to God. (Holy, Holy, Holy). But I don't think you can raise one above the other.

Then Joel, can God treat any of His creatures in an unholy manner? If no,then can He treat any of His creatures in an unloving manner? Are His Holiness and Love in contradiction? Or do they work in concert for the same end?

[mickiel]

Yesterday @ 02:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107986#post107986)
Jaltus:

Love leads to punishment.

Gods love leads to the death of punishment. Gods goals are to eliminate punishment, misery, pain, even suffering. God also is planning to eliminate punitive correction, by perfecting those reasons he must now punish. But what is the greatest punishment God can give a human? I think the greatest punishment God can give is to leave the human to themselves, then they will punish themselves anyway.






Also, you seem to have an unbalanced view of God. Is God made up of equal attributes, or is one more important than the rest?

Is God ruled by His attributes, ro does He rule over them?

God is ruled by nothing.

[Bib Lit Major]

I haven't completely thought out what exactly I think along these lines but here's a verse that might throw one for a loop (and may have nothing to do with the discussion):

Hebrews 12:29
29 for our "God is a consuming fire."
NIV

[seer]

Hebrews 12:29
29 for our "God is a consuming fire."


Remember, this is directed towards believers - those who God loves. In other words are these actions of God informed by love?

[Chappie]

Bible does not say that one of God's attributes is love. Litterally, it says, "God "is" love. If God is love, then all of his attributes must stem from love.

Then where does that lake of fire come from? It comes from one of the attributes of love. "Love "is" just. Justice equals appropriate punishment when we do wrong, appropriate reward when we do good. Where do we find the stndard for what is good, and what is bad? God's holiness....

When we see just how bad we are: Hell in comparison is kinda like a hot summer day in Southern California.

[Bib Lit Major]

Today @ 05:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=108798#post108798)
seer:

Hebrews 12:29
29 for our "God is a consuming fire."


Remember, this is directed towards believers - those who God loves. In other words are these actions of God informed by love?

That's what I was going to ask you. Also, is being a consuming fire (whatever that actually represents) an action?

Hebrews 12:28-29
28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, 29 for our "God is a consuming fire."
NIV

[seer]

That's what I was going to ask you. Also, is being a consuming fire (whatever that actually represents) an action?

When it hits us it is an action! But I suspect that God's firehood is for our benefit in the end.

[Chappie]

Love leads to punishment.

Also, you seem to have an unbalanced view of God. Is God made up of equal attributes, or is one more important than the rest?

Is God ruled by His attributes, ro does He rule over them?

The bible does not teach that love is an attribute of God, it says that God is love. The bible teaches us that God is Spirit. The three persons of the trinity are bound together as one in Spirit. All that they are is bound together in Spirit.

God is love, is not an attribute. "God is love", Love is the stuff from which his moral fiber is derived, All of his attributes are derived from love. Therefore all of his attributes are filtered through love. God has attributes, but God "is" love.

[trueseeker]

Joel wrote: I don't think you can exalt one attribute over another. And even if you did, I don't think it would be love. It would be holiness. That is the only attribute raised to the superlative degree with regard to God. (Holy, Holy, Holy). But I don't think you can raise one above the other.


trueseeker: I think God's goal is to build His attributes in us, so that our hearts are a reflection of His. It seems pretty clear to me that the scriptures tell us love supercedes all the other attributes He is trying to build in us. Therefore, I must conclude that love is the most important attribute to Him.

Mat 9:13 '...I desire compassion, not sacrifice...'

Mat 22:37-40 '...You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend the whole law and the prophets.'

[Chappie]

Joel wrote: I don't think you can exalt one attribute over another. And even if you did, I don't think it would be love. It would be holiness. That is the only attribute raised to the superlative degree with regard to God. (Holy, Holy, Holy). But I don't think you can raise one above the other.

It is love that determines what is Holy, Holy, Holy. It is his benovelence towards the whole of his creation that deternines what is good (Holy) and what is bad. (unholy)

[Smitten]

seer,

i don't know the context of that quote by calvin, but there is a big difference between God's essence being love, and love being an essential quality. Are you sure he doesn't just deny the former?

[seer]

seer,

i don't know the context of that quote by calvin, but there is a big difference between God's essence being love, and love being an essential quality. Are you sure he doesn't just deny the former?

I do not know for sure. But I think that Calvin is denying His very essence of love. And I think it is a real problem for Calvinists - how could God deny His very character and treat any of His creatures unlovingly.

[Defenestrator]

A good article on God's love: http://www.antithesis.com/features/love_01.html

[Chappie]

In trading thoughts and ideas with those of the reformed persuasion, I have heard it expressed that God only loves the elect or chosen ones. Or at a minimum that he loves the non- elect less than he loves the elect. This concept causes me a great deal of consternation. It is assumed that if God loved all men equally, then all men would be saved. But I ask, is that necessarily true. This is the primary concept used to deny the universal love of God.

First we must agree upon an answer to the question, what is love? For the answer to this question, we shall focus on the love of the creator of all things. Now I am not interested in complicating the matter, but rather in simplifying it. With that in mind, I believe that without negating any of that which is indigenous to love, that we can conclude that love is simply one beings (In this case, God‘s) desire to produce as a consequence of his actions that which is best for the well-being of the whole of his creation. Especially those that he created in his image.

Out of a love that is concerned with the ultimate good of all things, we must realize that from a moral and physical standpoint there must be laws that separate that which is love, (That which produces well-being.) from that which is against love. (That which negates well-being or causes harm.) In separating that which is good, (loving) from that which is bad (unloving) there must be laws to promote the one and discourage the other. Love demands it as a consequence. Love must/will always produce laws that promote the well-being of those governed, or it is not an expression of a benevolent being. To suggest that a benevolent God would put into place laws that do not seek the common good and well-being of all is to say that he is not and never was a benevolent God.

And because these laws are necessary as an expression of love with the specific intent to produce the greatest extent of well-being towards the objects of its affection, it is then necessary that these laws be enforced through willful obedience, coercion or consequences. If not, then it must be concluded that the benevolence that God has towards his creation has been abandoned. For love demands that he do all that is within his power to seek and bring about the well-being of his creation. Therefore, we must conclude that if God loves, there must be laws that promote the well-being of those that he loves. In order for these laws to be effective, they must demand conformance, and when conformance is denied, there must be consequences.

So, is it prudent to conclude that God loves those that are saved and hates or loves less those that are not saved. To say that God only seeks the well-being of a select few makes him a respecter of persons and renders him as selfish rather than benevolent. Love does not seek its own; this much is stated in the bible. Therefore the moment God ceases to love all his creatures, picks and chooses; he becomes a respecter of persons which is an expression of selfishness rather than love.

So to consider the question at hand: Does God love some more than others? No, because if he did, it would render his love as nothing more than self-serving selfishness. So if God loves all men the same, why does he allow/put some in hell. Benevolence demands that God seek equally the well-being of all men. In seeking the well-being of all men, there must be laws that separate that which promotes well-being and discourage and eliminate that which causes harm.

These laws must be enforced through willful obedience, coercion (power) or consequences. Benevolence demands that the laws be just, and the consequences must be just also. Justice is a part of love. The moral benevolence of God has justly determined that hell is a just consequence for disobedience. And benevolence demands that these just consequences be carried out to promote the greater good.

Still love is merciful and patient; enter Christ as an expression of the love of God. An expression that is just as benevolent as his laws and their consequences. In order for justice to fully represent the love of God, it must be justice of the second chance. Its consequences must be administered for each transgression in harmony with the transgression (God poured out his wrath upon Christ that we may receive a second chance.) Still, in the face of justice, provisions must be made for compassion. Justice cannot make those provisions, but love can….

God is love, love hates sin because sin does harm to those that God loves. God loves all men; love gives all men a second chance. When we fail to utilize the benevolence of a second chance, there remains nothing but the consequences of our actions. God does not hate any man. His love demands consequences. Consequences that are just and promote the greater good..

[Smitten]

seer,


I do not know for sure. But I think that Calvin is denying His very essence of love. And I think it is a real problem for Calvinists - how could God deny His very character and treat any of His creatures unlovingly.

well if God doesn't love all people equally then his character doesn't demand it, so he isn't violating his character. if the calvinist view of God is correct, this isn't a problem because his character isn't being violated, but some may still misunderstand his character.

like you said about the Calvin quote, you don't know exactly what he is saying. There is a difference between love being an essential quality(among other qualities) and one's very essence being love(only love). The latter sounds very problematic and confusing. Do we take other statements of that grammatic form in the same way? Is God's essence 'love' and a 'consuming fire'? Does that mean that those two are the same thing?

Christ loves His bride.

[seer]

well if God doesn't love all people equally then his character doesn't demand it, so he isn't violating his character. if the calvinist view of God is correct, this isn't a problem because his character isn't being violated, but some may still misunderstand his character.

Or Calvinist misunderstand his character. Of course there is no logical reason why God would love one sinner and not another - apart from an arbitrary choice.

like you said about the Calvin quote, you don't know exactly what he is saying. There is a difference between love being an essential quality(among other qualities) and one's very essence being love(only love). The latter sounds very problematic and confusing. Do we take other statements of that grammatic form in the same way? Is God's essence 'love' and a 'consuming fire'? Does that mean that those two are the same thing?

It says that God is LOVE. Not simply that He loves. And if God's essence is love - how is that a problem? Is God's essence also not Holy? Why can't both be essential to His being?

[trueseeker]

seer wrote: '...there is no logical reason why God would love one sinner and not another - apart from an arbitrary choice.'

trueseeker: Of course, that is part of the Calvinist perspective, that God is arbitrary. He cast lots or something before the foundation of the world to choose His elect. Good news elect-you won eternal bliss, bad news all the rest of you, you didn't get picked-you're headed for eternal torment. For some reason Calvinists think everyone should be satisfied with whatever they end up with, because it is God's will, and everyone should be satisfied with God's will. They forget that because they are Calvinist they think they are the ones who got picked, what's not to be satisfied about God's will from their perspective, they think they are headed for eternal bliss.
______________________

seer wrote: 'It says that God is LOVE. Not simply that He loves. And if God's essence is love - how is that a problem? Is God's essence also not Holy? Why can't both be essential to His being?'

trueseeker: God's love supercedes His holiness and other attributes. He forgives and has mercy on the unholy. He accepts us even though we do not have the holiness to hold to the letter of His law. Why? Not because of His holiness, because of His love. Jesus Himself did not follow all the ritual washing, etc. to be holy on earth. So holiness was not the standard that God held Jesus to. Jesus did not fall short in loving God with all His heart, mind, and soul; and loving His neighbor as Himself and thus He fulfilled all the law and the prophets. Love is God's strongest driving motivation, and yes He loves everyone, and wants all of us to come to repentance (turn our lives around).

[Smitten]

seer,


Or Calvinist misunderstand his character.

Yes that's possible, i used "if" in my response. the point was that your bit in the original post wasn't presenting a problem for calvinists that isn't question begging. You assume that the calvinist view of His character is wrong, then, "what do you know, he is violating his character!" in calvinism.


Of course there is no logical reason why God would love one sinner and not another - apart from an arbitrary choice.

there is also no logical reason why one person is created and not another. Or why we are carbon based creatures. this has been worked out before, you're just spouting worthless rhetoric that doesn't prove anything useful.



like you said about the Calvin quote, you don't know exactly what he is saying. There is a difference between love being an essential quality(among other qualities) and one's very essence being love(only love). The latter sounds very problematic and confusing. Do we take other statements of that grammatic form in the same way? Is God's essence 'love' and a 'consuming fire'? Does that mean that those two are the same thing?
It says that God is LOVE. Not simply that He loves. And if God's essence is love - how is that a problem? Is God's essence also not Holy? Why can't both be essential to His being?

It can be! In that case, you are taking the italicized option noted just above, that love is an essential quality among other essential qualities. For the third time, there is a difference between an essential quality(among others) and one's essence Wholy being something.

[Smitten]

trueseeker,

you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

[seer]

trueseeker,

you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

Why? I think TS has a point - if God takes nothing about the man into consideration when it comes to election - how is it not arbitrary?

[seer]

seer,



Yes that's possible, i used "if" in my response. the point was that your bit in the original post wasn't presenting a problem for calvinists that isn't question begging. You assume that the calvinist view of His character is wrong, then, "what do you know, he is violating his character!" in calvinism.



there is also no logical reason why one person is created and not another. Or why we are carbon based creatures. this has been worked out before, you're just spouting worthless rhetoric that doesn't prove anything useful.



It can be! In that case, you are taking the italicized option noted just above, that love is an essential quality among other essential qualities. For the third time, there is a difference between an essential quality(among others) and one's essence Wholy being something.

I guess my question would then be - can God violate His nature and treat any of His creatures in an unloving manner?

[Smitten]

seer,


Why? I think TS has a point - if God takes nothing about the man into consideration when it comes to election - how is it not arbitrary?

Why do you assume that his comments on that were what led me to my response?


I guess my question would then be - can God violate His nature and treat any of His creatures in an unloving manner?

What is the difference between God's character and his nature? It seems to me like you're asking the same question. Christ loves his Bride.

[trueseeker]

Smitten wrote: trueseeker,you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

trueseeker: Smitten, you will have to be a little more specific, I haven't got a clue as to what you are referring to. :ahem:

[seer]

What is the difference between God's character and his nature? It seems to me like you're asking the same question. Christ loves his Bride.

And God loved His "wife" National Israel too. And look what happened to them. But that was not my question - can God violated His nature/character (of love) and treat any of His creatures in an unloving manner?

[trueseeker]

seer asked: '... can God violated His nature/character (of love) and treat any of His creatures in an unloving manner?'

trueseeker: Could He? - perhaps. Does He? - I don't think ever does.

[Smitten]

seer,


And God loved His "wife" National Israel too. And look what happened to them. But that was not my question - can God violated His nature/character (of love) and treat any of His creatures in an unloving manner?

It isn't in God's nature/character to keep himself from treating any of His creatures in an unloving manner.

Have you forgotten all the messages between us preceding? This has been the premise in question, what exactly is God's character and what does that entail? Where are you going with this, you should obviously know that i don't accept the premise in your question in the first place, are you wanting to actually discuss anything?

[Chappie]

What is the difference between God's character and his nature? It seems to me like you're asking the same question. Christ loves his Bride.

And God loved His "wife" National Israel too. And look what happened to them. But that was not my question - can God violated His nature/character (of love) and treat any of His creatures in an unloving manner?

God is married!!!! :eek:

When was the marriage supper. Did I fall asleep or what?

[seer]

Have you forgotten all the messages between us preceding? This has been the premise in question, what exactly is God's character and what does that entail? Where are you going with this, you should obviously know that i don't accept the premise in your question in the first place, are you wanting to actually discuss anything?

I'am not sure what you are getting at. Look at these statements:

God Is Holy

God Is Love

Except for the specific attribute is there any difference in the statements - do they both tell us something true about God - His character or nature or whatever?