SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : The Triunity (my slightly differing view/ understanding)

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 Next Page )
PosterThread
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Inthelight,

Quote:
Again I must ask, doesn't love presuppose a relationship with more than one party? Therefore, if God weren’t sharing his love with someone then he wouldn’t be perfectly loving since perfect love only exists between at least two persons.


First of all as I was just saying to Bog this philosophy should not be your first and main argument but the Scriptures should. William Lane Craig and all those others are presuppositional apologist which means they start in the philosophical.

Secondly, I do not agree with your premise that you have to have 2 to love. I already stated that you can love yourself when you are alone therefore love can exist with one. Do you not love yourself when you feed yourself and so on as it says in Scripture what man does not love his own flesh.

Third, even if this were the case there is a difference between God and us. We were created by love and for love but God is love so God to just be with Himself is loving for love to love itself is loving.

Fourth, the scriptures don't specifically say anywhere that God had to have multiple personalities or else He would have no one to love and therefore would not be loving. If this were the case then there should be ample clear emphatic scripture on the subject and there is not even the couple passages that Bog pulled out are not appliable.

Fifth, there is a relationship but it is with Himself. And in anticipation of a response I say God is not like us in that it is not good for Him to be alone or that He could get lonely He is not a man that needs such things. Also, if God loving is based on having another person to love by necessity then is God lacking in love because He has not created an infinite amount of people or because He does not have an infinite amount of personalities?.. Though I dont want to delve deeper in philosophy.

Sixth, God is giving Himself away to Himself. As you give yourself to yourself to love your own flesh and I am not talking about your sinful nature so God is giving Himself away to Himself. This is in response to Craig.

 2008/12/4 19:16Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

[color=FF0000]I am not sure if anyone wants to do this but it is worth a try. I am trying to get a further understanding on this manner in a more in depth way and therefore want to ask if there are any more disagreements or bases that I have not covered or forgotten about. So far I have compiled a short list of things. I would like to make this more comprehensive so that I can think over these things more fully and also study to be more understanding. If I have left anything out or you have some new disagreements let me know.

-Personal pronouns "we, me, I, you" prove that there is more then one person
-God speaks to Himself therefore is another person
-God relates to Himself therefore is another person
-Your doctrine is Arianism, Modalism, Oneness, ect.
-God must have multiple personalities in order to love since love must by necessity give to another and cannot just love Himself
-Jesus spoke to the Father and said I was always with You therefore the Son has always been
-God does not have parts
-Tradition, Creeds, Liturgy, Christian leaders, mainstream Christianity has always held to these things therefore it is crazy to teach otherwise
-Jesus was with God therefore He is separate in person from the Father
-The Shema says that God is one yet multiple in the Hebrew therefore God has multiple personalities
-The Holy Spirit has a/His own personality therefore He has a distinct personality from the Father/God and Logos/Son
-You say the Son/Logos, Father/God, Spirit don't have their own personality therefore you are saying they don't have a personality
-You say that the Son has not always been so you are you saying Jesus is not the eternal God
-You say the Son has not always been therefore you are saying the Father has not always been and that is against 1John which speaks about denying the Father and you are also saying the Father is not eternal
-Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father have names therefore they have different personalities
-There are some verses in the OT like Isaiah 6 that are applied to Jesus in the NT that said He was around in the past so that means He has always been around as the Son
-the Son of God appeared in the fire in the book of Daniel therefore the Son was before the incarnation
-You have previous philosophical biases, systematic boxes, wrong views of God and other things that cause you to interpret scripture with bias
-the Triunity cannot be understood
-Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever and God does not change therefore the Son has always been
-In Isaiah 6 God is called holy 3 times therefore there are three personalities in God
-God doesn't talk to Himself therefore He has to have multiple personalities to talk to
-talking about these things in such depth is not edifying but can be destructive
-you are unreasonable, uneducated, and so forth
-Melchizedec was a type of the Son therefore the Son existed before the incarnation
-there were theophanies therefore the Son existed before incarnation
-God cannot love Himself because love does not seek its own
-you dont accept the mainline teaching of the Triunity because it doesnt make sense to your mind
[/color]

 2008/12/4 19:30Profile
ChrisJD
Member



Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA

 Re:

Hi everyone.


Hi Ron, hope you are well?

I appologise to come into this discussion abruptly. I don't want to get into the discussion but I wanted to leave a few comments and something that you wrote caught my attention.


About this,

"The Son must be prior to incarnation as the Father gave the Son and not the logos to be the Saviour of the world."




John says it was the Word of Life that was manifested(1Jn 1:1-2).

How was it seen? In a Tent(Jn 1:14).






The Lord Jesus said,


[b][color=660000] For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; [/color][/b]






Also, about this,



"Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I want to remark on this topic once more because I feel I have a couple more thoughts. To be with does not mean you are seperate. My spirit is with me but it is not separate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh but it does. This is the whole purpose of the switch in prepositions in the phrase...

the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. John 14:17 NKJV

your spirit is not 'with you' it is 'in you'."



According to Strong's, the word translated [i]with[/i] in John 14:17 is not the same as the word translated [i]with[/i] in John 1:1.



The latter is defined as,



G4314
πρός
pros
pros
A strengthened form of G4253; a preposition of direction; forward to, that is, toward (with the genitive case the side of, that is, pertaining to; with the dative case by the side of, that is, near to; usually with the accusative case the place, time, occasion, or respect, which is the destination of the relation, that is, whither or for which it is predicated): - about, according to, against, among, at, because of, before, between, ([where-]) by, for, X at thy house, in, for intent, nigh unto, of, which pertain to, that, to (the end that), + together, to ([you]) -ward, unto, with (-in). In compounds it denotes essentially the same applications, namely, motion towards, accession to, or nearness at.




When I read this definition tonight, and particularly where it says "a preposition of direction; forward to, that is, toward" I had the thought of the Image of God(Heb 1:3) looking back towards Him as in a reflection, that is, until He was sent into the World, so that God could be seen(Jn 1:18).







I think that the more words men use the farther away they are likely to get from what God has said.


_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow

 2008/12/4 20:04Profile
ChrisJD
Member



Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA

 Re:

"God must have multiple personalities in order to love since love must by necessity give to another"





This and other statements like it are philosophy(Davidt I know you didn't write this yourself just using an example).


This kind of reasoning about the scriptres and what God has said and the mulitude of words and thoughts that accompany it seems to be potentially very destructive to me.






_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow

 2008/12/4 20:11Profile
boG
Member



Joined: 2008/5/21
Posts: 349
Las Vegas, NV

 Re:

It is nice to know you are making a list David.

Quote:
First of all as I was just saying to Bog this philosophy should not be your first and main argument but the Scriptures should. ...
And yes it seems that this is your entire point and your main disagreement with me and the funny things is is that this philosophy of your is not even specifically stated in scripture.


Indeed, how humorous, what ever could have brought me to the reasoning that "love does not seek its own" unless I had not first read it in Holy Writ (and this question stands regardless of the Trinity).

And, I should say it is interesting that William Lane Craig reasoned the same as myself; and that without me referring to any other on this question. This concern of God fulfilling His own nature of Love stands glaringly obvious to most everyone but you, it would seem.

Quote:
If you read what I stated multiple times you would understand that I said there are 2 ways we can love ourselves. We can love our sinful nature and therefore sin or we can love just our body which is neutral and not sin it is wholesome just as loving you children is wholesome. You must understand that there is a difference. We have sin in us but there is a part of us that is not sinful. It is not sinful to drink juice but it is sinful to drink wine and get drunk. It is not sinful to to have anger but it is when we do it in unrighteousness.


I would beg to differ. Whatever is not of faith is sin. Whatever. Juice or otherwise is sin if it is not consumed by faith. [b]Lamentations 1:19[/b], "... My priests and my elders perished in the city while they sought food to restore their strength themselves." Anything and everything that man commits apart from the Holy Spirit of Christ is sin. Period.

Quote:
We have sin in us but there is a part of us that is not sinful ... you must understand the difference between our normal nature and the sinful nature that is in it ... or we can love just our body which is neutral


Oh, is this actually different from loving our sinful natures?
[b]Romans 7
23.[/b] but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.

You seem to be misunderstanding that it is the lusts of the flesh (the body) that enslaves our depraved hearts to sin -- "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."

And, by the way, if you are referring to the commandment "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." You need be very careful. This is not two commandments joined together -- ie. "love your neighbor" and "love yourself" (you can see to the original greek on this). This is to be taken within the context of Christ's reiteration: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another." In that regard, it is similar but not exact to what you have said. As you had been a lover of self in your sin, so now entrust yourself to the providence and lovingkindness of God in Christ Jesus that He shall feed you, and clothe you, and care for your needs; therefore He sends us: go and do likewise (feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the afflicted, evangelize).

Quote:
This is in context to the specific discipleship call. This does not mean that we are to not love our children only that we are to put Jesus first. So also not that we are to never eat or be in comfort but that we are not to put that before Christ.


This is not merely a "specific discipleship call" this is one of the core Christian tenets and touches every aspect of our lives.
So, again, I would beg to differ. This very well attends us to hate our children and family and ourselves. As Paul wrote, "For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified." If you truly loved your children you would love only the image of Christ formed in them. Mind you when I speak of "hate" I am not speaking of the malignant wrath & hatred of man which does not work the righteousness of God. David, you even mentioned yourself to "be angry (hate) and sin not". If you truly loved yourself you would likewise deny, despise, hate, decrease yourself yet love Christ magnified in you -- for only when you lose your life, "wretched man that I am", shall you truly find it raised up into newness of life in Christ. For this reason Jesus is not merely to be "first" in order of eminence, as you have mentioned, but much more first and foremost in immanence.

Quote:
This love spoken of here is not speaking of God specifically. Not everytime that love is mentioned is it talking about God. There is a love that is not God in His essence it is only that love that God has created outside of Himself just as He is not the trees so there is love that is not Him. So this verse is in context to mans love.


That is the most absurd statement, you do jest. "He is not the trees so there is love that is not Him" I would love to see your Scripture and reasoning for making this statement as it relates to the love of God.
There is no [i]agape[/i] love in man apart from the Spirit of God who sheds His love abroad in our hearts. These ([b]1 Corinthians 13[/b]) are descriptions of the Fruits of the Holy Spirit that bear the image of Christ Jesus, sent down from the Father of lights.
I challenge you, give me the scripture for your philosophy in this matter. "God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him." Any true love found in man is because that man is found in God.

Quote:
Nowhere does it say God had to have 3 different personalities to love or else He wouldnt be able to love.


My curiosity, to use a little Freudian psychology, is what compelled you to first question whether the Trinity was unscriptural. My greatest concern in this regard is what are you honestly convinced of in your faith, sir? While you were out preaching on the streets you testified to the Trinity while never being truly convinced of it yourself but by, what I can only reason to be, blind faith; so now you have tossed over to a new form of doctrine, one that is not really new but old, and one that has never withstood the rigors of sound teaching.
The only reason you seem to be further convincing yourself is that whenever a question is brought forward you either answer with some vague response that you alone seem to have substantial theological reasoning for or lapse into a seeming varying model of the [i]Triunity[/i] (hence all the people still trying to figure out what your view is). You do not even appear consistent with a single view of the Godhead; or even in a consistent definition of God or Love, for that matter.

Quote:
Maybe you are neither man centered nor God centered but love centered well then you have missed the mark in one way or another for God is love and therefore you will still unwittingly be God centered for God is love. Once again this is an established and clear scriptural doctrine accepted probably even by most on SI.


What is love, David? God is love because His nature and character is love. Love does not seek its own, therefore, what is your Godhead of Love seeking if not His own? Please, answer the question with that substance and main theological reasonings you have hinted to.

Quote:
At the end of this post I will provide you with scriptures that teach God desires to glorify Himself which means He desires to love Himself and some resources to further state my case


If you think this is a question of whether God should justly love Himself and be glorified you are sorely mistaken and prove yourself to be a great fool. The point is that your model of God is unable to love Himself as Love because you have swept away God's nature to fulfill His own Law of Love; as a love that "does not seek its own." You are bordering the line of ridiculous and you yet continue to make the likeness of God after the likeness of the creature.

Quote:
I already stated that you can love yourself when you are alone therefore love can exist with one. Do you not love yourself when you feed yourself and so on as it says in Scripture what man does not love his own flesh.


"Do you" O, man, "not love your own flesh"? Therefore, God loves Himself, for He is love.
Do you honestly expect us to believe this inspired of the Holy Ghost?

Quote:
Third, even if this were the case there is a difference between God and us. We were created by love and for love but God is love so God to just be with Himself is loving for love to love itself is loving.


Yet, you continue to give no substantial description or definition as to how God is Love: only that repeated phrase, "God is Love because He Loves Himself."
How about this one: [b]True or False?[/b] "God is Love because He does not seek His own."

Quote:
Fourth, the scriptures don't specifically say anywhere that God had to have multiple personalities or else He would have no one to love and therefore would not be loving. If this were the case then there should be ample clear emphatic scripture on the subject and there is not even the couple passages that Bog pulled out are not appliable.


You are actually right. The Scriptures do not say God "HAD" to be Three co-eternal Persons, they merely give evidence that He "DOES". And because Scripture does not readily declare the Godhead by name as "Trinity", we are left with the witness of compiled Scripture and reasoning -- just as you are attempting to do.

Quote:
Fifth, there is a relationship but it is with Himself. And in anticipation of a response I say God is not like us in that it is not good for Him to be alone or that He could get lonely He is not a man that needs such things. Also, if God loving is based on having another person to love by necessity then is God lacking in love because He has not created an infinite amount of people or because He does not have an infinite amount of personalities?.. Though I dont want to delve deeper in philosophy.


He does not need such things because He already has such relationship by nature as Trinity. Though I should wonder if this as deep as you have yet gone in this discussion -- this question shows consideration.

1) is God lacking in love because He has not created an infinite amount of people?
I have already explained that your model of the Godhead requires this exact question to be true. And we have already established that God is not dependant upon His own creation for the perfection of His Love.

2) is God lacking in love because He does not have an infinite amount of personalities?
This is unnecessary. Three is sufficient as revealed: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If there were more or less Persons given by name then we would adjust appropriately.

Quote:
Sixth, God is giving Himself away to Himself. As you give yourself to yourself to love your own flesh and I am not talking about your sinful nature so God is giving Himself away to Himself. This is in response to Craig.


Giving Himself away to Himself? I should wonder if "equal but opposite force" should apply to such a statement in this "closed system" of Modalism. That is to say, you can't push yourself, there is by necessity a requirement of an outside source. Where does this concept of "giving yourself to yourself" come from? I have heard of "giving yourself to do" but "giving yourself to yourself to do"?
And, again, you are fashioning the nature of God after the image of the creature.


_________________
Jordan

 2008/12/4 22:14Profile
InTheLight
Member



Joined: 2003/7/31
Posts: 2768
Phoenix, Arizona USA

 Re:

Quote:
First of all as I was just saying to Bog this philosophy should not be your first and main argument but the Scriptures should. William Lane Craig and all those others are presuppositional apologist which means they start in the philosophical.



The doctrine of the Trinity has always had its start in Scripture, make no mistake about that. The Christian philosophy is formed by faith in what is clearly asserted in God's revelation of Himself in the Bible.

Leaving behind your inadequate meaning of love, perhaps you could consider this; if Christ is not the eternal Son then how do you deal with Old Testament Scriptures that are attributed to the Son in the New Testament? For example...

Psalm 45:6, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." Applied to Christ in Hebrews 1:8, "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever."

Psalm 68:17,18, "The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels: the LORD is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place. Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them.". Applied to the Son in Ephesians 4:8-10, "Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens that he might fill all things."

Psalm 110:1, "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand." Applied to Christ by Himself, Matthew 22:44.

Psalm 102:25-27, "Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end." Applied to the Son in Hebrews 1:10-12.

Isaiah 6:1-3, "I saw also the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphim: each one had six wings; With twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory." Applied to the Son in John 12:41.

In Christ,

Ron


_________________
Ron Halverson

 2008/12/4 23:12Profile
ChrisJD
Member



Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA

 Re:

Hi again everyone,


boG, I wonder if I could suggest something here?


"God is love because His nature and character is love. Love does not seek its own, therefore, what is your Godhead of Love seeking if not His own? Please, answer the question with that substance and main theological reasonings you have hinted to."




This seems to be the kind of thing that can be gendered by these discussions and become destructive to us?



Yes, Paul wrote that love does not seek its own. Of course it doesn't, when there are others around. But was that statement meant to propel us into an inquiry into the nature and existence of God and His being in eternity? Is that what God intended for us to understand in this passage or to draw out of it? Was it not rather how [b]we ought[/b] to love others?


But what then, should we now counter this by qouting Paul also, saying,






Quote:
He that loveth his wife loveth himself.




and


Quote:
For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:





Or should we consider Revelation 4:11 and ask the same question asked here and suppose what that might mean about the love of God in Eternity?



Is this what God has called us to?


_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow

 2008/12/4 23:14Profile
ChrisJD
Member



Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA

 Re:

Hi Ron,


About some of the passages that you mentioned:


Christ means the Anointed One.


Psalm 45 goes on to say,


"Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."



The nations are gathered, in Psalm 2, against the Lord, and against His anointed.

I think the verses you have qouted here, given as prophecy, center around the incarnation and ascension.






"...Applied to the Son in John 12:41."



[i]These things said Isaiah, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.[/i]




The Lord Jesus asked,

[b][color=660000]Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? [/color][/b]









"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."


- Hebrews 2:9


_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow

 2008/12/4 23:26Profile
InTheLight
Member



Joined: 2003/7/31
Posts: 2768
Phoenix, Arizona USA

 Re:

Quote:
I think the verses you have qouted here, given as prophecy, center around the incarnation and ascension.



The verses I have quoted here center around the eternal Son of God. My point in quoting them is that they assert that Jesus is declared to be God, to be loved, served, worshipped, and obeyed as God. We also know that he was born, lived, and died as a man. These verses declare that He preexisted in the form of God before His incarnation, which came about by His own will and therefore couldn't be without a preexistence in another nature.

John 1: 1-3. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

John 1:14, "And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father."

John 3:13, "And no man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven."

John 8:57-58, "Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

In Christ,

Ron


_________________
Ron Halverson

 2008/12/5 9:57Profile
boG
Member



Joined: 2008/5/21
Posts: 349
Las Vegas, NV

 Re: The Triunity (my slightly differing view/ understanding)

Quote:
This seems to be the kind of thing that can be gendered by these discussions and become destructive to us?


It may seem the kind of thing but it is not. Here is why,
Quote:
Yes, Paul wrote that love does not seek its own. Of course it doesn't, when there are others around. But was that statement meant to propel us into an inquiry into the nature and existence of God and His being in eternity? Is that what God intended for us to understand in this passage or to draw out of it? Was it not rather how we ought to love others?


We read, "No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us."

-- if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.

"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love."

It would be a very strange doctrine, if it was suddenly called divine love to love one's self. Love is always loving others. "Let us love one another, for love is from God." Love always leads us to not seek our own but to love others.

The bottom line is this, at the end of the day I am not concerned with a monotheistic view that strongly asserts that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are just three names of God; no different than Lord of Host, God our Righteousness, or the Great I AM. In my opinion, Modalism is fairly accurate in this respect. After asking several pointed questions concerning the Trinity itself I have altered my focus to the description and definition to the nature of Love; Why?

It is very simple. This slightly differing view of the Trinity is not merely a change of perspective but it is a redefining of Love. And if Love is redefined then the entire Christian life is altered, for without love we are nothing. David, still seems to think I am stuck on proving Three-in-One.

I fear that this discussion is leading to the conclusion that God Himself is an antinomianist. Narrowly excluding Love to be some obscure nature of God only to prove that He loves Himself is very base for a practical application of the Love of God in our own lives. God is bound by His own Law of Nature, He is Love, and Love has qualities that define it. We have such descriptions of the Law of God and the Law of Christ and the Law of the Spirit of Life revealed to us in Scripture. Therefore we cannot say God is Love if it is being said He doesn't need to fulfill the Law of Love; He just needs to love Himself as Love. Thus, if God at anytime is not actively loving someone other than Himself, there is an aspect of Love that God is failing to perform. Such an aspect that it is described as "His love is perfected in us" when we love others. It is without support and meaningless to claim that God loving Himself (in a Modalistic view) fulfills God's law of Himself as God for loving others.

[b]Revelation 4:11[/b]
"Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created."
Why shouldn't we ask what this means concerning the Love of God? Did He create without love or for some purpose besides His love?

[b]Colossians 1
15.[/b] He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
[b]16.[/b] For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
[b]17.[/b] He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
[b]18.[/b] He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
[b]19.[/b] For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,
[b]20.[/b] and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

In terms of God loving His creation or His bride, we must remember that God "set His love" upon the people of Israel and He likewise sets His love upon the Church today; this is not the same aspect of eternal Love we are speaking of. God has always loved His creation but His creation has not always existed. God has, however, always loved Himself and He has always existed -- loving others must fulfill this too. So to reiterate, if God's love for others is solely dependant upon there "being others to love" (ie. His creation) then the perfection of God's love becomes infinitely contingent upon something NOT God.

[b]True or False?[/b] "God is Love because He does not seek His own."

Is God bound by His Word to be the perfect representation and fulfillment of the Law of Love? Yes or No.


_________________
Jordan

 2008/12/5 14:44Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy