Dialogue on Reading

July 6th, 2009 by rick

Here is where we can work through our reading of the texts for the class. Please be sure to specify which reading you are commenting or asking a question on so we can interact on the specific passage.

Filed under: Doing Theology as a Follower of Christ |
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

5 Comments on “Dialogue on Reading”

  1. Jeremy Vogan says:
    July 27, 2009 at 9:41 am

    I have to beg everyone’s forgiveness that I am not following protocol here because this is the section reserved for comments on the readings, and this is more a comment on the lecture portion of Sunday’s study. However the other link does not seem to work so I am going to use this one.

    What bothered me about Rick’s statement of God’s love for us was the absence of a qualifier that I believe is always necessary. I do not see God’s love for us in adoption talked about anywhere in the Scriptures without an accompanying statement on the redemption of our bodies. For God so loved the world – that he gave his one and only Son. God demonstrates his own love for us in this – while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. This is love, that God loved us – and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Revelation 1, to him who loves us – and has freed us from our sins by his blood. The Scriptures do not speak of God’s love for Jeremy without speaking of what Christ did for Jeremy, because without what Christ did, God and Jeremy have no basis on which love may operate.

    Did God look at Jeremy and love him before the creation of the world? Yes he did – to be holy and blameless in his sight. You never find in Scripture the love of God for Jeremy without seeing the catalyst for that love who is Christ Jesus, and without hearing the purpose in that love which is Jeremy’s final sanctification. Without Jesus’ involvement, God’s love for Jeremy would be the same as God’s love for the rich young ruler as he turned his back on him. With Jesus’ involvement, God’s love for Jeremy is one that kicks down his door and drags him bodily into the Kingdom. To speak of God’s love for me without in the same breath speaking of the part that Jesus plays in that love is not giving credit where credit is due and creates a false impression, namely that God can look on sin with love. God does not look on sin with love (surely the Cross teaches us that!). He looks on righteousness with love, he looks on his new creation with love, he looks on goodness and purity and obedience and faith with love; in short, he looks on his Son with love. And when I am in Christ (as he ordained before creation that I would be), he looks on me with love. That is my sole and sufficient defense on Judgment Day, and I find myself loath to state that defense in terms more generous to my sinful state than the Bible uses.

    So I think I understand and appreciate the point you were making that God loves US – that we are not faceless and that our identity and uniqueness and personality are loved by God and will be redeemed for eternal life – but I am arguing that you cannot accurately make that statement without qualifying it in Christ.

    JV

    • rick says:
      July 27, 2009 at 3:17 pm

      Quick reply on my end but I’d love to read other’s thoughts. Here is the difference in what we’re saying. I am saying that God elects because he loves Jeremy is saying (I think… correct me if I’m wrong) that God loves because he elects. I would only say this to your statement Jeremy that God can’t love you as you without loving sin; I don’t think sin is essential to your being since one day you will exist as Jeremy without sin. I’m not saying that you aren’t thoroughly sinful 🙂 only that it is not essential to who you are as a human or a person. If that were so then when you are glorified you would not be Jeremy, you would be new Jeremy who is really Jesus minus godhood. That doesn’t compromise total depravity, it is just saying that a sinful nature is not essential to humanity, if it were then Jesus wasn’t really human.

      This gets pulled into a larger and less relevant debate on the order of decrees, Jeremy’s position is described as suprapsarianism and mine is described as infralapsarianism. I will not speak of that further 🙂

      • Jeremy Vogan says:
        July 28, 2009 at 7:51 am

        Rick,

        OK brother you’re going to have to help me out here: I don’t understand how you are getting a statement on order of decrees out of that argument. What I am most interested in is a response to the statement: “The Scriptures do not speak of God’s love for Jeremy without speaking of what Christ did for Jeremy, because without what Christ did, God and Jeremy have no basis on which love may operate.” Perhaps a more accurate summary of what I am arguing is not that God loves because he elects, but rather that God shows his love by electing? This does not necessitate a supra position, which is good because I do not in fact believe that God elected people in order to love them.

        I think we need to be accurate with our quotes here. You summarized my argument as “God can’t love you as you without loving sin.” I would correct that to “The Scriptures say God can’t love you independently of Christ’s work without loving sin.” I was very careful to frame this argument in terms of the words used in the Bible in this context, and that is the position that I would like to know people’s thoughts on – not on the infra/supra debate, in which I have very little interest. I have a great deal of interest, however, in knowing how our words ought to portray God’s love for us. If we do not need to describe that love in the way I am contending, I need to know, because that means my thought and practice in that area needs to change significantly. Should our bumper sticker say “God loves you” or should it say “God loves you in Christ”? Hence theology in community.

        But maybe you see something else driving my thought that I do not see. If you do, a clarification would be helpful to me.

        Thanks,

        JV

  2. Rick says:
    July 27, 2009 at 3:02 pm

    This doesn’t have to do with the reading but it is about our topic for this week. In doing some of my prep I came across this quote from John Calvin and thought it might warrant some discussion.

    “For such is the value which the Lord sets on His Church that all who contumaciously alienate themselves from any Christian society, in which the true ministry of His word and sacraments is maintained, He regards as deserters of religion”

    What do you think?