Re: [TruthTalk] re: the contraints of love

[knpraise]

comments below

 

-------------- Original message --------------
From: Judith H Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

 

 

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 12:13:02 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 

I have been a little surprised at the resistance of some to the idea that God is obligated to a particular course of action.   Paul speaks of being “constrained by love”  and even goes so far as to give definition to the action of love  (I Cor 13: 4-7), suggesting that if “love” is to prevail,  his defining must be in evidence.   Love functions under the same constraints regardless of who is the functionary.  We have not reason to believe otherwise.    "God is love" must mean, then, that Paul’s definition is drawn from his view of this fact  [God is love.]   What other authority would exist in the mind of Paul?   Further, if, indeed, God is love, community is required and God HAD to be a creator God.  I say this because the defining of love is meaningless without community. 

 

jt:  Could it possibly be JD that God has a different definition than you?   "my" definition came from I Cor 13:4-7,   Judy.   I Cor 13 : 4-7 is advice given to a community of beleivers  --  the Corinthian church !!   It explains how Christians are to react to other Christians.

"Community" is the very reason this passage was written. 

 

Further  [as a side-bar],   God cannot create Himself.   Consequently, all creaturely beings that God created are less than Himself in terms of both immanence and economy and   “…….all   …..  are falling short of His glory “  is a given, is it not?   God as a redeemer is forever a statement of immanence!!   There is little difference between angels and mankind.   Both have made decisions that are poorly advised.

 

jt: I would say that there is quite a bit of difference between angels and mankind; they were a higher order before the birth, death and resurrection of Christ.  Man was lower than the unfallen angels. 

I  have always thought that Jesus was made a "little lower than the angels" because he was man as I read Heb. 2: 6-7.  The "fallen angels" belong to Satan, do they not?   Or do you have a scripture that gives you this idea. 

Angels have a human form, or it seems,   They can choose to serve God or not  ---  or at, least, such was the case before man and the fall.  They think, they serve, they sing,  they warn, they destroy   -------   lots of similarities, Judy. Lots of differences, as well.

 

 

 

Satan came from one of these decisions  -- and the hordes that followed him.   The bible is not about a discussion of the angelic world, except as it relates to ours. But it is apparent that theirs is no more a robotic existence than ours.   If angels no longer “fall away,”  what happened in terms of the redeeming activity of God?     Their story is, yet , untold. 

 

jt: Satan himself made that decision and so did the angels who chose to fall away with him.. What makes you think angels no longer "fall away"  Where would you find the basis for such a belief?

Two things, here.   First I did not say that angels no longer fall away.   I asked a question.  You do know the difference , I am sure.  Secondly  --  I asked because of the biblical message.   It does not speak of any other rebellion within that population and does not imply angelic rebellion for any time in the future.   I am asking why?  Does it make sense to think that God would not work to solve the problems that lead up to the fall of the angelic community?   He did with us  --  why not them?   But that is all we can do  -- is ask.

 

Back to the subject at hand  -------   redemption is an assignment borne out of necessity on the part of God.   In Hebrews 2:17   (“… therefore He had to become like His brothers and sisters in every respect…”),  obligation is a function of the Greek wording in that text.  

 

jt: God is not Greek, neither is he obligated to anyone in any way; I would never believe that he acted out of obligation.  Love is a choice.

When I say "Greek,"   I am talking about the language God chose to convey His New Covenant revelations.  I speak of language and you speak of some Greek guy !!  Why? 

Secondly, love is a choice for you and I.  If God IS love, if that describes His very being, then He has no choice.   If "obligation" is a problem for you ...   I can understand.   When Heb 2:17 says "He HAD to be made like His brethren  ..." substitute whatever word you prefer.   What word would you use instead of "had?"

 

We only know of the requirements of Divine Intervention through revelation  (as expressed in Hebrews 2:17 and Acts 2:28 for example).  But that God as a being of love is required to function in a given manner is not an idea to be ignored;  If God cannot choose to sin  (James 1:13) , why would be think that He cannot choose to act  as love is revealed in scripture?    If He is free to be what He is , then, He must be that way !!   And we can take confidence in the notion that God does not change.   He does not change because He cannot change .   We make God a creature if we think otherwise. 

 

jt: He can and will judge sin;you speak of judgment and I was speaking of divine choice. Why did you change subjects?

 

 He has done it and will do it and that will look like evil to some, in fact God

Himself calls it that at least once when he repented of the evil he planned to bring upon a nation.   I am going to take a guess at your concern and give you my answer.   When I say that God does not have a choice but to act thuse and so  ,  I do not mean that He does not have any choices.   Within given parameters, He most certainly does.   I believe that He must express His love  ..   to whom and when and how are all choices He makes, of course.  I believe that His nature is one of love  (redemption and creativity are aspects of love, in my thinking)   Take creativity, for example;  if  if creativity IS a intrinsic value of love,  then He has always been the Creator.  And, perhaps, the stars are a physical display of the eternity of this activity.   Pure speculation, I know, but think about it.   Our universe appears

to be a closed system.   We call this system the

“Universe.”   It has countless galaxies and more

stars than we can count.   What if systems we

call “universe” are numbered as the stars are

numbered.  And the count of these universes

go on and on and on and on and  …?  A facinating possibility,  I think.  

 

jd