[JRP admin note: this thread has been split off from [url=https://forum.evangelicaluniversalist.com/t/trinitarian-christianity-leads-to-calv-kath-arm-g/1171/1]“Trinitarian Christianity leads to… Calv? Kath? (Arm? {g})”, so as to better call attention to the topic for discussion hereafter, and to better preserve that thread for its intended purpose.]

JP, but my point is really that I believe John is truly saying “God is not hate” which can only be contrasted as “God is Love”.
I realize all the argument are there regarding - can God do something without being something. But here John is certainly giving us a hint about God which should be understood.

The problem I have with Arm/Calv. is that they’re trying to smuggle this in by saying that John is not saying “God is not hate” which is exactly the way I take John to mean. For if God is hate then what in the world is the point in saying God is love?

Aug

There’s certainly something to be said for the notion that John was (also) trying to say that God is not hate; “he who hates his brother and says he loves God” etc.

But while I think Arms and Calvs end up inadvertently proposing that God is essentially hate (instead of or at least as well as being essentially love), I really do not believe they are trying to smuggle this in, and I would never put it that way.

Either type of theologian might say that at bottom God is essentially power, or words to that effect. And I would argue that a personal power that is not essentially love can only be essentially selfish pride at best–and so for all practical purposes would be essentially hate in relation to any other persons if they existed. (An impersonal power could not be essentially love or hate. And anyway I would argue that an entity that is essentially hate is an impossibility. Even Satan is not essentially hate, if he is a rebel created angel. He might be that if cosmological dualism is true instead; but I would argue that cos-du is a functional impossibility, too. And supping a personal power existed that was not essentially love, it would not be hating itself but loving only itself, so still woudn’t be essentially hate.)

But that doesn’t mean I think those theologians are actually trying to smuggle in a doctrine that God is essentially hate!

Let’s ask Luke. Be honest now!–are you trying to smuggle in a doctrine that God is essentially hate? Or trying to explicitly claim such a thing?

I’m betting the answer is “no”.

I don’t think they’re trying to smuggle in a doctrine per se. I’m saying they’re trying to smuggle it into that particular text. Like there’s some kind of subtext which implies “God is hate” because “God is love” cannto mean or does not mean “God is not hate”.

But even if Luke or any Calv/Arm should argue they’re not smuggling it in, it certainly is inevitable that they arrive to the very conclusion - at last as far as I can see.

Aug

No, I don’t wear budgie smuggler’s if that’s what your asking.

Seriously, since I don’t believe that God is essentially love, if he is essentially anything He is being. One of God’s primary characteristics is love which however can express itself in the equitable punishment of the reprobate. I’m not sure what you guys mean by “hate” in this context, would offer a definition auggybendoggy? God indeed hates Esau (Romans 9:13) but given God’s holiness I don’t think that’s a type of malicious or vindictive hate. It’s similar to the distinction we make as Jesus was hurting the money changers between “good” suffering and “bad” suffering.

Luke,
I can only define things as I know them in this world. Love is to hold someone in value as equal or greater to yourself. Hate is to hold someone lesser value to yourself. Lately I’ve been pondering the possibility that Paul is referring to Love in Romans 1 - “God’s divine nature”. I don’t believe God hates Esau any more than I believe God grieved he made man (as if he had done something which displeased his own self).

I find it difficult when people begin playing with definitions. Once people say God hates Esau but not in a way that’s anything we relate to, then love means nothing to me. For if God’s love is so wonderful and is also defined as something that we don’t know, then why do we say “how great is thy love”? Perhaps if we sing “how great is thy love” it’s because we’re really asking because we don’t really know if he is love at all in the sense that we understand love. I don’t buy it at all. It’s his love that compels us and we VERY much understand his love as much as we understand that in him there is no darkness. And John is (as far as I can tell) stating “God is not hate” - which can only be in juxtaposition to “God is love”.

If God loves the world and dies for the world I think we can say that just as a good father lays downs his life for his children so it is that God loves us. And if it doesn’t mean that, then no one can really worship God in spirit and in truth but only in confusion (for he does not even know what “love” means).

I def. agree that Jesus did so with the money changers. For certainly Love is slow to anger, but love can be angry nonetheless. For if a Father should not punish his children (or cast them into hell - in my opinion) then he is not loving. It’s a Fathers anger and wrath which educates us to become more like him. And it’s this very discipline which manifests his love to us verfying that we are indeed children of God.

And yes, I was referring to butt huggers

Luke, thanks for the honesty and the soft tone. Sometimes, I come off too harsh and I do resepct you and even your views even if I disagree. I care for the truth and want only to learn more of God (that is if he is loving heehe). I realize that saying “they’re trying to smuggle in hate” sounds so demeaning, but I only mean it in a real sense and not to attack character.

You missed the distinction I was making in the example of Jesus beating the money changers. The suffering Jesus inflicted on them could be categorized as a good or an evil thing, in fact we’d call it chastisement while the Atheist might call it gratuitous violence. Love doesn’t look the same from all directions either. This is perhaps because we’re too casual and sloppy in our use of the word love.

I’d say also that we shouldn’t be too hasty in saying we have a good handle on ‘love’ or ‘hate’, God’s far above and beyond us and we only have his revealed testimony, like (to paraphrase Calvin!) a mother talking to her baby. While that’s a good definition of inter- human love, God’s love is not to hold someone in equal or greater value, that may occur inside the Godhead, but we mustn’t presume God’s love for us in anyway elevates us to God’s equal or greater.

“Smuggling in”, not offended at all, by in large this is a very polite forum.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Excellent point, I reckon that loving discipline can often not look like love whilst it’s happening. On a small scale with children, and on a very large scale with Hell

Another good point. I think the Greeks were onto something by having 4 different words for love!

I agree, however, I assumed that we would discover God was more perfect, more creative, more wise, more intelligent, more knowledgeable, more merciful and more loving than we can imagine, rather than less so in any category. For example, I try to love those around me, like Christ does, but often fail due to lack of motivation, wisdom, love, energy, creativity, resources, etc. however Christ has unlimited amounts of all of these so never fails.

I agree!

Glad to hear that. I would certainly hope our focus on God’s love would affect the way we treat one another

Luke,
Your distinction that it can be catagorized as a good or evil thing only seems to me to promote further my understanding that to most Christians God is indeed seen to be hate or to have darkness within him (it’s subjective). We grant that love does not look that same from all direction but we trust scripture to define for us that though it might look like evil or hateful (such as Sodom and Gamorah) God has a good and loving intention - Eze 16 (I will restore Sodom to what she was before).

Most of us agree with Alex that God’s ways being higher than ours is not that God can do something and we cannot fathom it for it’s haneous appearance. Rather that, God loving his enemies is something which seems to us to be VERY WRONG! After all, this is a major concern for atheists. They argue for God to save a murderer is immoral. But we (all Christians) disagree but for different reasons. bringing me to a point which we might have to shed some light on…

As I understand the gospel, this is a major difference for us to understand God as love vs. Christians who see God as being love (to the righteouss/elect) and hate (to the wicked/reprobate).

I would argue that God does in fact manifest this definition of love in that

1. He laid his own life down for us.
   If one does not value another equal or more than his own self then how can it be called love. And if God does not value others as such then I would say God does not love anyone.

2. He gave up his first born Son in order to save us (which is more humbling then laying down his own life).

The gospel is that God is in fact humble and loving - For love (God’s love) is not arrogant and is not rude, nor does it boast. Whereas, most of my life I regarded God as prideful, arrogant and unloving (the people of the earth are regarded as nothing).

I think several concepts are getting confused. If we become God’s equal even in salvation we are muddling the important Creator-creature distinction, we are created, God is creator, that can never be changed. Otherwise we head into the realm of chaotic impossibility, like asking if God can create a stone to heavy for him to lift, we have to go on what has been revealed to us. When at the beginning of the incarnation it says God “emptied himself” (Phil 2:5-9) Scripture is describing God’s loss of status not attributes.

Also and importantly while God may control evil events, forces or people, he is not ‘responsible’ for evil. Scripture reveals that God is good, evil is evil and God is powerful, whatever we say, for example about Jesus beating the money changers, we cannot break any of those three boundaries.

Bringing it all back to the Trinity! The love within the Godhead motivates but does not require the salvation of people, let-alone all people. God’s glory is shown in his “hate” of the condemned and it seems Christ is motived by the glorifying the Father. But just as we don’t write Jesus off for hurting the money changers we shouldn’t write God off for condemning the reprobate.

Although they wouldn’t have realised it at the time, Jesus was doing it ultimately for their good. They were on the road to destruction, Jesus was slapping them about a bit to try to bring them back to their senses.

Love is patient, love is kind … it is not self-seeking … not easily angered … always protects … always perseveres. Love never fails. Because of His own definition of love, I would question that. Probably not “require” but certainly it seems very likely that He would want to save people. Given He keeps no record of wrongs and does not delight in evil, I would be surprised if He would put up with Hell forever.

God’s glory is shown even more in His love of the condemned.

Yes, by bringing all that the Father has created thru Him, back to Him.

I don’t write God off because I believe He doesn’t write anyone off. God does condemn people to Hell, but only because He knows that it will eventually bring them to repentance and He will be reconciled with them.

Luke,
I wouldn’t argue that God is “equal” in salvation - I’m not sure what that means exept for synergism - and I don’t think that’s what you mean. I’ll let you clarify that a bit. I’m simply saying that Love must remain love and as Alex points out it’s God’s word which defines that for us.

I don’t believe we’re equal with God. But God’s love revealed to us shows that he does not value himself over his child. And if he does then it seems to me that one is then forced to explain why he lays down his life for that child? Is it no different than we as parents loving our own child? Whether God is creator and we are created (which can never change) does not limit or make impossible that the creator actually might be humble and the creator love his creation as much as he loves himself. And it certainly seems to me that imprinted into the creation order, God has placed love to speak volumes about himself and our relationship to him. Nothing about God being creator and being Father of all demands that he has love his children less then he loves himself.

It seems only logical that God controlling evil events can only make him not responsible if it’s for the well being of the subjects whom he controls. That is to say, if God is working out “All Things” that they might come back to him, then he would not be immoral. But if he in fact has evil behind his intent, then I would disagree and would be pressed to know how it is God can have evil in his intent and in him be found no darkness. Again, Calvinists seem to me to smuggle in that darkness - hatred - in order to keep infinite torture.

As for the Trinity motiviating but not requiring love…
Could be semantics or it might just be me not being convinced by such metaphysical arguments, and here I must leave you to Pratt I simply do not know enough to really comment on metaphysics and would only waste your time. But I’ll say this: If understanding Calvinism’s view of God’s goodness requires an understanding of metaphysics of the trinity, then I’d be pressed to say then there should be few if any Calvinists. Whereas, if understanding love is what is required for one to be a Universalist, then by Romans 1 and God’s divine nature (invisible qualities) which are clearly seen by all, everyone should first be a Universalist.

Cheers Mate, (is that good for Austrailian - I get that from dundee),

Aug

Having two threads about universalism and the Trinity is getting complicated, although I know this is meant to be a thread about why Calvinism is Trinitarian.

**auggybendoggy, **

But this makes God evil, if I’m reading your statement correctly this makes all sin part of God’s activity in an intimately moral manner, when it’s clear that while God is in control he is not evil. Furthermore your statement suggests, and I’m not sure you mean this but that an event can appear evil but is actually good because it somehow is part of God’s plan to reconcile all people to himself.

Reformed theology would hold very strongly to three boundaries I outlined earlier, God is powerful, evil is evil and God is good.

In other news, Calvinism seeks to uphold God’s glory. The glory we are aware of is an overflow of glory from ‘inside’ the Godhead. I’m not aware of a direct connection from this to predestination, but I wouldn’t be suprised if the case could be made, because Calvinism makes the best systematic sense of the biblical record of God’s actions and words. However conversely this doesn’t worry me to much because there isn’t a direct connection between the Trinity and universalism.

Luke,
I agree. I’m following the other thread and it is indeed very interesting regarding the Trinity and Universalism. I’ll leave it to you big boys to figure out that stuff But I do find it interesting how everyone has such different perspectives and yet still manages to have sympathy with relationship and the Godhead.

I would not say that God working out all things (As I believe Paul sates in Rom 8:28) disculdes the evil things we expereince in this life. For me it makes sense that Paul’s exhortation is that God’s love is so great that even the bad things (sin) we expereience might seem to work against us, really EVERYTHING (such as someone being hardened) works out for God’s glory (which is for our benefit). If Paul did not mean that, then I really have no clue as to what he meant.

No I would not say evil is good, that’s a contradiction. I’m saying God can harden (as he did the pharoa) only if he has the best interes of the pharoa in mind (and I believe he did). I’m certainly no philosopher but this makes more sense to me then the appeal to mystery that Calvinist rely upon. In my dialogues with Calvinists I understand them to say.

"God is the man who hires the hit man to do the massacres and because God did not squeeze the trigger then he’s not to blame. "

Yet even in their own logic (which is why they appeal to mystery) they admit that if a person hires a hitman to massacre people, then the man who hired him is as to blame as the hitman himself; thus the appeal to mystery - we don’t know how God can DO IT, scripture simply says he does and scripture says he’s good. Leaving me only with one conclusion - Why would I believe something which makes no moral sense. Now I have no problem embracing something that is morally nuetral - like God’s infinite quality or moral - like love. But to embrace something that’s immoral and having no answer for such leaves me only deny such a position.

I can only conclude that I’m laying all my chips on the table that Calvinists are reading the text wrong and relying upon mystery to resolve false premises - to squeeze out a conclusion. Whereas Universalists are relying upon logic (sound doctrine) in order to resolve what appears to be eschatological symbols (hell).

Now if you don’t mind, I’ll slowly remove myself off your hook and split
** Gene slowly wiggles off Lukes hook and squirms into a hole licking his wounds**

Perhaps in time we’ll discuss these matters further in the future.

Thanks for the thoughts Luke.

Gene

Can God be anything other than what we see in the Fruit of the Spirit.

…and the Fruit of the Spirit is judgment, hate, wrath, vengeance, ???

I would just like to point out that God is NOT saying that He hates the individual Esau in this passage. One needs to notice that this quote is actually from Malachi 1:2-3, where it speaks of EDOM as a NATION, which are made up of the descendants of Esau. Likewise, whn God speaks of Jacob, He is addressing the NATION of ISRAEL.

The love/hate relationship, therefore, is one of favor of one nation over the other. Israel was chosen by God to bring forth His plan and purposes ultimately resulting in the birth of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. There is nothing intrinsic about Israel that makes God favor Israel, but only to enact His plan for the world in realizing the Savior into the world and the nations thereof. But the judgment of the nations, including Edom, will occur at the Second Coming, at which time that nation of Edom will be among those goat nations in Matthew 25.

However, I can’t help but think that somehow there is some kind of residual blessing of Esau based on Hebrews 11:20,

• “By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.” *