The God of Modernism - Love without truth

ATP has a nice article entitled For the Love of God, in which he bemoans the modern simplistic view of "God is love" - it seems that moderns affirm this, but deny that God is any more than that.  Well done, and he makes some interesting theological observations.

First, he intimates that, when we say God is love, we also conclude that He loves us because we are good.

God’s loves us because we are lovely. And therefore, why wouldn’t love me or you? We’re basically good people.

Naturally, this contradicts scripture - He loves us because we have value and beauty (imago dei), but He also loves us despite something - our sinfulness.

Romans 5:8
But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Second, the author explains that God's love is not a response to our goodness or our love, but his own initative based on HIS goodness

1 John 4:10
In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

We see from “not that we have loved God but that he loved us” that love by definition does not have to reciprocate. In order to give love, one does not have to be loved back. Thus, true love is not contingent on being loved back... It isn’t that we loved God but that He loved us first (cf. 1 John 4:19).

Third, the death of Christ only shows God's love because it is a sacrifice to appease God's wrath at sin.

Moreover, in the love of God He sent “His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” Propitiation means an appeasing, a sacrifice that bears God’s wrath so that God becomes “propitious” or favorably disposed toward us; the claims of divine justice are satisfied. Propitiation is the wrath of God satisfied because of Jesus.

This point is important because it shows that God's love is not one that averts justice (which would not only be unrighteous, but unloving to those who are victims), it shows that love is more than just forgiveness, it's the satisfaction of what justice requires.  It's love AND truth, not just some sentimental idea of love that avoids the hard work of being just.

As D.A. Carson says wrath “is a function of God’s Holiness against sin. Where there is no sin, there is no wrath… The price of diluting God’s wrath is diminishing God’s holiness.

Fourth, He reminds us that it is not really God who condemns us, but based on the way a just universe works, our own sin condemns us - that is, we are already guilty even before the judge says so.

Ephesians 2:1-8
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Lastly, he concludes that to preach the love of God without the context of our guilt is to preach a lie.

To never properly discuss the love of God in terms of His propitious death is to gut what is means that God is love. The grandest demonstration of love in existence was when Christ Jesus took on full strength the wrath of God we all deserved. To say, “God loves you” and to at the same time withhold or neglect God’s holiness and righteous is to preach a false Gospel meriting eternal condemnation (Gal 1:8-9).

RELATED POSTS:

• The Wrath of God - Romans 1

 

Comments

[skeptic]

The God of fundamentalism:
"Truth" (i.e., dogma) without Love.

[seeker]

You are absolutely correct, and I have said as much in my posts on neo fundamentalism - there's a whole category on it.

But no matter how lovingly you live and preach the truth, people may end up hating you - Jesus said so. And preaching the sinfulness of homosexuality is a truth which is always especially hated in cultures that have fallen away from God.

[skeptic]

You are one of the most pathetic people I have ever had the misfortune to know. Literally everything turns on homosexuality for you. I am now convinced that you are a closet queer and are desperate to keep it down. The only way to do it, of course, is to project your own self-hatred out onto gay people everywhere. It's really sad. And, as well, Christianity is ready-made for your quest to kill the gay seeker, for its essence is the patriarchal heterosexist hegemony which must scapegoat gays to survive. There is no love in it, only the god of wrath and hate and vindictiveness - the monster so consumed with loathing for his own creation that he demands human blood to be appeased. Repulsive.

[Louis]

I don't know, skeptic, seeker denies it but it is something to think about.

I find it revealing that seeker concedes that fundamentalism promotes theology and dogma which has no place for love. Maybe this is why he thinks he can preach what he takes for truth without regard to the consequences it wreaks on other people. What he lacks is humility and the ability to view himself as others view him. His adherence to the rules and regulations of xianity - to the exclusion of such central concepts as compassion and mercy - reveals the danger of fundamentalist thinking. Whenever I read him I can't help but think of the scribes and pharisees of the NT and Jesus' reaction to them.

[seeker]

Actually, when responding to you or any of our other gay or gay-affirming residents, I often link back the subject to homosexuality, in part to not let you off the hook when the topic at hand is relevant, and perhaps partly because I like poking the caged monkey.

Also, the subject matter of this post directly relates to homosexuality because
- gays often promote a view of God that does not judge sexual immorality, but is instead the "all loving" god that the original author was describing as unbiblical
- if you read the related post on the wrath of God, you would know that the idea related to this idea that God does not act in wrath is that the abandonment of a people is one type of divine wrath, and in the Romans 1 passage, the acceptance of homosexuality is given as the a major indicator that a culture has reached the bottom of the downward spiral into depravity.

As I have repeatedly said, while the doctrinal and practical issues around hx are one of the perhaps five major topics I am interested in, it is only angry defenders of homosexuality that see my interest as some pathological hatred or projected self hatred. But their skills in psychoanalysis are of the armchair variety, and certainly not based on any real skills. And their view of hatred is, by definition, uninformed, and usually a juvenile misunderstanding.

[kj]

Skeptic - based on reading through your comments for a bunch of posts here, you certainly appear to drip with hate when you condemn others as haters. I can't imagine why you keep reading and commenting here, given how every single thing written inflames your spleen so. You must really like to get a mad on. Different strokes, I guess.
Seeker - I admire the good grace with which you handle the invective. I also enjoy your posts, keep up the good work.

[Louis]

seeker,
I suggest you stop referring to your interlocutors and their opinions as "juvenile" or "childish" as this is merely ad hominem and leaves you open to similar invective.

I came across the following quote and thought of you. Would you care to comment?

Liberalism and Western-style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today, these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems...Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.

[seeker]

I suggest you stop referring to your interlocutors and their opinions as "juvenile" or "childish" as this is merely ad hominem and leaves you open to similar invective.

You are probably right, though I mean it in the technical sense of the word, as I described in What is Hate?

Confusing criticism of one's actions or thoughts with one's own person is a trait of early self-concept development in children. This is why books on good parenting stress that you should be clear when disciplining children that it is their actions that are bad, but you value THEM regardless of their actions, and consider their persons to be good.

[seeker]

Regarding the quote above, I see you are setting a trap for me. I, of course, was tipped off by your uncharacteristic cordiality and lack of invective ;)

But let me answer anyway. A typical cheap trick in debate, also known as a logical fallacy, is to choose a more common truth that many people might believe, and find some heinous criminal who believe such. Then, using guilt by association, when your opponent agrees with such a truth, you can claim that they are agreeing with an evil person, and therefore, must therefore agree with the more heinous stuff the evil guy says. Nice try though.

But regarding the truth in crazy-man Ahmadinejad's claim, it's just blather. Liberal democracy is not failing as such totalitarian megalomaniacs would like to think, though the west IS in the depth of a moral decline, and is in real danger of brining ruin upon istelf.

But that's not a failure of liberal democracy, but of modern Christianity, which has failed to be salt and light, presenting love and truth to our culture, and of course, a failing of humanity without God.

And his claim that God will rule is really just a reflection of (1) his triumphalist theology (which Chrisitianity also shares, though in a different manner than Islam), and (2) his desire to see the cruel hand of Islam spread over the earth by force, threat, and murder.

[seeker]

BTW, Louis, I am strangely glad that you are back. Perhaps it is to ease my guilt at having been lacking in kindness and previously driving you away. Either that, or it is my suppressed SSA trying to come out ;). LOL.

Actually, I just like your honesty.

[Louis]

Ha! I wondered if you'd spot the trap. Still, I do see some similarities in your thinking. A fundamentalist by any other name...

However, I think it's more than just trying to associate you with the fascist nutjob in Iran. There really is a divide between our two camps, and I think you're closer to his side than mine. It's really two entirely two different ways of thinking and experiencing the world. This is why we just cannot seem to find any common ground at all. You actually really and truly believe that the Bible is God's revelation and is literally true, and therefore all of human existence has to be organized around its dictates. You really believe that the xian version of God is true and there is an actual divine being watching us. This is just surreal to me. And threatening. I guess that's why we always end up in invective and stalemate (as happened with skeptic). I see the Bible as an interesting artifact like any other artifact: something to evaluate on its literary and philosophical points, but little else. I don't see it as a divine handbook which must be obeyed whatever the cost. I think the source of human knowledge and guide to behavior is reason and its off-shoots (ie, science and philosophy and, perhaps, art), and the basis for authority is human effort rather than divine revelation. I am a non-theist and regard theistic religions with suspicion and incredulity. I think most xians are pretty harmless, but many are very dangerous. On the other hand, I feel that everybody should be able to choose their own path without interference from government or organized religion, and that you can believe anything you want as long as it doesn't interfere with the same rights of others. Of course, if you bring up your beliefs around me you'll be subjected to merciless inquiry, as there is nothing above criticism and analysis. My model is Socrates, not Jesus, and what religion I have descends from the Buddha not Abraham.

So there!

[Louis]

btw: in answer to your defense of "juvenile": you are addressing adults and not children. When you use this you come off as condescending and patronizing.