Years ago, a priest friend of mine loaned me her copy of a book on Biblical exegesis by James Barr; I forget the name of it. But he talked about how we apply certain texts to “contextualize” other texts in the Biblical corpus—and how we choose those, as it were, primary contextualizing texts. Barr had a phrase for that, but I don’t recall what it was—I will use the phrase “relative weight”.
For example, in this thread, Rajk (Hi, Raj!) seems to give relative weight to John’s Apocalypse (Revelation) over Paul’s writing (at least in this instance). This likely supports what has always been Raj’s emphasis on justification by “works”, as opposed to “faith”—or, rather, to any kind of sola fide).
In this discussion, the texts that come to my mind as being particularly weighty, theologically speaking, are 1st John 4:8 and 4:16, in which the phrase occurs: ho theos agape estin—literally “the/this god is love”. What makes this phrase, to me, a theologically weighty one, is that theos and agape are both in the nominative of identity. Two other prominent phrases of the same construction are “the logos was god” and “God is spirit”. [Note: I am aware of the debate over John 1:1.]
There is no such construction, that I am aware of, identifying God as “justice” or even “righteousness”—those appellations are always put in adjectival form.
I take this difference to be that of identifying the divine essence (or essential nature), rather than various attributes. And, based in part on that nominative of identity, I give that phrase a great deal of weight. For example, to say that “God is love, but God is also just (or righteous)”—as if the latter could somehow modify the former—is as sensible as saying: “Vistesd is a human being, but he’s also tall”, as if my (unspecified) height is somehow a modifying “hedge” on my humanness!
In other words, God may or may not be “just” to this or that degree (depending on how we define that), but God cannot be non-loving in any sense and still be God. (And agape is not strictly an emotional or “feeling” love—it is an active principle.) What one has to say (on this interpretation, mind you) is that God’s justness/righteousness—rather than following human constructs and understandings—is, in fact, agape.
Following this argument about what phrases identify the essential nature, as opposed to various attributes, I might point—for example—to the story of the “Good Samaritan”. I believe that the Samaritan in that parable symbolizes God (or the Christ), and there is no warrant (as I read it) for surmising that the Samaritan required anything of the man in the ditch before saving him; I see no warrant for reading into that story anything at all about the man’s righteousness or sinfulness or repentance or faith—or anything else.
I also give relative weight to what Irenaeus (I believe) called a soteriology of soterias. That is: a salvationism of healing, or curing or preserving (soterias). This stream of thought (and interpretation) gives relative weight to different texts than does the more “juridical” soteriology (especially more prominent, I think, in Protestantism) of pardon versus punishment (for actions or beliefs). And, again, it relies more heavily on the underlying meaning of soterias (“salvation” ).
Now, in the past I have written here along these lines at some length, and I intend here only an example. I have also seen (and experienced) on here how heated, even harsh—hell, even vicious—the debate can easily become over these questions. Though, I must also admit, that I have also enjoyed coming to friendly and amenable impasse on such issues with folks like Rajk, and FreakyKBH, and Robbie, and divegeester—and any number of others.
Now, my point here is really that, no matter how much we disagree, and no matter how much we think—on the best evidence and our highest integrity of interpretation—that we “must” be right, there is almost always exegetical and hermeneutical merit on the other side. And that, perhaps, ought to give anyone pause who is laying out in any dogmatic way, the “requirements” for “salvation”. NOTE: Arguments on here often seem more “dogmatic” than they are, a lesson that divegeester most recently brought home to me—and so I am not laying that at anyone’s feet.
The last time I took (a small) part in the “trinitarian” debates on here, I found myself now agreeing with, say, sonship, on a point, and in the next “now” agreeing with Galveston on another point. I suspect that, in a “works versus faith” kind of debate, I would find myself in a similar position: now agreeing with Rajk, now with sonship.
But—in revisiting my old “Christic” paradigm (I use that word rather than “Christian” because of the age-old “who is a ‘True Christian™’” arguments)—I find that I would likely reject any soteriology that placed the outcome on the decisions of a fallible humanity; and I mean that more in accordance with a stream of Greek Orthodox thought, rather than Calvinist thought.
Closing note: Although most of what I have presented here, by way of example, is scriptural, I am not a sola scripturist.
Originally posted by SwissGambitI never interpret the love of God for mankind as anything of emotion. It is charitable love or brotherly love. So the expression God is love means [to me] that God is the embodiment of charitable/brotherly love. Its the kind that you partly quoted from 1 Cor 13.
Or perhaps God is not feeling the emotion of love when he looks in the book of life for the name that is not there - but then, what to do with "God is love"?
The Bible is clear that God hates sin and that He will reject sinners. How much a man can sin and repent and sin and repent ... over and over, I cannot say.
This passage with the 'God is love' expression is totally contrary to all who profess that faith will save them. The passage is worth quoting :
Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us.
God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. We love him, because he first loved us. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also. (1 John 4:7-21 KJV)
Those who show love, brotherly and charitable love, are of God. God is in them.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by SwissGambitSomewhere in there we can fit:
Also, 'accept' has different levels:
- I don't accept that your behavior is morally right, though I can live with the fact that we disagree. It's your life.
- I think your behavior is egregiously wrong and every time the topic comes up I feel obligated to vehemently disagree with you; however, I accept that it is not my place to interfere, despite my ...[text shortened]... e way. (Even here I may accept that there are certain ways of stopping you that are off-limits.)
- I can't go on being present in your life (as friend, spouse, etc.) unless you stop doing X (and maybe too, the ultimatum would include "make amends." ) I know of more than one instance where this was the loving thing to do.
Originally posted by vistesdHi Vistesd, always good to read your posts. I am in agreement with much of what you wrote here. However in the Good Samaritan story you cannot ignore the reason why Christ related it and the instruction that came after. Christ was asked " What can I do to inherit eternal life?". Christ answered with love God and your neighbour as yourself. The man was still not satisfied as to who was his neighbour, and hence the story of the Good Samaritan. My interpretation was that the man being a Jew was not generally good and kind to Gentiles who they considered inferior. So Christ was demonstrating that their 'superiority' ie faith in God or the Law, was to no benefit in attaining eternal life, as two of their most religious a Priest and a Levite, failed to show love and compassion.
Years ago, a priest friend of mine loaned me her copy of a book on Biblical exegesis by James Barr; I forget the name of it. But he talked about how we apply certain texts to “contextualize” other texts in the Biblical corpus—and how we choose those, as it were, primary contextualizing texts. Barr had a phrase for that, but I don’t recall what it was—I wi ...[text shortened]... ave presented here, by way of example, is scriptural, I am [b]not a sola scripturist.[/b]
Im not doubting that in the parable the Good Samaritan could represent God or Christ, however, it does not end there. We have to try to be like God/Christ and show that brotherly love, charitable love and compassion to others. As Christ said Go thou and do likewise . It is not an option as some assume. It is necessary for eternal life.
Hope all is well with you and yours. 🙂
Originally posted by Rajk999Hi Raj. I hope all is well with you and yours also, as always.
Hi Vistesd, always good to read your posts. I am in agreement with much of what you wrote here. However in the Good Samaritan story you cannot ignore the reason why Christ related it and the instruction that came after. Christ was asked [b]" What can I do to inherit eternal life?". Christ answered with love God and your neighbour as yourself. The man was ...[text shortened]... ion as some assume. It is necessary for eternal life.
Hope all is well with you and yours. 🙂[/b]
Yes, you make a good point. But another part of that point was the question of what it is to be a neighbor, as opposed to "who is my neighbor?". And so, I would say that the message, in answer to that question is--to behave as the Good Samaritan (the Christ). But I think that the deeper, salvific question also gets turned around here: How does the Christ (the Samaritan) act? The answer seems to be: with pure, unquestioning grace (charis).
So I think this is a multi-layered parable. Think, for a moment, of the charge that is often levied against you by various sola fideists: Oh, so if you're not "perfect", then you won't be saved? How "perfect" do you think you are? You know the line. (I think it is a false accusation as well, by the way. And there are also questions about what the NT Greek word sometimes translated as "perfect" means).
So, I am called to act like the Christ/Samaritan in the story. But then the Christ cannot be said to act in some other manner! So, let's say that I fail to pick someone out of the ditch and carry them to salvation/healing because--just for example--I think they are homosexual. I fail; I fail out of fear, let's say. When does that change the Christ's behavior toward me? Or you? Or anyone?
I think there may be an even deeper point here--but I'm not sure how to get at it. Why does the Samaritan/Christ act the way he does? For fear of punishment, or hope for reward? Or is it more radical than that, calling us to a deeper radicality, too? A way of behaving "grace-fully" without any of that "weighing in the scales"?
I need to think about that for awhile. Because I think you raise a good point--but that it might lead to an even deeper point.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by Rajk999"As Christ said Go thou and do likewise . It is not an option as some assume. It is necessary for eternal life. "
Hi Vistesd, always good to read your posts. I am in agreement with much of what you wrote here. However in the Good Samaritan story you cannot ignore the reason why Christ related it and the instruction that came after. Christ was asked [b]" What can I do to inherit eternal life?". Christ answered with love God and your neighbour as yourself. The man was ...[text shortened]... ion as some assume. It is necessary for eternal life.
Hope all is well with you and yours. 🙂[/b]
I was told a slightly different interpretation (if you grant that we interpret): It was that the man do likewise, but detach doing likewise from his desire for eternal salvation. Do what the good Samaritan did, but not with eternal salvation being a motivation to do so. Other Bible verses center the motivation on love. "Do this (love your neighbor) and you will live." Not "Do this so you will live." Instead, really do it. It was a gentle guiding away of the man from his self-centered concern. But it was harder, in fact.
Originally posted by JS357Yeah, that's close, at least, to what I was trying to get at. Thanks. Anthony De Mello said something about this somewhere, and I'm going to have to look for it.
"As Christ said Go thou and do likewise . It is not an option as some assume. It is necessary for eternal life. "
I was told a slightly different interpretation (if you grant that we interpret): It was that the man do likewise, but detach doing likewise from his desire for eternal salvation. Do what the good Samaritan did, but not with eternal salvation bei ...[text shortened]... was a gentle guiding away of the man from his self-centered concern. But it was harder, in fact.
Originally posted by JS357I agree. The willingness to do and help and give comes from [or should come from] the heart. In other words whether or not there is a reward the action remains the same because it is the result of caring and compassion.
"As Christ said Go thou and do likewise . It is not an option as some assume. It is necessary for eternal life. "
I was told a slightly different interpretation (if you grant that we interpret): It was that the man do likewise, but detach doing likewise from his desire for eternal salvation. Do what the good Samaritan did, but not with eternal salvation bei ...[text shortened]... was a gentle guiding away of the man from his self-centered concern. But it was harder, in fact.
There is an interesting question, for which I have no answer though. Suppose someone were to in fact force themselves to show love and compassion ie it does not come from the heart but from the desire to do as Christ said, notwithstanding a desire to do otherwise. The result is the same ie the poor or the maimed is given assistance. How would Christ judge?
Edit : I should add, How would Christ judge compared to a Christian claiming to have faith, but not having the compassionate heart to act.
Originally posted by vistesdYou raise a few interesting points that I need to consider before answering. I can say however that Romans 2 says very clearly that there are many who do the will of God because their conscience is their guide. These people need no law to follow as the desire to do good is written in their hearts. I cannot imagine a just God not looking favorable upon such a person regardless of their religion. That passage does not go down well with mainstream Christianity.
Hi Raj. I hope all is well with you and yours also, as always.
Yes, you make a good point. But another part of that point was the question of what it is to be a neighbor, as opposed to "who is my neighbor?". And so, I would say that the message, in answer to that question is--to behave as the Good Samaritan (the Christ). But I think that the d ...[text shortened]... awhile. Because I think you raise a good point--but that it might lead to an even deeper point.
Thanks for noticing that some here wrongly accuse me ... you know 🙂 You might lose some friends for that 😀
Originally posted by Rajk999I agree with you on the Romans passage.
You raise a few interesting points that I need to consider before answering. I can say however that Romans 2 says very clearly that there are many who do the will of God because their conscience is their guide. These people need no law to follow as the desire to do good is written in their hearts. I cannot imagine a just God not looking favorable upon such a ...[text shortened]... oticing that some here wrongly accuse me ... you know 🙂 You might lose some friends for that 😀
In the end, I am likely to err on the side of expansiveness and inclusiveness (which is exactly the way that you just presented Romans 2), for reasons that I've alluded to.
Originally posted by vistesd'Works versus faith'. I think that the mistake that is made is in the term "works", as in working for money. The terminology is somewhat misleading.
Years ago, a priest friend of mine loaned me her copy of a book on Biblical exegesis by James Barr; I forget the name of it. But he talked about how we apply certain texts to “contextualize” other texts in the Biblical corpus—and how we choose those, as it were, primary contextualizing texts. Barr had a phrase for that, but I don’t recall what it was—I wi ...[text shortened]... ave presented here, by way of example, is scriptural, I am [b]not a sola scripturist.[/b]
Paul states that faith without love is like a gong clanging in the wind.
And he also states, faith hope and love, and the greatest of these is love.
The answer is in understanding what the nature of this love is. And that is simple - "God is love".
So to understand the simplicity of the issue of "works" and faith. The word works has nothing to do with working on "its" own merit. Meaning to do things with no love, to do it for another reason altogether. The "works" are meaningless.
However, the "works" that the scripture speaks to us about, and what Paul is trying to teach us, has to do with LOVE. Love in itself is an action. No one can say they love God, and have no feeling towards Him.
So the scripture teaches us correctly, with Paul and others.
Through faith we come to Jesus.
But it doesn't stop there, and this is where everyone gets confused.
True, it is faith that brings us to Jesus. But what is Jesus - He is the Son of the Living God. And what is God? God is Love.
So it is faith that brings us to Jesus, and then we RECEIVE Jesus. (again) What is Jesus? He is LOVE.
So we have faith, that brings us to Jesus. And Jesus is love. And our faith and Christ's love in us cause an action, and that action is our Love of God.
So when we think of faith and works, what we should be thinking of is our faith and Christ's love working through us.
Originally posted by PudgenikInteresting. Let me ask this: what if someone acts with the kind of love that you are talking about (i.e. the very agape that God is), but within the context of some other religion, or non-religion? For whatever reason?
'Works versus faith'. I think that the mistake that is made is in the term "works", as in working for money. The terminology is somewhat misleading.
Paul states that faith without love is like a gong clanging in the wind.
And he also states, faith hope and love, and the greatest of these is love.
The answer is in understanding what the nature of thi ...[text shortened]... aith and works, what we should be thinking of is our faith and Christ's love working through us.
I don’t intend that as a “trap” question—and I’ll tell you the lines along which I am thinking: the early church father Justin Martyr said that whoever lived according to the logos was counted as Christian—even if they had never heard of Christ (and he mentioned some pre-Christian Greeks, such as Heraclitus, as I recall). Now, I think I can connect the dots between that logos and what you are (I think) saying here about love (agape). And I think that those connections can be supported by biblical texts.
I am only “thinking out loud”, as it were. But I think that the “shift” to agape—or re-casting “faith” in terms of love (agape), as (I think you’re right) Paul seems to do—might “solve” a whole passel of theological questions that are the subject of much debate. What is “faith”? Acting according to agape. What are “good works”? Acting according to agape. What is God? agape. What is righteousness? agape. What is the Christ (ho Christos)? The incarnation of agape. Etc., etc.
Anyway, interested in your further thoughts on this.
Originally posted by Rajk999Why not? Is 'emotion' a dirty word now?
I never interpret the love of God for mankind as anything of emotion. It is charitable love or brotherly love. So the expression God is love means [to me] that God is the embodiment of charitable/brotherly love. Its the kind that you partly quoted from 1 Cor 13.
The Bible is clear that God hates sin and that He will reject sinners. How much a man can sin ...[text shortened]... 7-21 KJV)[/i]
Those who show love, brotherly and charitable love, are of God. God is in them.
In my experience, it can be a powerful motivator, for both good and evil. I certainly like my chances better if God actually feels something for me as I stand before the Throne of Judgment, rather than grudgingly debates meeting some quota of pity-pardons.
Emotion without action is empty, but action without emotion makes the recipient wonder whether the act of charity actually made their situation better.
Originally posted by JS357Yes, that one fits, and I'm sure there are many more.
Somewhere in there we can fit:
- I can't go on being present in your life (as friend, spouse, etc.) unless you stop doing X (and maybe too, the ultimatum would include "make amends." ) I know of more than one instance where this was the loving thing to do.
Originally posted by SwissGambitMy personal definition of agape, based on my studies up until now, is—
Why not? Is 'emotion' a dirty word now?
In my experience, it can be a powerful motivator, for both good and evil. I certainly like my chances better if God actually feels something for me as I stand before the Throne of Judgment, rather than grudgingly debates meeting some quota of pity-pardons.
Emotion without action is empty, but action wi ...[text shortened]... kes the recipient wonder whether the act of charity actually made their situation better.
The passionate concern and active caring for the other.
That sounds a bit “clinical” perhaps, but then I would emphasize the “passionate”. I do not think that agape is dispassionate.
Of course, “active caring” does not mean “enabling”, and can take the kind of “interventionist” form that JS357 mentions.
“When it comes to shaping one’s personal behavior, all the rules of morality, as precise as they may be, remain abstract in the face of the infinite complexity of the concrete.”
—Hans Urs von Balthasar, Presence and Thought: An Essay on the Religious Philosophy of Gregory of Nyssa (from the Foreword).