The Unforgiveable Sin

[Paul DeBaufer]

How to frame this? Ok, I have these hellish nightmares of being trapped which are hard to wake-up from, and when I do I am afraid to go to sleep. For me this is what Hell would most certainly be. In my sleep deprived state I start to doubt my salvation. Then I begin to wonder IF I had committed Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit sometime in my past--I was quite the adamant foe of Christianity-I may have been worse than Dawkins. So I may have said something that might constitute the unpardonable sin.

This leads me to the question: What constitutes Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? I cannot remember the answers I had been given when I first read that passage years ago, but I believe the gist was it applied to the finally impenitent.

(I have recently come to view the nightmares as reflective of the past rather than a portant of the future).

[Ryan Scott]

I had a college chaplain one time who told us, "if you're worried about it, you haven't done it." Obviously that's simplistic, but I think it encompasses my understanding of the issue.

[Rich Schmidt]

In the context of the passage, it seems to mean attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to the devil/Satan. At least, that's what Jesus is talking about when he uses the phrase.

I didn't look it up, just going from memory.

[John Kennedy]

There uised to be a fair amount of preaching on the unpardonable sin. IMO a lot of it was 'last night of the revival altar call' kind of stuff. Pretty manipulative. I had an aunt who, if they had recognized that sort of thing in her day, suffered from severe depression. She could have also been described as conscientious/scrupulous to a fault.

Early in her spiritual journey she was unfortunate enough to sit under the ministry of an evangelist who really majored on this teaching. She became convinced that at some point she had irrevocably rejected salvation. She seemed to never be able to find any assurance of salvation.

It's really a shame you can't sue for theological malpractice.

[Paul DeBaufer]

In the context of the passage, it seems to mean attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to the devil/Satan. At least, that's what Jesus is talking about when he uses the phrase.

I didn't look it up, just going from memory.

This begs another question: In context Jesus is talking to religious leaders/Pharisees who should know better than to ascribe the work of the Holy Spirit to satan/devil, then does this apply to those who should know (believers) and not to those ignorant of such matters? That is could one accidentally utter such a blasphemy in complete ignorance and still not be able to be forgiven?

[Shea Zellweger]

This begs another question: In context Jesus is talking to religious leaders/Pharisees who should know better than to ascribe the work of the Holy Spirit to satan/devil, then does this apply to those who should know (believers) and not to those ignorant of such matters? That is could one accidentally utter such a blasphemy in complete ignorance and still not be able to be forgiven?

I don't think Blasphemy could ever be accidental, but that's just me...

[Todd Erickson]

I think that this falls under the category of things that you openly and with a knowing heart fully pursue. File this under "false teachers". they're not just misled, they're actively working against God...

[Susan Unger]

God knows your heart. If it is warm towards God then that's what matters, not whether or not you've accidentally blasphemed the Holy Spirit.

[Rich Schmidt]

For those interested, the three places where this idea turns up are:

Mark 3:20-35
Matthew 12:22-37
Luke 12:8-12

Of course, the starting & ending verses for each of these were just quickly chosen by me. You'll want to read more than what I pointed out.

[David Gerber]

How to frame this? Ok, I have these hellish nightmares of being trapped which are hard to wake-up from, and when I do I am afraid to go to sleep. For me this is what Hell would most certainly be. In my sleep deprived state I start to doubt my salvation. Then I begin to wonder IF I had committed Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit sometime in my past--I was quite the adamant foe of Christianity-I may have been worse than Dawkins. So I may have said something that might constitute the unpardonable sin.

This leads me to the question: What constitutes Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? I cannot remember the answers I had been given when I first read that passage years ago, but I believe the gist was it applied to the finally impenitent.

(I have recently come to view the nightmares as reflective of the past rather than a portant of the future).

Paul, not that your question isn't a good one, but maybe it is the wrong one. Perhaps a better question is who is God? Throughout the Bible people have failed, some deliberately, some inadvertantly, others out of ignorance, and other from a misunderstanding. In all of those cases and more, God is able. Able to redeem, forgive, restore, and renew.

While I believe that faith is important, and the development of character is important, it is my faith that God is able that gets me through.

God is love. If that is true, what is love like?
1 Corinthians 13.4-8a God is patient, God is kind. God does not envy, God does not boast, God is not proud. God is not rude, God is not self-seeking, God is not easily angered, God keeps no record of wrongs. God does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. God always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

God never fails.

[Bill Morrison]

How to frame this? Ok, I have these hellish nightmares of being trapped which are hard to wake-up from, and when I do I am afraid to go to sleep. For me this is what Hell would most certainly be. In my sleep deprived state I start to doubt my salvation. Then I begin to wonder IF I had committed Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit sometime in my past--I was quite the adamant foe of Christianity-I may have been worse than Dawkins. So I may have said something that might constitute the unpardonable sin.

This leads me to the question: What constitutes Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? I cannot remember the answers I had been given when I first read that passage years ago, but I believe the gist was it applied to the finally impenitent.

(I have recently come to view the nightmares as reflective of the past rather than a portant of the future).

Paul:
Whatever things you might have said when you were an "adamant foe of Christianity", it is hard to imagine it was any worse than what that other Paul (then known as Saul) did in his day.
The fact that you came to God seems proof to me that you could not have possibly committed any unpardonable sin. I believe that our great adversary likes nothing better than to come to us when we are in a sleep deprived state and convince us to doubt our salvation. A quick read of the book of Job shows us what he can do to a good man. I don't want to sound too flip, but do what so many other Christians have done: stand on the Word of God and tell the enemy to flee. Praying for you, brother.

BILL

[John Kennedy]

I'm having some difficulty with the idea of 'accidental' blasphemy. If this Congregationalist recalls his Wesleyan theology correctly, a sin is a 'willful transgression of a known law of God' - blasphemy would appear to have some 'willful' aspects to it.
Of course, I could be wrong. I had an interesting conversation with a realtor the other day that involved trying to bring him up to speed on the meaning of 'curb appeal'.

[Leon McCaffrey]

Is defining sin as the "willful transgression of a known law of God" a man made definition or a biblical one?
A simple biblical definition seems to be found in Rom. 14:23 - ".... For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin."

[David Graham]

This begs another question: In context Jesus is talking to religious leaders/Pharisees who should know better than to ascribe the work of the Holy Spirit to satan/devil, then does this apply to those who should know (believers) and not to those ignorant of such matters? That is could one accidentally utter such a blasphemy in complete ignorance and still not be able to be forgiven?

Paul, I concurr with Shea that blasphemy could never be accidental, yet a person could be so blinded by his/her obsession with a defence of what they believe to be right, that they could unwittingly oppose God's will. Certainly it was this way with St. Paul, for in his zeal for the law, prophets and the Jewish religion, he persecuted the one to whom the law and the prophets pointed, and the messiah for whom the Jewish religion waited. And yet, God in his grace reached out to him and not only saved him but completely changed his thinking so that his blindness was removed.

Yet St. Paul was still deeply sorrowful for his past actions and strove to make up for the damage he had done by serving Christ more than any of the other apostles. Nonetheless, he was of no doubt that those former blind and wicked actions had been forgiven, not by his new found zeal for Christ but by Christ's redemption alone. "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me". (Gal. 2: 20) St. Paul, I would suggest, did a lot more to "damage" the work of God in Christ than you or I have ever done, but found forgiveness. We likewise are as undeserving of God's love and grace but we too find forgiveness through the same act of redemption of Jesus Christ. We simply need to let go of our guilt (confess our sins if necessary) believe and receive the goodness and mercy of God.

Be at peace my brother,
Dave

[Shea Zellweger]

Is defining sin as the "willful transgression of a known law of God" a man made definition or a biblical one?
A simple biblical definition seems to be found in Rom. 14:23 - ".... For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin."

which is speaking in reference to the state of sin, not sinful action. In Wesleyan theology, that would be Sin, as opposed to sin.

[Leon McCaffrey]

which is speaking in reference to the state of sin, not sinful action. In Wesleyan theology, that would be Sin, as opposed to sin.

What? - Please clarify.

[Roland Hearn]

What? - Please clarify.

There are sins for which we are eternally responsible and they are the product of our lives, we stand guilty before a holy God. His grace is sufficient to deal with such things. There is "Sin", as Shea indicated, it is the human condition apart from God. It is how we are born but we are no more guilty of this then our inability to fly. His grace is sufficient to deal with the state of sin as it is to deal with our sins. His grace is always sufficient for the need. I had a really good prof at college that suggested that the unforgivable sin, the denying of the power of God, the attributing of the works of the Holy Spirit to Satan, is in fact unforgivable only while one is in that state. Once an individual repents they are no longer committing such things and it ceases being unforgivable - satisfied me.

[John Kennedy]

which is speaking in reference to the state of sin, not sinful action. In Wesleyan theology, that would be Sin, as opposed to sin.

Two spellings of sin - two works of grace. I'm sensing a pattern here.

[Leon McCaffrey]

There is "Sin", as Shea indicated, it is the human condition apart from God. It is how we are born but we are no more guilty of this then our inability to fly.

Thanks for the reply Roland. I didn't pick up on the (s)in and (S)in.
It appears you're saying we are guilty for sin(works) but not Sin(nature)?
If I'm understanding you correctly, I disagree.

We are not sinners because we (s)in; we sin because we are (S)inners.
Our guilt is rooted not first in our (s)inning but in our connection with Adam, that is our (S)in. (Rom. 5:19)
The problem of our (S)in, God remedies through justification in Christ.
The problem of our (s)in, he remedies through sanctification by the Spirit.

To define sin as a "willing transgression", while not untrue, is lacking and confusing, at least to me.

[Dale Cozby]

I believe at the end of the conversation in question Jesus says:

"But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."

therefore: blasphemy as the final state of a man who does not repent but speaks against the Spirit of God that dwells in us.

therefore: those that blasphemy do not have the Spirit they blasphemy
OR they did and have rejected the same, apostasy as it were in order to do so.
Either way their end state is against the LORD and they will not receive mercy/forgiveness.

[Hans Deventer]

To define sin as a "willing transgression", while not untrue, is lacking and confusing, at least to me.

You may have a problem in a church in the Wesleyan tradition. We're not Calvinists, you know.

[Billy Cox]

You may have a problem in a church in the Wesleyan tradition. We're not Calvinists, you know.

...at least not on paper.

[Leon McCaffrey]

You may have a problem in a church in the Wesleyan tradition. We're not Calvinists, you know.

Who said anything about Calvinism?
I'm sure Wesley himself would have some problems with Wesleyan tradition.
That doesn't make him a Calvinist.

[Billy Cox]

This leads me to the question: What constitutes Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? I cannot remember the answers I had been given when I first read that passage years ago, but I believe the gist was it applied to the finally impenitent.

I don't have the one definitive answer, but I would suggest one way of looking at it. Blasphemy is typically an act of extreme irreverence, or an act that profanes something holy in a rather egregious way.

To live as though I am beyond the saving grace of God would be to profane the Holy Spirit. Any sin for which we refuse to accept pardon is therefore unpardonable.

[Hans Deventer]

Who said anything about Calvinism?

You reject a very well known Wesleyan definition of sin. As the Manual has it: "5.3. We believe that actual or personal sin is a voluntary
violation of a known law of God by a morally responsible person."

In 99% of the cases, that comes from a Calvinistic approach but please inform me that in your case, it's actually Greek Orthodox. I love surprises.


I'm sure Wesley himself would have some problems with Wesleyan tradition.
That doesn't make him a Calvinist.

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

[Roland Hearn]

Thanks for the reply Roland. I didn't pick up on the (s)in and (S)in.
It appears you're saying we are guilty for sin(works) but not Sin(nature)?
If I'm understanding you correctly, I disagree.

We are not sinners because we (s)in; we sin because we are (S)inners.
Our guilt is rooted not first in our (s)inning but in our connection with Adam, that is our (S)in. (Rom. 5:19)
The problem of our (S)in, God remedies through justification in Christ.
The problem of our (s)in, he remedies through sanctification by the Spirit.

To define sin as a "willing transgression", while not untrue, is lacking and confusing, at least to me.

You are perfectly in your rights to disagree, however I was simply clarifying the position that Shea was representing, as per your request. It is the majority position on this board and does indeed reflect Wesley's understanding of sin. He was unable to accept a construct of grace that would have a God that would judge a person based upon something they were not responsible for. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" is enough condemnation for any individual, without adding to it his/her very existence -which by the way would be contradictory to love. Wesley was intent on having a theology that had love at the core. Many others have tried to hold other things at the core, like the sovereignty of God, or the judgment of God, or any number of other secondary issues. You are perfectly welcome to stand among them. What you place at the core of your theology is what will impact your understanding of sin, grace, free will, judgment, justice and eternity - not to mention everything else.

BTW - you are correct we are sinners because of the sin nature, we are born apart from God. However our sins need to be forgiven not our nature, our nature needs to be cleansed. That happens as a result of a heart purified by faith which is a relational construct.

[Leon McCaffrey]

You reject a very well known Wesleyan definition of sin. As the Manual has it: "5.3. We believe that actual or personal sin is a voluntary
violation of a known law of God by a morally responsible person."

In 99% of the cases, that comes from a Calvinistic approach but please inform me that in your case, it's actually Greek Orthodox. I love surprises.


Hans, thanks for your reply and directing me to the manual. I've never paid much attention to the manual in the past but definitely will so in the future.
I'm simply a layperson within the Nazarene Church and have been for several years - so in response to your comment, I'm a Wesleyan, although I prefer to be called a Christian.
Over the past several months I've been wrestling with some things I'm seeing in Scripture and am trying to make biblical sense of our denominations beliefs.

I tend to be direct with my comments rather than subtle in order to avoid confusion so forgive me if they come across as being condescending or snide, as I will forgive you as well.

Your bro in Chirst

[Jim Chabot]

Hans, thanks for your reply and directing me to the manual. I've never paid much attention to the manual in the past but definitely will so in the future.
I'm simply a layperson within the Nazarene Church and have been for several years - so in response to your comment, I'm a Wesleyan, although I prefer to be called a Christian.
Over the past several months I've been wrestling with some things I'm seeing in Scripture and am trying to make biblical sense of our denominations beliefs.

I tend to be direct with my comments rather than subtle in order to avoid confusion so forgive me if they come across as being condescending or snide, as I will forgive you as well.

Your bro in Chirst

I've struggled with the manual definition for many years, because it doesn't seem to align with scripture well, however I have also noticed that a change in that definition could have some problematic practical consequences. While we hold to what I consider a watered down definition of sin, we try to live up to it. If we were to take a definition closer to scripture and Calvin, we would also need to confess our inability to live up to it. The practical application would cause us to abandon our emphasis on personal holiness, as we must then admit to futility. My take is that although our definition misses the mark, it does serve a useful purpose.

[Leon McCaffrey]

"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" is enough condemnation for any individual, without adding to it his/her very existence -which by the way would be contradictory to love. Wesley was intent on having a theology that had love at the core. Many others have tried to hold other things at the core, like the sovereignty of God, or the judgment of God, or any number of other secondary issues. You are perfectly welcome to stand among them. What you place at the core of your theology is what will impact your understanding of sin, grace, free will, judgment, justice and eternity - not to mention everything else.

Hey Roland, thanks for your gracious response.
In essentials unity. In non-essentials liberty. In all things love.

I'm having trouble with the logic here; two thoughts here.

1.) Why would this be contradictory to love? Hypothetical: If we are guilty, and God chose not to save us, He is just to do so. Agree? How does this contradict love?

2.) Why hold one of God's attributes at the core? Does this mean he is more love than he is just, for example? Are there some actions of God that are not fully consistent with some of
His other attributes? Is God inconsistent with his own character at times? Why not hold God himself in His whole being at the core? Why not hold the Cross at the core?

Your bro in Christ

[Roland Hearn]

Hey Roland, thanks for your gracious response.
In essentials unity. In non-essentials liberty. In all things love.

I'm having trouble with the logic here; two thoughts here.

1.) Why would this be contradictory to love? Hypothetical: If we are guilty, and God chose not to save us, He is just to do so. Agree? How does this contradict love?

2.) Why hold one of God's attributes at the core? Does this mean he is more love than he is just, for example? Are there some actions of God that are not fully consistent with some of
His other attributes? Is God inconsistent with his own character at times? Why not hold God himself in His whole being at the core? Why not hold the Cross at the core?

Your bro in Christ

To blame someone for something they have no responsibility in is, quite simply, not love. I don't know how logic could say anything else. It would be a fairly distorted perspective of justice to arrive at that conclusion as well. We are guilty for the sin produced of our lives and God has chosen to save us. He cannot choose not to save us. All that needs to be done has been done. I don't believe that God could have done otherwise but whether He could or not is mute because He did, we can't go back and change it.

Jesus himself said that upon love hang all the law and prophets. God is love. No other verse of scripture defines God so succinctly. Love is not one of God's attributes it is who He is. All of his attributes are reflections of love. That is what it is to have a Wesleyan theology. God in his whole being is at the core, His whole being is love, the cross is at the core –the cross is love.

[Benjamin Burch]

Hey Roland, thanks for your gracious response.
In essentials unity. In non-essentials liberty. In all things love.

I'm having trouble with the logic here; two thoughts here.

1.) Why would this be contradictory to love? Hypothetical: If we are guilty, and God chose not to save us, He is just to do so. Agree? How does this contradict love?

2.) Why hold one of God's attributes at the core? Does this mean he is more love than he is just, for example? Are there some actions of God that are not fully consistent with some of
His other attributes? Is God inconsistent with his own character at times? Why not hold God himself in His whole being at the core? Why not hold the Cross at the core?

Your bro in Christ

Leon,

HEY! It's nice to see you here! Welcome!

In regards to your question about God's justice and love possibly not working out together, I think it's important to do what you've suggested here: hold the Cross at the core.

I think that Roland's answer is very helpful here, but I want to go farther. I want to say that the Cross is where God's justice is on display for the world to see and God's justice and love are one in the same. God's justice is displayed in the Cross and it looks like love. It looks terribly, terribly unjust. It looks like love.

We humans fail miserably to grasp "justice" God's way. We keep trying to hold God accountable to justice by our own definitions instead of allowing the cross to define justice for us.

This is one of the worst things we can do when doing theology imho. I think it paints a lot of other things - including political views - in the way we talk about "justice."

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, thanks for your reply and directing me to the manual. I've never paid much attention to the manual in the past but definitely will so in the future.
I'm simply a layperson within the Nazarene Church and have been for several years - so in response to your comment, I'm a Wesleyan, although I prefer to be called a Christian.
Over the past several months I've been wrestling with some things I'm seeing in Scripture and am trying to make biblical sense of our denominations beliefs.

I tend to be direct with my comments rather than subtle in order to avoid confusion so forgive me if they come across as being condescending or snide, as I will forgive you as well.

No problem! I'm rather direct myself as well. Anyway, you've come to a good place to discuss these issues. Welcome!!

[Hans Deventer]

I've struggled with the manual definition for many years, because it doesn't seem to align with scripture well, however I have also noticed that a change in that definition could have some problematic practical consequences. While we hold to what I consider a watered down definition of sin, we try to live up to it. If we were to take a definition closer to scripture and Calvin, we would also need to confess our inability to live up to it. The practical application would cause us to abandon our emphasis on personal holiness, as we must then admit to futility. My take is that although our definition misses the mark, it does serve a useful purpose.

Wesley Tracy in Here We Stand says that as Nazarenes, we need many definitions, because there indeed are many ways the Bible talks about sin.

The strong point of this specific one is that it puts sin in the area of personal responsibility, and there is no denying that in most of the Bible, that's exactly where it is. However, there is more to it. There is sin as a principle, a tendency within us. There is sin as omission. There is sin as a collective failure. Just to name a few. So I like our definition as long as we keep in mind that it's not all of the story, and we should understand that praying the Lord's prayer is always in order, as sanctified as one may be.

[Jim Chabot]

Wesley Tracy in Here We Stand says that as Nazarenes, we need many definitions, because there indeed are many ways the Bible talks about sin.

The strong point of this specific one is that it puts sin in the area of personal responsibility, and there is no denying that in most of the Bible, that's exactly where it is. However, there is more to it. There is sin as a principle, a tendency within us. There is sin as omission. There is sin as a collective failure. Just to name a few. So I like our definition as long as we keep in mind that it's not all of the story, and we should understand that praying the Lord's prayer is always in order, as sanctified as one may be.

Yes, that is agreeable as well. I hadn't looked at it that way, my take was that if our definition was to be all encompassing, then it falls short. In other words, there is more to sin than our definition includes. Jesus instructed in this way when he redefined murder and adultery for his pharisaic listeners. But, if we then view our definition as not encompassing all sin, but rather defining that sin over which we have the concious ability to avoid, then it starts to.make sense as we apply it in our daily walk.

I realize that I am repeating myself a bit here. Am I making any sense to you?

[Paul DeBaufer]

2.) Why hold one of God's attributes at the core? Does this mean he is more love than he is just, for example? Are there some actions of God that are not fully consistent with some of
His other attributes? Is God inconsistent with his own character at times? Why not hold God himself in His whole being at the core? Why not hold the Cross at the core?

Your bro in Christ

I think that I would say that Love IS God's nature rather than just one of His attributes. I believe that His attributes flow from His nature of love. It is true that there is only a single biblical author that explicitly states that God is Love, but I do believe that the entire biblical witness implicitly says that God's nature is love.

God's justice follows from His love. God's truth flows from His being love. God's steadfastness comes from love. All of His attributes come out of love. This is why it is entirely proper to hold love above His attributes. The Cross IS the ultimate act of love, biblically. So this brings us right back to love as the core of God, His nature.

[Scott Moseley]

Hi Paul, to me it sounds like you are a sleeping target. May I remind you that the evil one, the accuser loves to pull up our past. Don't fall for it. Times like this I have found comfort in verbally quoting scripture dealing with forgiveness such as:

'In your love you kept me
from the pit of destruction;
you have put all my sins
behind your back' (Isaiah 38:17).

http://www.godswordforyou.com/bible-studies/salvation/55

God bless

[Paul DeBaufer]

I want to thank everyone for their responses. I was reluctant to put the personal info in, but...it is how I came to think about this subject. As for me I am realizing some emotional health issues that I had masked for years with drug abuse from emotions stuffed and locked away very long ago. Funny how we are able to hide things, but that they have a way of creeping back in. But it is true that satan can use these weaknesses to accentuate our fears and doubts.

All that to say, I am really interested in finding out just what the unforgiveable sin is so that I can answer the same question when asked of me.

Again, Thank You!

[Leon McCaffrey]

Thanks for the responses guys.
I've got some things to think about.

[Hans Deventer]

Am I making any sense to you?

Very much so! I look at it in the same way.

[Leon McCaffrey]

[QUOTE=Jim Chabot;30353]Yes, that is agreeable as well. I hadn't looked at it that way, my take was that if our definition was to be all encompassing, then it falls short. In other words, there is more to sin than our definition includes. Jesus instructed in this way when he redefined murder and adultery for his pharisaic listeners. But, if we then view our definition as not encompassing all sin, but rather defining that sin over which we have the concious ability to avoid, then it starts to.make sense as we apply it in our daily walk.

Hey Jim,

Based on what you're saying, it seems the reason 'sin' is defined the way it is in the Manual is primarily to make 'sin' compatible with Wesleyan theology, as opposed to Scripture.
This begs the question, is our loyalty to Scripture or Wesleyan theology?
What do we do with Romans 5:18-19, for example? Do we ignore it or do we try to reinterpret it's meaning in effort to make it compatible with Wesleyan thought?

I'm trying to make sense of this. Thanks

[Leon McCaffrey]

I think that I would say that Love IS God's nature rather than just one of His attributes. I believe that His attributes flow from His nature of love. It is true that there is only a single biblical author that explicitly states that God is Love, but I do believe that the entire biblical witness implicitly says that God's nature is love.

God's justice follows from His love. God's truth flows from His being love. God's steadfastness comes from love. All of His attributes come out of love. This is why it is entirely proper to hold love above His attributes. The Cross IS the ultimate act of love, biblically. So this brings us right back to love as the core of God, His nature.

Hey Paul,

I understand attributes and nature to be one in the same - attributes reflect nature. Elevating love above all other characteristics seems to misconceive of God as a combination of various parts - some parts being somehow larger or more influential than others. I don't know of any place in Scripture that singles out one attribute/characteristic of God as being more prominent than all the others. Shouldn't we assume that every attribute of God is completely true of ALL of God's character?
Example: John mentions that God is light (1 John 1:5) and later mentions that God is love (1 John 4:8). Is part of God light and part of God love? Is He more love than He is light?
In light of Scripture, this logic is very confusing to me. Based on Scripture, it is God himself who is light; and it is God himself who is love; and it is God himself who is just; and it is God himself who is Holy; and it is God himself who is jealous; and it is God himself who is wrath, etc. etc. etc......

It seems to me, if the Bible doesn't elevate specific attributes/characteristics of God above others, it would be unwise for us to.

[Hans Deventer]

Based on what you're saying, it seems the reason 'sin' is defined the way it is in the Manual is primarily to make 'sin' compatible with Wesleyan theology, as opposed to Scripture.
This begs the question, is our loyalty to Scripture or Wesleyan theology?
What do you do with Romans 5:18-19, for example? Do we ignore it or do we try to reinterpret it's meaning in effort to make it compatible with Wesleyan thought?

I'm trying to make sense of this. Thanks

Leon, I think the Wesleyan definition that found its way into the Manual actually covers around 95% of the instances that the Bible talks about sin. So it's not really an either/or matter. But we need to keep in mind there's more to it. The big advantage is that unlike some other approaches, it doesn't shovel all sin on one big pile, declare it inevitable since we are only human, and hence all we can hope for is forgiveness. That certainly isn't Biblical.

To me it seems that the Bible isn't a neatly organised handbook on systematic theology. In fact, it's our theology that tries to make sense of the Biblical data, and we often find we can't be all too dogmatic about them if we want to preserve the richness and broadness of the Bible.

[Leon McCaffrey]

[QUOTE=Roland Hearn;30337]To blame someone for something they have no responsibility in is, quite simply, not love. I don't know how logic could say anything else. It would be a fairly distorted perspective of justice to arrive at that conclusion as well. We are guilty for the sin produced of our lives and God has chosen to save us. He cannot choose not to save us. All that needs to be done has been done. I don't believe that God could have done otherwise but whether He could or not is mute because He did, we can't go back and change it.

Hey Roland,

I understand you feel this is a moot point, so bear with me, I believe it's relevant.
No one deserves salvation (Rom. 3:23) - I'm sure you agree. Salvation of anyone at all is due to God's mercy. (Ex. 33:19)

So hypothetically speaking, if God did not save anyone, He would be just to do so and this would not contradict His loving nature. To say otherwise would be to say He is constrained by something outside of Himself, that is, YOU and ME. Fortunately for our sake, He has chosen to have mercy on us by means of the Cross, our only hope!

I've recently come across Romans 9-11 and have been wrestling with it's implications. I'm aware this is a "go to" passage for Calvinists. It's been my recent experience that most people within our church avoid these chapters like it's the black plague - this shouldn't be.
It seems Paul is addressing your objection head on in Romans 9:14. He asks the rhetorical questions, Is God unjust (or unloving) in choosing Jacob over Esau.
It seems you would say: Yes; Paul says: By No means!

Can you help me out here? Thanks Roland

[Leon McCaffrey]

Leon, I think the Wesleyan definition that found its way into the Manual actually covers around 95% of the instances that the Bible talks about sin. So it's not really an either/or matter. But we need to keep in mind there's more to it. The big advantage is that unlike some other approaches, it doesn't shovel all sin on one big pile, declare it inevitable since we are only human, and hence all we can hope for is forgiveness. That certainly isn't Biblical.

To me it seems that the Bible isn't a neatly organised handbook on systematic theology. In fact, it's our theology that tries to make sense of the Biblical data, and we often find we can't be all too dogmatic about them if we want to preserve the richness and broadness of the Bible.

Thanks for the reply Hans.

So how do we as Wesleyans understand Rom. 5:18-19 in light of our Manuals definition of sin?
I agree that our 'systems' can get in the way of how we interpret Scripture.
The Bible should influence and form our theology versus our theology influencing and forming our understanding of the Bible. Do you agree?

[Jim Chabot]

Hey Jim,

Based on what you're saying, it seems the reason 'sin' is defined the way it is in the Manual is primarily to make 'sin' compatible with Wesleyan theology, as opposed to Scripture.
This begs the question, is our loyalty to Scripture or Wesleyan theology?
What do we do with Romans 5:18-19, for example? Do we ignore it or do we try to reinterpret it's meaning in effort to make it compatible with Wesleyan thought?

I'm trying to make sense of this. Thanks

That may be true in some respects, I think that all of us at some point in our theological musings inevitable apply something because it fits.

On the other hand, it is compatible with Paul when he instructs the gentile believers to follow not the entire law like the Pharisee's, rather his instructions regarding our walk point to the basic tenets.

In similar fashion, our definition of sin combined with the Code of Christian Conduct helps to give us a starting point, a path that we can follow, rather than an all encompasing definition of sin and the necessary admission of futility. We are at heart a holiness people, although we do not believe that salvation is of works, we do believe that living a holy life is conducive to our desire to please God.

Hope this helps.

[Todd Erickson]

Actually, I think most would argue that God is constrained by Himself, it is not in His nature to not help us, because Love is so central to who He is.

[Leon McCaffrey]

Hey Jim - so what do we do with Romans 5:18-19?

[Paul DeBaufer]

Hey Paul,

I understand attributes and nature to be one in the same - attributes reflect nature. Elevating love above all other characteristics seems to misconceive of God as a combination of various parts - some parts being somehow larger or more influential than others. I don't know of any place in Scripture that singles out one attribute/characteristic of God as being more prominent than all the others. Shouldn't we assume that every attribute of God is completely true of ALL of God's character?
Example: John mentions that God is light (1 John 1:5) and later mentions that God is love (1 John 4:8). Is part of God light and part of God love? Is He more love than He is light?
In light of Scripture, this logic is very confusing to me. Based on Scripture, it is God himself who is light; and it is God himself who is love; and it is God himself who is just; and it is God himself who is Holy; and it is God himself who is jealous; and it is God himself who is wrath, etc. etc. etc......

It seems to me, if the Bible doesn't elevate specific attributes/characteristics of God above others, it would be unwise for us to.

I respectfully disagree that attributes and nature are the same thing, they are not. Attributes like you say reflect or flow from nature. God's nature is love as is attested to by the biblical witness, and not just the two instances of John telling us He is love. I believe that Philippians 2:5-8 testify to God being love as this passage describes the greatest act of love ever--God pouring out Himself for us. And that is just one example of God is love implicitly stated, there are many others. Jesus Himself tells us love is primary, Paul tells us love is the greatest, true in neither passage are they speaking directly of God, but we love because God gives us love.

Further I believe that God is constrained by His nature, not by any external thing or force, but by His very nature.

[Roland Hearn]

[QUOTE=Roland Hearn;30337]To blame someone for something they have no responsibility in is, quite simply, not love. I don't know how logic could say anything else. It would be a fairly distorted perspective of justice to arrive at that conclusion as well. We are guilty for the sin produced of our lives and God has chosen to save us. He cannot choose not to save us. All that needs to be done has been done. I don't believe that God could have done otherwise but whether He could or not is mute because He did, we can't go back and change it.

Hey Roland,

I understand you feel this is a moot point, so bear with me, I believe it's relevant.
No one deserves salvation (Rom. 3:23) - I'm sure you agree. Salvation of anyone at all is due to God's mercy. (Ex. 33:19)

So hypothetically speaking, if God did not save anyone, He would be just to do so and this would not contradict His loving nature. To say otherwise would be to say He is constrained by something outside of Himself, that is, YOU and ME. Fortunately for our sake, He has chosen to have mercy on us by means of the Cross, our only hope!

I've recently come across Romans 9-11 and have been wrestling with it's implications. I'm aware this is a "go to" passage for Calvinists. It's been my recent experience that most people within our church avoid these chapters like it's the black plague - this shouldn't be.
It seems Paul is addressing your objection head on in Romans 9:14. He asks the rhetorical questions, Is God unjust (or unloving) in choosing Jacob over Esau.
It seems you would say: Yes; Paul says: By No means!

Can you help me out here? Thanks Roland

The concept of "deserves" is completely outside of the parameters of Romans 3-23.It says that all have fallen short yet all may be saved. I would suggest that is a pretty compelling case for the love of God. For God not to save would be 100% outside of His loving nature. It seems to me that you have totally misunderstood what love in fact is if you could suggest that. The whole point of the gospel is that even though justice may be served by the abandonment of humanity to their sin love cannot. God is love means that He will simply not be satisfied with mere justice. Justice is only a valuable concept for God when it is a reflection of love. So hypothetically speaking what you are suggesting has nothing to do with God as He is revealed in scripture. His choice to mercy is nothing but a reflection of love. Love is always constrained by the other or it is not love. When God made humanity He did not do so without recognising that now He was tied to us for eternity. It was something that He thought was pretty good, he said so. Your construct of an entirely separate God who stoops down to show mercy is a reflection of the human struggle with our own sense of worth not the reality of the father with the prodigal son. That father could not help but run to His son, it was totally outside of His nature to pursue justice -which is kind of the point of the parable.

The message of Romans 9-11 is a pretty adequate reflection that you cannot use justice and law as a standard for judging the actions of God. The whole passage is deeply entrenched in Jewish perspective. Paul declares that no amount of law keeping is sufficient but faith alone thus revealing the glory of God. I'm sorry Leon I don't have an "objection' so I'm not sure what your reference to R 9:14 is about but it does clearly declare that the parameters one might use like fairness, justice, systems, law are no basis to analyse the grace of God - Paul is discussing a monumental point - the just shall live by faith.

Leon if you are serious about wanting to explore these issues and have not already made up your mind can I suggest a thorough reading of a "Theology of Love," Wynkoop. It is a good starting point for the genuinely inquiring mind.

[Leon McCaffrey]

I respectfully disagree that attributes and nature are the same thing, they are not. Attributes like you say reflect or flow from nature. God's nature is love as is attested to by the biblical witness, and not just the two instances of John telling us He is love. I believe that Philippians 2:5-8 testify to God being love as this passage describes the greatest act of love ever--God pouring out Himself for us. And that is just one example of God is love implicitly stated, there are many others. Jesus Himself tells us love is primary, Paul tells us love is the greatest, true in neither passage are they speaking directly of God, but we love because God gives us love.

Further I believe that God is constrained by His nature, not by any external thing or force, but by His very nature.

Hey Paul,

I absolutely agree, God's nature is love. His nature is also: Justice, Mercy, Truthfulness, Omnipotence, Holiness, Wrath, Knowledge, Freedom, Independence, etc, etc, etc. My point is that God's whole being includes all of these characteristics: He is entirely love, entirely just, entirely merciful, entirely truthful, etc. etc. etc.
God himself is a unified and completely integrated whole person who is infinitely perfect in all of his attributes/characteristics/nature.

I agree that some actions of God in Scripture show some of his characteristics to be more prominent than others. Creation demonstrates His power and wisdom, the atonement demonstrates his love and justice, the radiance of heaven display His glory and beauty, etc. But all of these in some way or other also demonstrate His knowledge, holiness, mercy, truthfulness, patience, sovereignty, etc.

All I'm saying is Scripture does not elevate love over the other characteristic/attributes of God. It's a philosophical concept, not something taught in Scripture.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Hey Paul,

I absolutely agree, God's nature is love. His nature is also: Justice, Mercy, Truthfulness, Omnipotence, Holiness, Wrath, Knowledge, Freedom, Independence, etc, etc, etc. My point is that God's whole being includes all of these characteristics: He is entirely love, entirely just, entirely merciful, entirely truthful, etc. etc. etc.
God himself is a unified and completely integrated whole person who is infinitely perfect in all of his attributes/characteristics/nature.

I would argue that Justice, mercy, truthfulness, and the rest, with the exception of the omni statements are manifestations of love, that they all arise from love not alongside of love.

I'm just not comfortable with the neo-Platonic omni statements as I feel that they don't truly reflect the biblical narrative, just my opinion.

[Roland Hearn]

Hey Paul,

I absolutely agree, God's nature is love. His nature is also: Justice, Mercy, Truthfulness, Omnipotence, Holiness, Wrath, Knowledge, Freedom, Independence, etc, etc, etc. My point is that God's whole being includes all of these characteristics: He is entirely love, entirely just, entirely merciful, entirely truthful, etc. etc. etc.
All I'm saying is Scripture does not elevate love over the other characteristic/attributes of God. It's a philosophical concept, not something taught in Scripture.

Leon as long as you maintain this position we are talking at cross purposes because Paul is saying, and I am saying, the exact opposite. Love is not an attribute in the sense of the other attributes of God, love is the nature of God and all the other attributes are reflections of love at work. Scripture absolutely elevates love above all other attributes of God, it is the whoop and woof of his very being, it is His wholeness. It is far from a philosophical construct it is the very gospel itself -captured in the details, declared in the panorama of His glory, radiating from His every encounter. I think the problem may be in defining love too narrowly. To not see the vast expanse of all that love is says more about the viewer than it does about the viewed.

[David Gerber]

it is the whoop and woof of his very being

I'm in agreement. I just didn't know that those were the words I would be agreeing with. :-)

[Leon McCaffrey]

[QUOTE=Roland Hearn;30546][QUOTE=Leon McCaffrey;30493]

The concept of "deserves" is completely outside of the parameters of Romans 3-23.It says that all have fallen short yet all may be saved. I would suggest that is a pretty compelling case for the love of God. For God not to save would be 100% outside of His loving nature. It seems to me that you have totally misunderstood what love in fact is if you could suggest that. The whole point of the gospel is that even though justice may be served by the abandonment of humanity to their sin love cannot. God is love means that He will simply not be satisfied with mere justice. Justice is only a valuable concept for God when it is a reflection of love. So hypothetically speaking what you are suggesting has nothing to do with God as He is revealed in scripture. His choice to mercy is nothing but a reflection of love. Love is always constrained by the other or it is not love. When God made humanity He did not do so without recognising that now He was tied to us for eternity. It was something that He thought was pretty good, he said so. Your construct of an entirely separate God who stoops down to show mercy is a reflection of the human struggle with our own sense of worth not the reality of the father with the prodigal son.

Hey Roland, thanks for the reply, and for the book suggestion.

There is much to be said here - too much for the time I have now. I do feel the need to respectfully point out that you're making non-biblical philosophical declarations on the nature of God's love.....and pronouncing on it. I understand what you're saying above love, it makes sense in my finite mind, I'm just not seeing the biblical support.

Gotta run. Your brother in Christ.

[Rich Schmidt]

it is the whoop and woof of his very being

I'm pretty sure you mean "warp and whoof."

[Roland Hearn]

I'm pretty sure you mean "warp and whoof."

aggh sleep deprivation - it can do amazing things.

[Paul DeBaufer]

There is much to be said here - too much for the time I have now. I do feel the need to respectfully point out that you're making non-biblical philosophical declarations on the nature of God's love.....and pronouncing on it. I understand what you're saying above love, it makes sense in my finite mind, I'm just not seeing the biblical support.

Gotta run. Your brother in Christ.

I would suggest that the statements that Roland is making are in fact biblically based when one looks to the entire biblical narrative, its overarching themes and message.

Here I go again promoting Tom's book, c'est la vie. Tom Oord studied the biblical uses of the words that in English translation are rendered love. In his book The Nature of Love Tom informs us that there is really not a consistent meaning for any of the words translated love, BUT that there is an underlying connectedness, a sense that joins the myriad uses. There are Greek words that would be translated love that are not in the Bible, yet their meaning is. Why am I bringing this up? Because the Bible has themes that connect the majority of the stories and passages. When we discern these underlying themes we can make statements about God's love such as Roland has in theological statements that are in fact biblical. It is when we segment the Bible and look to its parts rather than to the whole that we may not be able to see where these statements of love come from so easily.

[Roland Hearn]

[QUOTE=Roland Hearn;30546][QUOTE=Leon McCaffrey;30493]

The concept of "deserves" is completely outside of the parameters of Romans 3-23.It says that all have fallen short yet all may be saved. I would suggest that is a pretty compelling case for the love of God. For God not to save would be 100% outside of His loving nature. It seems to me that you have totally misunderstood what love in fact is if you could suggest that. The whole point of the gospel is that even though justice may be served by the abandonment of humanity to their sin love cannot. God is love means that He will simply not be satisfied with mere justice. Justice is only a valuable concept for God when it is a reflection of love. So hypothetically speaking what you are suggesting has nothing to do with God as He is revealed in scripture. His choice to mercy is nothing but a reflection of love. Love is always constrained by the other or it is not love. When God made humanity He did not do so without recognising that now He was tied to us for eternity. It was something that He thought was pretty good, he said so. Your construct of an entirely separate God who stoops down to show mercy is a reflection of the human struggle with our own sense of worth not the reality of the father with the prodigal son.

Hey Roland, thanks for the reply, and for the book suggestion.

There is much to be said here - too much for the time I have now. I do feel the need to respectfully point out that you're making non-biblical philosophical declarations on the nature of God's love.....and pronouncing on it. I understand what you're saying above love, it makes sense in my finite mind, I'm just not seeing the biblical support.

Gotta run. Your brother in Christ.

Leon with equal respect I would point out that you are failing to see the non-philosophical biblical support for a concept that is nothing but the scripture. In the end your failure to see the biblical support doesn't suggest to me anything about its absence it just tells me about your starting point. You are free to have that starting point. If you are wanting to analyse and wrestle with the concept I am happy to do so - if you have already decided what scripture says and are closed to other interpretations then we probably can't go much farther. I will admit, after years of wrestling with the issues that began with a tragedy that shattered my life and forced me to review all I understood about the nature of God, which was pretty much aligned with your construct, I am not open to changing my perspective. If you are equally not open then we probably have said pretty much all there is to say, it just becomes typing at that point.

[Leon McCaffrey]

[QUOTE=Leon McCaffrey;30566][QUOTE=Roland Hearn;30546]

Leon with equal respect I would point out that you are failing to see the non-philosophical biblical support for a concept that is nothing but the scripture. In the end your failure to see the biblical support doesn't suggest to me anything about its absence it just tells me about your starting point. You are free to have that starting point. If you are wanting to analyse and wrestle with the concept I am happy to do so - if you have already decided what scripture says and are closed to other interpretations then we probably can't go much farther. I will admit, after years of wrestling with the issues that began with a tragedy that shattered my life and forced me to review all I understood about the nature of God, which was pretty much aligned with your construct, I am not open to changing my perspective. If you are equally not open then we probably have said pretty much all there is to say, it just becomes typing at that point.

Hey Roland,

Despite my bias, I pray for the humilty to change my theological distinctives if Scripture demands it. It seems rather stiff-necked to say you are not open to changing your perspective - I'm sorry to hear that.

I'm not here to get into a philosophical debate about the nature of God's love that is simply speculative. If you have Biblical support for what you're saying I will hear you out, otherwise you're right, there is no need to continue this conversation. Claiming your philosophical construct to be "nothing but the scripture" while providing no sound Biblical support is less than convincing.

Allow me to point out just one of the presumptuous statements you made which you are now pronouncing on to be Biblical. You said, "Love is always constrained by the other or it is not love".
I am open to hearing and considering your Biblical support for this statement.

Also, could you inform me what my starting point is? It seems your starting point is a philosophical conclusion about the nature of God's love in which all Scripture is interpreted through. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks Roland.

[Rich Schmidt]

I do feel the need to respectfully point out that you're making non-biblical philosophical declarations on the nature of God's love.....and pronouncing on it.


Allow me to point out just one of the presumptuous statements you made which you are now pronouncing on to be Biblical.

This is off-topic, but...

Leon, could you explain to me your usage of this phrase "pronouncing on"? I'm not familiar with it, and looking it up provided only this, which doesn't seem to fit:

"(pronounce on) pass judgment or make a decision on : the secretary of state will shortly pronounce on alternative measures."

Just trying to understand what you're saying...

[Leon McCaffrey]

This is off-topic, but...

Leon, could you explain to me your usage of this phrase "pronouncing on"? I'm not familiar with it, and looking it up provided only this, which doesn't seem to fit:

"(pronounce on) pass judgment or make a decision on : the secretary of state will shortly pronounce on alternative measures."

Just trying to understand what you're saying...

to authoritatively or officially declare

[Jon Bemis]

[QUOTE=Roland Hearn;30580][QUOTE=Leon McCaffrey;30566]

Despite my bias, I pray for the humilty to change my theological distinctives if Scripture demands it.


Allow me to point out just one of the presumptuous statements you made which you are now pronouncing on to be Biblical. You said, "Love is always constrained by the other or it is not love".
I am open to hearing and considering your Biblical support for this statement.

I'm not Roland, and am certain I will not reply as well as he could, however, I would like to comment on the two statements I've quoted above . . . .

The first, "I pray for the humilty to change my theological distinctives if Scripture demands it." IMO the only demand placed on us by Scripture is to love. After all, that is what the Gospels are all about (John 3:16). That is what we are to be all about. Jesus commanded that we love (John 13:34-35) and declared it was the real indicator of discipleship. Jesus taught that to love fulfilled everything required of us (Luke 10:25-37, Matthew 22:34-40).

The second, "You said, "Love is always constrained by the other or it is not love". I am open to hearing and considering your Biblical support for this statement." I believe that Scripture abounds with examples that show that real love always acts with the other person's best interests as the primary motivator - which is in essence constraint. 1 Corinthians 13 is an excellent description of what love in action looks like. All of the descriptors that Paul uses in this passage involve self-constraint to some degree. Perhaps the greatest example of love's constraint in all of human history is found in the Incarnation, in that God did what He did because He loves us. And so I feel that Roland's statement that "Love is always constrained by the other or it is not love". is a statement that is faithful to Scripture's teachings on love.

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. John 4:7-12

[David Gerber]

Hey Roland,

Despite my bias, I pray for the humilty to change my theological distinctives if Scripture demands it. It seems rather stiff-necked to say you are not open to changing your perspective - I'm sorry to hear that.

I'm not here to get into a philosophical debate about the nature of God's love that is simply speculative. If you have Biblical support for what you're saying I will hear you out, otherwise you're right, there is no need to continue this conversation. Claiming your philosophical construct to be "nothing but the scripture" while providing no sound Biblical support is less than convincing.

Allow me to point out just one of the presumptuous statements you made which you are now pronouncing on to be Biblical. You said, "Love is always constrained by the other or it is not love".
I am open to hearing and considering your Biblical support for this statement.

Also, could you inform me what my starting point is? It seems your starting point is a philosophical conclusion about the nature of God's love in which all Scripture is interpreted through. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks Roland.

I believe we could quote Scripture all day and probably get nowhere until we come to an understanding of sorts. You, Leon, understand Scripture to say something about God, and all of your Scriptures support that understanding. I can only speak for myself, but my understanding of God maybe different (subtle, though it may be) and my Scriptures will support my view.

We both read Scriptures, both study them, probably read a few commentaries, have heard sermons preached, lessons taught, all from the Scriptures. We have had people of influence guide our understandings. We have come to our conclusions honestly, thoughtfully, and prayerfully, but not alone.

And therein lies the rub. If we make this about being right, it will be a cold day in Hell, Michigan (http://www.hell2u.com/) before we are going to agree on much. If, however, we have decided that we would like to describe our points, how we arrived at them, and listen to the other person, we will make greater progress in our discussion.

What is my point? I will go farther down a path with you if it isn't about you showing me how I am wrong. My beliefs have been hard fought with a great deal of change and challenge from the Holy Spirit. Many of the beliefs I hold to now are nowhere close to the beliefs I first held as a new believer. So, for anyone to tell me where I am wrong and why they are right, stop me cold. However, people that let me discuss my beliefs and then discuss theirs have been infinitely more influential in my journey.

I am perfectly willing to quote Scriptures, theologians, and other sources to demonstrate how I got to where I am today.

You have asked some thoughtful questions that have driven me back to what I believe and understand about God. I still will disagree with you about many things. We are still brothers in Christ.

Perhaps the unforgivable sin is to deny the very Spirit that unites us in Christ and make it a winner take all event that divides us. Perhaps that is blaspheming the Spirit. In other words, we make it about our right beliefs and not about God's amazing Grace in Christ Jesus.

Just a thought...

[Roland Hearn]

[QUOTE=Roland Hearn;30580][QUOTE=Leon McCaffrey;30566]

Hey Roland,

Despite my bias, I pray for the humilty to change my theological distinctives if Scripture demands it. It seems rather stiff-necked to say you are not open to changing your perspective - I'm sorry to hear that.

I'm not here to get into a philosophical debate about the nature of God's love that is simply speculative. If you have Biblical support for what you're saying I will hear you out, otherwise you're right, there is no need to continue this conversation. Claiming your philosophical construct to be "nothing but the scripture" while providing no sound Biblical support is less than convincing.

Allow me to point out just one of the presumptuous statements you made which you are now pronouncing on to be Biblical. You said, "Love is always constrained by the other or it is not love".
I am open to hearing and considering your Biblical support for this statement.

Also, could you inform me what my starting point is? It seems your starting point is a philosophical conclusion about the nature of God's love in which all Scripture is interpreted through. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks Roland.

Leon I'm not sure whether "stiff necked" is the right description but I willingly offered the information because my journey to where I am today has been a long and painful one. I have held the positions similar to the one that you are espousing and had them transformed by the love of God, I'm not going back. No one that had ever experienced the love of God in all of its abundance can ever repudiate it. So if you intention is to try and pursuade me that God is less than all love I am afraid I can't accept it, and I openly suggest that because these debates, of which there have been many on this board, can go on fruitlessly for a long time and end up in mud slinging remarks. It is the centre piece of Wesleyan theology that our lives can be filled with the love of God, having been to the fouintain I have no desire for the desert.

I am suprised that you suggest that I have provided no Biblical support. I thought "God is love," was in fact a verse of scripture. I thought the prodigal son was indeed one of Jesus' parables. Could you answer me just one thing if the prodigal son parable is not about love and the nature of the Father could you tell me what it is about? I mentioned also John 3:16,17. These are all very simply things I know but I'm with Karl Bath who suggested that the most profound truth he had ever known was "Jesus loves me, this I know." If you want something more complex than the gospel I'm afraid I can't give it to you.

Leon I would love to know how you comprehend love if you do not understand that love is always constrained by the other, have a read through 1 Corinthian 13 a few times and see if you can find how that is not about the way the lover relates to the other. God's love for us has us as the focus. Love makes no sense in a vacuum.

Your starting point is that love is not the fullness of all that God is. That suggests to me that you come to the discussion without an encounter with that love. No one can discover the richenss of God's love and think that something else is as important. So when you come to explore the Bible you come without that so your starting point is different from mine. My point is that doesn't tell me anything at all about what is or isn't in the Bible it just tells me that your starting point is different to mine. BTW seeing your are so certain that love is not the issue can you give me something other than philosophy, something biblical, that suggest that God is not love. Give me one clear verse that suggests that God's motivation for the cross was something other than love.

[Leon McCaffrey]

Hey Roland,

Thanks for your gracious reply. As I told Hans in an earlier post, I tend to be more direct rather than subtle in effort to be clear and concise. Forgive me if my words don't come across as graciously as I would desire but be assured, I have no desire and will not engage in a mud slinging exchange. I consider you my brother in Christ - there is much love here, believe it or not.

I think you misunderstand my understanding of God's love. Have you read my earlier posts? I completely embrace and believe that God is fully love, just as you do. What I also believe is that He is fully Just, Holy, Merciful, Free, Independent, Jealous, etc. I believe God is a unified and completely integrated whole person who is infinitely perfect in all of His attributes. As you stated before, you believe God's nature is love in which all of His attributes flow from. This is where we disagree. Based on my current understanding, this is where I believe you cross over from being biblical to being philosophical. I find this to be unbiblical, resulting in a distorted view of Scripture with various ramifications.

I'm going to think over some things before responding here. I'm being challenged with some things which I would like to mull over for a while.

Thanks Roland

[Roland Hearn]

Leon, if your opposition is you believe that the Bible says something different to the way I understand it I am left with the recognition that we are talking about interpretation. When you keep saying my position is unbiblical and simply philosophy you insult my intelligence, my spiritual walk and my personal encounters with God, not to mention the scores of biblical scholars and theologians that have gone before that arrive at the same conclusion.

You have suggested that you want to see God is an integrated whole. I would suggest the only way that is possible is to see Him in terms of love and all else as expressions of love. Think about it for one minute -if His justice or Holiness is for even a split second contrary to love He is not unified, if it is consistent with love than love is the underpinning aspect of God's nature that governs all others. Love clearly shapes all the things that you have mentioned. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a unified God and a God that acts at points inconsistent with Himself. If He is consistent, what is it that defines His consistency -Love.

[Leon McCaffrey]

Leon, if your opposition is you believe that the Bible says something different to the way I understand it I am left with the recognition that we are talking about interpretation. When you keep saying my position is unbiblical and simply philosophy you insult my intelligence, my spiritual walk and my personal encounters with God, not to mention the scores of biblical scholars and theologians that have gone before that arrive at the same conclusion.

You have suggested that you want to see God is an integrated whole. I would suggest the only way that is possible is to see Him in terms of love and all else as expressions of love. Think about it for one minute -if His justice or Holiness is for even a split second contrary to love He is not unified, if it is consistent with love than love is the underpinning aspect of God's nature that governs all others. Love clearly shapes all the things that you have mentioned. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a unified God and a God that acts at points inconsistent with Himself. If He is consistent, what is it that defines His consistency -Love.

Roland, please forgive me if you have been insulted by my comments. Thats not my intent and it's obvious you're a bright guy. I'm a fallible person who in no way believes is an authority on anything. It's my personal belief that the Bible is our only authoritative source of information about God. (I'm not sure where you line up here?) I don't feel we are at liberty to draw information about Him from our imaginations or from sources that are not revelatory such as philosophy - don't take this to mean I'm opposed to philosophy, I'm not.

I agree, this is a matter of interpretation. It seems you embrace a philosophical hermeneutic approach which in essence makes 1 John 4:8 the interpretative center for the whole of Scripture. Your starting point is what you presuppose God's nature to be. Instead of seeking objectivity by letting the text speak for itself, it seems you are injecting personal bias. A hermeneutical challenge to us all should be to bring nothing to the passage in order to allow the passage to speak for itself. Interpreting obscure passages in light of 1 John 4:8 may seem reasonable on the surface but it robs other passages of their distinctive contributions to the broad revelation of Scripture.

Without question the Bible says plenty about the love of God but for example, it also says God is holy (Lev 19:2, 1 Pet 1:16) and that He is a comsuming fire (Heb. 12:29). To exclude or lessen these or any of the other attributes of God spoken of in Scripture is to give an unbalanced view of His person. The doctrine of God grows out of the whole counsel of God, not just selected parts. To interpret Lev. 19:2 or Heb. 12:29 through the filter of 1 John 4:8 does severe injustice not only to the contexts of Lev. 19:2 and Heb. 12:29, but also to the context of 1 John 4:8, which nowhere sets forth the idea of an overridding theological concept.

A philosophical hermeneutical approach on any biblical subject will inevitably reflect the presuppositions of the interpreter, not the objective teaching of Scripture. I would also argue this approach is inconsistent with the doctrine of plenary inspiration which our Manual affirms.

It seems many want nothing to do with a God who demands to be feared so they tone God down and eliminate the negative connotations associated with difficult biblical truths. They want to eliminate or explain away every feature of the divine character except those that are instantly "perceived as kind and loving". For example: God is righteous and angry with the wicked every day (Ps 7:11); He is fierce in His indignation against sin (Ps 78:49, Isa. 13:9-13, Zeph 3:8); Fear of Him is the very essence of wisdom (Job 28:28, Ps 111:10, Prov 1:7, 9:10, 15:33); The fear of the Lord is motive for evangelism (2 Cor. 5:11), It is a fearfull thing to fall into the hands of a living God (Heb 10:31).

This discussion has really gotten me thinking about the atonement. I think the cross is a good place to stay in order to provide clarity on the nature of God. I have a few questions.

Do you believe the atoning work of Christ was substituionary? Did Christ make a ransom payment for our sin? Was our guilt imputed to Christ? Did God punish Him as a substitute for sinners?

Thanks Roland

[Jim Chabot]

Without question the Bible says plenty about the love of God but for example, it also says God is holy (Lev 19:2, 1 Pet 1:16) and that He is a comsuming fire (Heb. 12:29). To exclude or lessen these or any of the other attributes of God spoken of in Scripture is to give an unbalanced view of His person. The doctrine of God grows out of the whole counsel of God, not just selected parts. To interpret Lev. 19:2 or Heb. 12:29 through the filter of 1 John 4:8 does severe injustice not only to the contexts of Lev. 19:2 and Heb. 12:29, but also to the context of 1 John 4:8, which nowhere sets forth the idea of an overridding theological concept.

Just quickly before I head up to bed, I will try to get back to this thread over the next couple of days though.

What if these things that you call "attributes" which are in addition to the "attribute" we call love, are actually not separate but are parts which constitute the whole of that which we call God's essential attribute of "Love"?

I offer this in the form of a question, I haven't fully worked through the answer to it. My thoughts are that if we start with "God is Love" and then explore His nature, from that exploration we then define "Love". I'm thinking that definition would quite possibly differ greatly to the notions that we currently hold concerning "Love".

Again, just a thought.

[Benjamin Burch]

Roland, please forgive me if you have been insulted by my comments. Thats not my intent and it's obvious you're a bright guy. I'm a fallible person who in no way believes is an authority on anything. It's my personal belief that the Bible is our only authoritative source of information about God. (I'm not sure where you line up here?) I don't feel we are at liberty to draw information about Him from our imaginations or from sources that are not revelatory such as philosophy - don't take this to mean I'm opposed to philosophy, I'm not.


The difficulty here becomes what do we do when Scripture disagrees with Scripture? We have to possess a hermeneutic for theologically interpreting the Scripture. I am currently doing a Master's Degree in Biblical studies so I definitely know what it means to try and read the Scripture on its own. However, in the end, we need a theological hermeneutic in order to make Christian sense of it. I think this is part of the revelatory work which takes place when we read Scripture as a Body and as a member of a Body.



I agree, this is a matter of interpretation. It seems you embrace a philosophical hermeneutic approach which in essence makes 1 John 4:8 the interpretative center for the whole of Scripture. Your starting point is what you presuppose God's nature to be. Instead of seeking objectivity by letting the text speak for itself, it seems you are injecting personal bias. A hermeneutical challenge to us all should be to bring nothing to the passage in order to allow the passage to speak for itself. Interpreting obscure passages in light of 1 John 4:8 may seem reasonable on the surface but it robs other passages of their distinctive contributions to the broad revelation of Scripture.

I agree strongly, but I'd also respond - again - with what I wrote above. So... see above. :)



Without question the Bible says plenty about the love of God but for example, it also says God is holy (Lev 19:2, 1 Pet 1:16) and that He is a comsuming fire (Heb. 12:29). To exclude or lessen these or any of the other attributes of God spoken of in Scripture is to give an unbalanced view of His person. The doctrine of God grows out of the whole counsel of God, not just selected parts. To interpret Lev. 19:2 or Heb. 12:29 through the filter of 1 John 4:8 does severe injustice not only to the contexts of Lev. 19:2 and Heb. 12:29, but also to the context of 1 John 4:8, which nowhere sets forth the idea of an overridding theological concept.

I hear what you're saying, but I feel like you're missing the point. I don't mean that in a condescending way, I promise! I'm just direct and forward like you! So, what does it mean for God to be a consuming fire? What does it mean for God to be feared? What does it mean for God to be just? What does it mean for God to be Holy?

I feel we make a RADICAL mistake when we define "justice", "love," "holiness," or "fearsome" in human terms or even in "Scriptural" terms that are mere images of human constructs and concepts. Instead, the Cross defines these things. I've said it a few times before but it's the center of all of my theology and I believe it was the center of the earliest Church's theology:

In the birth, life, death, and resurrection God has revealed Godself to us. Thus, in the incarnation, death, and resurrection God has revealed love, justice, holiness, and fearsome-ness to us. The problem is, there is nothing "fearsome" or "just" about the Incarnation. Particularly, the Cross stands as an "offense" to all of those human ideas.


When we begin to define justice, fearsomeness, and holiness in light of the Cross of Christ... our concepts of these things become laughable and they fall to love. Love becomes the meaning of Justice. It becomes the meaning of Holiness. It becomes the meaning of Fearsomeness.




A philosophical hermeneutical approach on any biblical subject will inevitably reflect the presuppositions of the interpreter, not the objective teaching of Scripture. I would also argue this approach is inconsistent with the doctrine of plenary inspiration which our Manual affirms.

I fear if we're in search of "the objective teaching of Scripture" we'll be chasing ghosts. It was the project of modernist Biblical Criticism and it seems that we haven't made any progress towards an agreement on exactly what that is - if it has even been found at all!



It seems many want nothing to do with a God who demands to be feared so they tone God down and eliminate the negative connotations associated with difficult biblical truths. They want to eliminate or explain away every feature of the divine character except those that are instantly "perceived as kind and loving".

Difficult Biblical truths, like sell everything you have and give it to the poor? Or difficult Biblical truths like "if anyone should be my disciple they must pick up their cross and follow me." Those are difficult Biblical truths. That's also a God to be feared. The God that says "Ben, pick up your cross" is FAR scarier than the God that says "Ben, you're going to hell because you...."



For example: God is righteous and angry with the wicked every day (Ps 7:11); He is fierce in His indignation against sin (Ps 78:49, Isa. 13:9-13, Zeph 3:8); Fear of Him is the very essence of wisdom (Job 28:28, Ps 111:10, Prov 1:7, 9:10, 15:33); The fear of the Lord is motive for evangelism (2 Cor. 5:11), It is a fearfull thing to fall into the hands of a living God (Heb 10:31).

And yet God displayed his anger against the wicked by emptying himself and humbling himself to the point of death, even death on a cross. So, anger seems to - again - take the form of Love. For God so loved the world that He sent His only Son and God displayed his love for us in this that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us!



This discussion has really gotten me thinking about the atonement. I think the cross is a good place to stay in order to provide clarity on the nature of God. I have a few questions.

I have tried to display that here.



Do you believe the atoning work of Christ was substituionary?

Absolutely not. Substitutionary assumes that Christ took our place. That means that we could have taken that place. We could not have. The work that Christ did on the cross would have never been possible for me. Therefore, it is not substitutionary.

I also reject the classical formulation of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. It's really almost impossible to find in Scripture.



Did Christ make a ransom payment for our sin?

Depends on what is meant by that statement.



Was our guilt imputed to Christ? Did God punish Him as a substitute for sinners?

No.

[Hans Deventer]

Thanks for the reply Hans.

So how do we as Wesleyans understand Rom. 5:18-19 in light of our Manuals definition of sin?
I agree that our 'systems' can get in the way of how we interpret Scripture.
The Bible should influence and form our theology versus our theology influencing and forming our understanding of the Bible. Do you agree?

Yes! Apologies, I've been away from home for a couple of days in a place with no internet connection (sometimes we have to suffer :) )



Rom 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

I think this actually fits very well with the Wesleyan definition. Adam's sin was a wilful transgression of a known law (actually, the only law at the time) of God.

[Charlotte 'Mercer' Burton]

I apologize for going back to the original post rather than responding to the discussion currently taking place, but here is my (admittedly rather uneducated) understanding of what it means that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin. The way I have understood it is that, if I am blaspheming against the Spirit of God, then I am not likely in a healthy relationship with God. If I look at the work of God, as did the people Jesus was addressing, and call it the work of Satan, then it is not likely that I am going to seek a relationship with that God. If I am neither in a healthy relationship with God nor seeking one, then it is unlikely that I would repent of sins against the God I insult or seek forgiveness for said sins and reconciliation with that God. That said, I have found very little biblical evidence to suggest that God can forgive us against our will.

All that to say, it would seem to me that the unforgivable sin is the one for which we don't seek or accept God's forgiveness.

[Rich Schmidt]

I'll follow you back to the original topic, Charlotte. :)


I apologize for going back to the original post rather than responding to the discussion currently taking place, but here is my (admittedly rather uneducated) understanding of what it means that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin. The way I have understood it is that, if I am blaspheming against the Spirit of God, then I am not likely in a healthy relationship with God. If I look at the work of God, as did the people Jesus was addressing, and call it the work of Satan, then it is not likely that I am going to seek a relationship with that God. If I am neither in a healthy relationship with God nor seeking one, then it is unlikely that I would repent of sins against the God I insult or seek forgiveness for said sins and reconciliation with that God. That said, I have found very little biblical evidence to suggest that God can forgive us against our will.

All that to say, it would seem to me that the unforgivable sin is the one for which we don't seek or accept God's forgiveness.

I've liked and used that definition/understanding of it, too... but I'm realizing that it doesn't seem to fare well in light of the rest of the verse...

"And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven." (Luke 12:10, NIV)

"Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." (Matthew 12:32, NIV)

Jesus contrasts speaking against the Son with speaking against the Spirit. The approach you gave (and others have given and I have used in the past) doesn't seem to be able to account for why it would be true about the Spirit but NOT the Son, and vice versa. Because if I speak against the Son, I am also not likely in a healthy relationship with God, etc.

[Rich Schmidt]

I'll follow you back to the original topic, Charlotte. :)

...

I've liked and used that definition/understanding of it, too... but I'm realizing that it doesn't seem to fare well in light of the rest of the verse...

"And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven." (Luke 12:10, NIV)

"Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." (Matthew 12:32, NIV)

Jesus contrasts speaking against the Son with speaking against the Spirit. The approach you gave (and others have given and I have used in the past) doesn't seem to be able to account for why it would be true about the Spirit but NOT the Son, and vice versa. Because if I speak against the Son, I am also not likely in a healthy relationship with God, etc.

And now that I've written all that out, here's an initial proposal for what might be going on in that verse:

Think of when the gospels were written. Jesus had already ascended into heaven, the Holy Spirit had been poured out and was directing the church. Many who are turning to Christ had, in fact, spoken against the Son. Were they beyond forgiveness? Certainly not! But what of those who were speaking against the Spirit (who was alive in the church, directing the church, etc)? I think, perhaps, that the contrast is being made here between those who spoke against Jesus in the past and those who were speaking against the Spirit's activity in the present.

If so, then the end result would be similar to what Charlotte described. It wouldn't be something to worry about, as in, "Did I commit the unforgivable sin back then?" The warning is to those who would dismiss or speak against what the Spirit of God is doing today.

How's that sound?

[Hal Paul]

I think I found the answer:
1133

[Jim Chabot]

And now that I've written all that out, here's an initial proposal for what might be going on in that verse:

Think of when the gospels were written. Jesus had already ascended into heaven, the Holy Spirit had been poured out and was directing the church. Many who are turning to Christ had, in fact, spoken against the Son. Were they beyond forgiveness? Certainly not! But what of those who were speaking against the Spirit (who was alive in the church, directing the church, etc)? I think, perhaps, that the contrast is being made here between those who spoke against Jesus in the past and those who were speaking against the Spirit's activity in the present.

If so, then the end result would be similar to what Charlotte described. It wouldn't be something to worry about, as in, "Did I commit the unforgivable sin back then?" The warning is to those who would dismiss or speak against what the Spirit of God is doing today.

How's that sound?

Sounds good Rich. If I could I would add to that the admonition not to harden our hearts when we hear the Spirit speak. Thus those who oppose the Spirit do so while hardening their hearts, with the result being that they die in an unrepentant state.

[Roland Hearn]

Leon,
I've been pretty tied up the last few days. Three comments 1: your write as if to suggest that you don't bring anything outside of scripture to your understanding of scripture - if that is true then you are unique in human history, if it isn't I'm not sure why you would require of me a standard that you don't yourself ascribe to. The way you quote scripture in support of your interpretation suggest strongly that you are interpreting those things in the context of your own understanding. 2: Suggesting holiness, consuming fire and God's anger are at odds with or even different from his love leaves you with the very thing you fear, a God that is not whole, in fact He seems to me almost schizophrenic if I follow your suggestions to their logical conclusions. 3: What Ben said.

[Paul DeBaufer]

And now that I've written all that out, here's an initial proposal for what might be going on in that verse:

Think of when the gospels were written. Jesus had already ascended into heaven, the Holy Spirit had been poured out and was directing the church. Many who are turning to Christ had, in fact, spoken against the Son. Were they beyond forgiveness? Certainly not! But what of those who were speaking against the Spirit (who was alive in the church, directing the church, etc)? I think, perhaps, that the contrast is being made here between those who spoke against Jesus in the past and those who were speaking against the Spirit's activity in the present.

If so, then the end result would be similar to what Charlotte described. It wouldn't be something to worry about, as in, "Did I commit the unforgivable sin back then?" The warning is to those who would dismiss or speak against what the Spirit of God is doing today.

How's that sound?

I think that I may have thought or even mentioned to someone back in my atheism that maybe, just maybe the Bible and Christianity was from the forces of evil to mislead millions of people. I really didn't know much about the Holy Spirit at that time, but I did call into question and was dismissive of god's work in the world today. I'm not sure that there is a blasphemy that I did not commit in those days. Yet, today I feel God the Holy Spirit at work in me and my life. (Interesting aside, 10 months before my public conversion a friend told me my knee would bow and my tongue would confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and I say, "NO I WILL NOT!!!!", always kind of wanted to see him again to let him know his words to me were prophetic.)

In complete context in the Matthew passage Jesus is talking to religious leaders who would know who the Holy Spirit is and should know better. I am thinking that maybe my blasphemies as an atheist are outside that context. Now IF I were to commit the same blasphemy today as a believer then I might not get back fro that one. Kind of like what Hebrews 6:4-6 says, 4For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6and then have fallen away, since on their own they are crucifying again the Son of God and are holding him up to contempt. Could the two passages be related, in light of Rich's comments this seems possible.

Thank you everyone for your responses.

[Billy Cox]

Leon,
I've been pretty tied up the last few days. Three comments 1: your write as if to suggest that you don't bring anything outside of scripture to your understanding of scripture - if that is true then you are unique in human history, if it isn't I'm not sure why you would require of me a standard that you don't yourself ascribe to. The way you quote scripture in support of your interpretation suggest strongly that you are interpreting those things in the context of your own understanding. 2: Suggesting holiness, consuming fire and God's anger are at odds with or even different from his love leaves you with the very thing you fear, a God that is not whole, in fact He seems to me almost schizophrenic if I follow your suggestions to their logical conclusions. 3: What Ben said.

I became very aware of the lenses through which I read the Bible by reading feminist theology and liberation theology. It's not that I subscribe wholesale to either, but looking at the scripture through another unfamiliar lense made me very conscious of the lenses that color *my* reading of Scripture.