Introduction
Now because of this understanding of God's spirit as a fundamental aspect of God for thousands of years, Christian theologians have been forced to deduce and infer God's love is also fundamental in the exact same manner, since both statements in the original Greek New Testament are construed and posited using the exact same grammatical construction and syntax, they are indistinguishable bar one word: "God is .... (love/spirit)".
It is undeniable, if one is an essential aspect of God's nature as Christian scholars, theologians and Greek grammarians maintain, then the other has to be. This gives us at-least two essential aspects of God. God subsists in his very essence, being and nature as pure perfect love and spirit. To put it another way, if God was composed of "stuff" (like energy/matter is) it would be "love and spirit energy/matter and/or atoms and molecules". This gives you an incredibly rare and unique insight into just how loving God is, his very center, his whatness and isness, his pure existence is love. The very composition that constitutes him (or that he constitutes) is comprised of perfect absolute love.
God is not only loving or spiritual, as in an adjective describing a temporal like state. It's not that he sometimes behaves this way, temporarily manifesting this quality, nor is he even is just generally like this as some long term part of his character. The profound truth is that he is what embodies and perfectly exemplifies these adjectives in his very unity of being, he is the noun form of love itself, absolute love, he exhausts the category of love from inside and out.
If Sue says Joe is "loving", we can imagine a relative statement here, meaning Joe from the stand point of his beloved Sue is the most wonderful and loving man in the world. Yet he is not synonymous with "love" the noun. Yet if I say "Joe is human" he is synonymous with "human", everything that human is, Joe is. We can say Joe is loving, but not love itself. Of God we say, he is loving because he is love.
If Sue says Joe is "loving", we can imagine a relative statement here, meaning Joe from the stand point of his beloved Sue is the most wonderful and loving man in the world. Yet he is not synonymous with "love" the noun. Yet if I say "Joe is human" he is synonymous with "human", everything that human is, Joe is. We can say Joe is loving, but not love itself. Of God we say, he is loving because he is love.
Joe therefore does not behave lovingly because he is fundamentally love, rather Joe has a potential or range of behaviors he could exemplify (non of which are permanent), he will choose to express or won't. This expressive love we exhibit is not fundamental, nor continuous, immutable, everlasting, perfect, nor does it envelop our very essence or our totality of being. Hence Joe is choosing (but is not inherently) love, where as God is (inherently) love.
A loving person can exhibit love, since love is a potential attribute that can be demonstrated, but imagine a case where a loving person is love, imagine if it's not merely potentially expressed, or a general depiction of how someone behaves but imagine a God who is absolutely identical with love. A space where there exists no potentiality, or regression or change, he is for once and forever: perfect love itself fully exhausted and appropriated and expressed.
This literary device is not used of any other positive aspects of God's nature, which is quite telling. God is identified with two nouns in the qualitative construction (and no others) in the very construction used to also establish the ineffable certainty of Christ's divinity "and God is the Word (translated as the Word is God John 1:1c)". This means is the very concept of these nouns exemplifed and embodied in personal consciousness therefore we must explain God in this light.
This literary device is not used of any other positive aspects of God's nature, which is quite telling. God is identified with two nouns in the qualitative construction (and no others) in the very construction used to also establish the ineffable certainty of Christ's divinity "and God is the Word (translated as the Word is God John 1:1c)". This means is the very concept of these nouns exemplifed and embodied in personal consciousness therefore we must explain God in this light.
Notice regarding any of the aforementioned qualities there is no Biblical statement like: "God is Faith (wrath, anger, justice, etc)", however there is: "God is Faithful (wrathful, just, etc)". This is of course because God is not faith itself, rather he is the object of faith. And he is faithful because his love endures forever, his promises remain the same, and he will never give up on us. So his "faithfulness" is the result of his loving essence, not because "faith" is an essential aspect within God's being independent of love, rather faithful here is the manifestation and application of love given God's relationship with the created world, which makes it a behavior that God exhibits in the context of relating to creation, but love is the foundation for such divine activity.
Likewise this explains the existence of "mercy". Mercy is apart of God, yet it is not a fundamental aspect of God's being. Using our language mercy is derivative of God's pure loving essence. To explain: How can God have mercy on one, or be essentially merciful when when there was no sinners to have mercy on? This shows us that mercy is derivative of God's love, and only came into fruition when sinners began to exist. It's an adjective describing God's behavior or his activity when he was manifesting love. When the creation finally required mercy, mercy as a loving expression of God's activity came into being out of necessity. God's mercy (the merciful one) therefore is a particular application of love in the context of divine-human relations, and the activity, or adjective did not exist prior. Mercy does not exist as a real independent and phenomenon in God (like love and spirit are two essential aspects), it's a description of an action (and trait) that God makes, which is based in love.
Christian teaching then as passed down for hundreds of years has two fundamental descriptions of what God is. His very own essence is love and spirit. This means statements in the Bible that appear to contradict or undermine the loving essence of God must be re-understood in light of God's fundamental being and loving/spiritual essence.
Christianity teaches God is a Father and yet Christians do not literally believe God is a biological Father (with genitals and sperm), nor a literal "him". The Bible use these terms to describe God because he is personal rather than a "thing" or an "it". The Bible however quite often refers to God's attributes, such as his wisdom, and his divine presence, as "her", demonstrating God is personal no matter what gender pronoun you wish to employ. The Bible also ascribes repentance and evil unto God, but again we do not take this literally, since God is portraying himself in these passages like a man on purpose to demonstrate his willingness to listen to our prayers and his supremacy over creation.
However despite all of the aforementioned what is fascinating is that many contemporary Christians forget that other adjectives and or attributes assigned to God are also non-literal in terms of the human notions of such concepts, and the same qualities must be explained in the context of God's fundamental loving nature, that is his very being.
Likewise this explains the existence of "mercy". Mercy is apart of God, yet it is not a fundamental aspect of God's being. Using our language mercy is derivative of God's pure loving essence. To explain: How can God have mercy on one, or be essentially merciful when when there was no sinners to have mercy on? This shows us that mercy is derivative of God's love, and only came into fruition when sinners began to exist. It's an adjective describing God's behavior or his activity when he was manifesting love. When the creation finally required mercy, mercy as a loving expression of God's activity came into being out of necessity. God's mercy (the merciful one) therefore is a particular application of love in the context of divine-human relations, and the activity, or adjective did not exist prior. Mercy does not exist as a real independent and phenomenon in God (like love and spirit are two essential aspects), it's a description of an action (and trait) that God makes, which is based in love.
Christian teaching then as passed down for hundreds of years has two fundamental descriptions of what God is. His very own essence is love and spirit. This means statements in the Bible that appear to contradict or undermine the loving essence of God must be re-understood in light of God's fundamental being and loving/spiritual essence.
Christianity teaches God is a Father and yet Christians do not literally believe God is a biological Father (with genitals and sperm), nor a literal "him". The Bible use these terms to describe God because he is personal rather than a "thing" or an "it". The Bible however quite often refers to God's attributes, such as his wisdom, and his divine presence, as "her", demonstrating God is personal no matter what gender pronoun you wish to employ. The Bible also ascribes repentance and evil unto God, but again we do not take this literally, since God is portraying himself in these passages like a man on purpose to demonstrate his willingness to listen to our prayers and his supremacy over creation.
However despite all of the aforementioned what is fascinating is that many contemporary Christians forget that other adjectives and or attributes assigned to God are also non-literal in terms of the human notions of such concepts, and the same qualities must be explained in the context of God's fundamental loving nature, that is his very being.
In the Bible God is commonly assigned human qualities like "anger" or "wrath" or "vengeance" (as mentioned) sometimes even "evil". Many of God's attributes, his wrath, his justice, his anger, his judgement, his righteousness, etc must be qualified in light of his essence so we can infer the proper understanding of these descriptive terms in the context given God's all essential-loving being. We cannot propose any description or definition of these qualities that contradicts God's core loving being. Historically, the Church has understood these more human like descriptions to be anthropomorphic in nature. That is God is an unfathomable consciousness, above and beyond human reality. It was therefore necessary for God to condescend on our plain and speak to humans in our own limited way by relating to us using terms and language and emotive states of being that only we experience and learn from. (1)
So when you think of God's anger, wrath or judgement don't conceive of such common intuitions or common sense assumptions that the ordinary humans perceives in finite mind. God describes himself using terms that you have some subjective emotive correspondence to and experience with, but no such application exists in the context of the Almighty who possesses no such temporal states of emotion, incomplete desires, passions, no inadequacy nor imperfection, he cannot be "frustrated" or "made angry" like we are, rather these explains God's own activities, behaviors and responses to human behaviors from the stand point of human interpretation.
All of these anthropomorphic descriptions are to be explained in the context of God's essence, not as God acting like humans relating to other humans or God desiring equal measure for punishment and sin, or good and evil. Within Christianity is a doctrine known as the impassibility of God has been largely confusing especially for protestant reformers.
On the one hand these theologians wish to adhere to God's impassibility since it's completely Scripturally sound while simultaneously holding to views that contradict God's immutable loving state, including such beliefs as God's judgement is expressed through eternal conscious torment. The problem is both doctrines cannot possibly be true. And God's impassibility tied to classic theism is a historic doctrine of the Church. As one Encyclopedia describes the doctrine:
On the one hand these theologians wish to adhere to God's impassibility since it's completely Scripturally sound while simultaneously holding to views that contradict God's immutable loving state, including such beliefs as God's judgement is expressed through eternal conscious torment. The problem is both doctrines cannot possibly be true. And God's impassibility tied to classic theism is a historic doctrine of the Church. As one Encyclopedia describes the doctrine:
"Impassibility is that divine attribute whereby God is said not to experience inner emotional changes of state whether enacted freely from within or effected by his relationship to and interaction with human beings and the created order. More specifically, impassibility means that God does not experience suffering and pain, and thus does not have feelings that are analogous to human feelings. Divine impassibility follows upon His immutability, in that, since God is changeless and unchangeable, his inner emotional state cannot change from joy to sorrow or from delight to suffering. Biblical basis. The Bible does not address the philosophical question of whether or not God is impassible. Nonetheless, divine impassibility is founded upon the same scriptural evidence as that of divine immutability. Summarily, God, within the Old Testament, reveals through his immanent actions within time and history that he is personal, knowing, and loving. He is the One God who is Savior, Creator, and Sanctifier. These immanent divine acts reveal that God transcends all else that exists. He is completely "other," and so He cannot be numbered among all else that exists. Thus, God is present and active within the created order of time and history as the one who, as the "Wholly Other," transcends it. Unlike creatures, whose emotional inner states change either through their own actions or by being acted upon, God as all perfect transcends this changeable created order. He neither can change his own inner emotional state nor can another effect a change in his inner emotional state, and thus He is impassible. Within this Old Testament context God, nonetheless, is seen as displaying a variety of emotions. Due to his faithful love, God hears the cry of his enslaved people in Egypt and so "suffers" over their plight (Ex 2:23–25; 3:1–8, 15–17; Dt 4:37). Moreover, because of his love God equally grieves over the sinful disloyalty of his people and even becomes angry (Hos 11:1–4). Yet, his heart "recoils" within him and his compassion "grows warm and tender," and thus he will not execute "his fierce anger." The reason is, "For I am God and not mortal; the Holy One in your midst and I will not come in wrath" (Hos 11:8–9). While God's wrath rises in justice, it is always tempered by his forgiving, compassionate, and faithful love (Ex 32:11–14; 1 Sam 15:11). Within the Old Testament then God is seen as "suffering" with, or on behalf of, or because of his people, and so he grieves with or over them (Ps 78:40, 95:10–11). These various "emotional" states are said to cause God to "repent" or "change his mind" (Gn 6:6–7; Judg 2:18; 2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chr 21:15; Ps 106:45; Jer 18:8; Amos 7:3 & 6; Joel 2:13; Jon 3:19). In the end, God consistently acts with great compassion and mercy. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord."(2)
And another:
"Classic theism teaches that God is impassible — not subject to suffering, pain, or the ebb and flow of involuntary passions. In the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, God is "without body, parts, or passions, immutable." It is important to note that the debate regarding the doctrine of impassibility does not center on whether God has feelings or emotions. Though some would argue for the position that God does not possess any feelings or passions, those such as Paul Helm who seek to preserve impassibility do not view God as completely apathetic. Rather, the question is whether or not God's passions are voluntary or involuntary. Does God actually react to his creation in an emotional way? Can humanity hurt God, emotionally? The standard difficulty encountered by advocates of impassibility is that the Scripture narrative presents a God who does, in fact, react to his creation. The typical rejoinder to this is that the narrative portions of the Holy Text also present God with certain human features such as hands, eyes, etc. Surely, it is claimed, we do not accept all descriptions of God in human terms (anthropomorphisms), and as such we should be cautious in accepting the emotions and passions of God at face value. In recent years many in the Open Theist circles have explored the various anthropomorphism's of God to discover if, in fact, they do reveal something about God, however imperfect the description may be." (3)
Hence it is impossible for God to be both literally love and hate, or anger and peace, nor can God 'alternate' between human states of emotional being, rather God is beyond human states of transitivity and he himself is pure being and his his own unique essence that is composed of a deeper but real mystery of love. The Church went with the passions as the anthropomorphisms they were intended to be yet ironically they still preserve false doctrines that contradict this.
When a Christian affirms that God is love, or God is infinitely loving or the source of infinite love, I must ask them what on earth they mean by this? That's because ninety percent of the time it's just lip service to the so-called "Gospel" of highly active imagination.
Egoic 'pseudo' love, a human type of god presenting a human type of love. A literal heaven or hell, Christ or torture, born or burn. This shallow exclusivity has frequently under ranked and under estimated who God is. It has reshaped and redefined God as made in man's image. This naive formula so often regurgitated, has asserted and presented itself as synonymous with God, that image that constipates God and turns him into a blithering fool, is not life, God is life.
Most Christians are like the Pharisees who were so fond of espousing and protecting certain divine truths without contemplating or reflecting the divine majesty and the very suchness, beauty and purity of such a precious reality. They neglect to ponder even the slightest profundity, failing to realize any far reaching implication. Your entire life could be cast into all the majesty and glory of the divine heavenly kingdom. The precious one condescending into you his child, and manifesting through your presence, his grace made perfect and complete, and your unity with his being, sealed forever. In the split of a second, the breath of one moment, the world around you could change forever, such beautiful, deep, deep spiritual mysteries, treasures revealed from our unbreakable bond and union with God. Transcendent knowledge and peace, and God in us and us in God.
O mortal; creature, how you have under estimated God's infallible, perfect power and immovable unquenchable divine love? His love cannot be quenched by you or me alone, it's unending, it will consume every rebel, every murderer, every coward, and every failure. How can man place a boundary, a limitation upon his God's unending unquenchable love, while God himself cannot?
How can God's love ultimately be defeated by sin and death? How is it, God's perfect love can be stopped, ceased or made fallible? How can a man's will thwart God's will to bring him into loving communion? How can man's inaction stop the perfect and complete one? How is it that pure love does not consume the lost souls of every last sinner with pure and absolute affection and unending grace given and made manifest by our perfect heavenly Father?
How can God's boundless and limitless perfect love not be sufficient for even one sinning creature? How can God's infinite love not consume all of "hell" and melt every rebellious heart of every sinner until the piercing/ circumcision of all soul? Why is it that God can stretch his hand out to save me and you, and yet he can't save all made in his image? Will he let one of his children go astray? If he can change my heart, can he not change every heart?
Lord make us less selfish and more compassionate. Take us from the old and into the new. God open the eyes of our hearts, Lord, of all who doubt you and send them your loving angels,
Come unto me and I will give you rest says the Lord.
(1) To use a modern analogy, imagine if you wanted to communicate with an Ant. How are you going to do it? Do they speak, German, French, English or Arabic? No. Any other language? No. Do they understand human non-verbal communication? No. So is it even possible? One way to relate to an Ant is you would have to learn the Ant-language, or signal them patterns of behavior and signs that communicate to them in their own way. It's ironic, you can know about an Ant, but an Ant can know nothing about you. As you can see God is confined to using our range of emotive experience in communication with us, he is able to communicate to some degree some far reaching concepts.
(2) http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3407705591/impassibility-god.html
(3) http://www.theopedia.com/Impassibility_of_God
No comments:
Post a Comment