My Love for God is unconditional...

[probinson]

I chose the title of this thread because I wanted to talk about something I find... interesting.

I've heard many Christians say things like, "No matter what God does to me, I'll still Love Him." Indeed, I once read a person on this very forum (years ago) state that even if they knew God would send them straight to hell at the end of their life, they'd still Love Him.

Personally, I find this to be completely and totally backwards from what scripture says and rooted in pride. It seems to place the focus on us, on our ability to Love God unconditionally, no matter what He does to us, and takes the focus away from His Love toward us.

Scripture tells us that we Love because God first Loved us. Scripture also tells us that God is Love. In 1 Corinthians 13, we see clearly what Love is and is not; it is patient and kind, not envious, not boastful, not proud, not rude, not self-seeking, not easily angered, keeps no record of wrongs, does not delight in evil, rejoices with truth, always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. These are attributes of God our Father.

Of course, people often quote Job, who (IMO) foolishly stated, Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him. You don't often hear people quote the other part of that verse, which says, "I will surely defend my ways to his face." It seems clear to me that Job was out of line in his comments, which may be why he had to repent at the end...

I can already hear the accusations forming in people's minds, saying that I'll only Love God when things are going hunky dory, peachy-keen in my life. But that's not true. I have no problem saying that I Love God no matter what trials and tribulations may come my way, but I'll stop short of saying that He is the cause of those troubles. Indeed, James says;

James 1:13-18 (NIV)
When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.
​

I find it interesting that immediately after talking about being tempted, James instructs us to not be deceived. How? By reaffirming that every good and perfect gift is from the Father of heavenly lights above. However, I think much of the church has been deceived, and attributed many things to God that should not have been.

So when people say things like, "Though He slay me, yet will I hope in Him", I have to wonder why. Why on earth would you put your hope in someone that was slaying you? That sounds a bit like an abused wife who is in denial about the realities of her abusive husband.

To the contrary, I believe that we have an enemy, whom we have been instructed to resist. I believe that God has granted us all freewill, and as a result, there are often negative consequences from our choices or the choices of others. No matter what may happen in this life, I will put my hope and trust in God, because I know and have established that even though I may not understand everything that happens or why it happens as it does, I can rest in the revelation that God IS LOVE, and Love certainly does not "slay" us.

I don't want you to think I'm some kind of wonderful because of my Love for God; I want you to know how wide and long and high and deep is the Love of Christ for you.

 

[dkbwarrior]

I said something very similar last month when I was teaching the Wednesday night service at our church. I said, "Someone said to me the other day that we should love God because He is God, and no other reason." I got some hearty amens...

Then I said, "But nowhere in the Bible that I am aware of does it say that we love Him simply because He is God. In fact, my Bible says that we have all gone out of the way, and there is none that seek after God."

I continued with the same verse you quoted above,"My Bible says that we love Him because He first loved us. That is why we love Him. Any other answer is unscriptural and false."

It was kinda quiet for a minute while everyone processed what I had said, then I got some more even heartier amens.

One thing I like about my church. We believe the Bible. And when we see it says something different than our religious preconceptions, we change our thinking.

Peace...

 

[Yitzchak]

1Pe 2:18 Servants, you must obey your masters and always show respect to them. Do this, not only to those who are kind and thoughtful, but also to those who are cruel.
1Pe 2:19 God will bless you, even if others treat you unfairly for being loyal to him.
1Pe 2:20 You don't gain anything by being punished for some wrong you have done. But God will bless you, if you have to suffer for doing something good.
1Pe 2:21 After all, God chose you to suffer as you follow in the footsteps of Christ, who set an example by suffering for you.
1Pe 2:22 Christ did not sin or ever tell a lie.
1Pe 2:23 Although he was abused, he never tried to get even. And when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he had faith in God, who judges fairly.

I highlighted two things in this passage. first , we are told to submit to suffering unfair treatment even from those authorities who are cruel and wrong.

Second , we are told that it is no great thing to brag about if we suffer wrong because we deserve it.

I guess one could call this a caveat. We should be careful to remember that we are not supposed to complain. First of all , we have received all the love we need from God and we are his witnesses who endure persecution and unfair treatment for the sake of Christ. Second we sometimes suffer for our own behavior in which case we have nothing to complain about either.


I agree with the opening post that people bring false accusations against God all the time. Just like Job did when he said he would still serve God even if he slayed him. Implied in that was an accusation against God. Later in Job , God corrects Job for it.

It makes me think of Malachi...

Mal 3:13 You have said horrible things about me, and yet you ask, "What have we said?"
Mal 3:14 Here is what you have said: "It's foolish to serve the LORD God All-Powerful. What do we get for obeying him and from going around looking sad?
Mal 3:15 See how happy those arrogant people are. Everyone who does wrong is successful, and when they put God to the test, they always get away with it."
Mal 3:16 All those who truly respected the LORD and honored his name started discussing these things, and when God saw what was happening, he had their names written as a reminder in his book.
Mal 3:17 Then the LORD All-Powerful said: You people are precious to me, and when I come to bring justice, I will protect you, just as parents protect an obedient child.
Mal 3:18 Then everyone will once again see the difference between those who obey me by doing right and those who reject me by doing wrong.

I like the King James of this verse..

Mal 3:13 Your words have been stout against me, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, What have we spoken so much against thee?

This is in the context of the famous verses about bringing the tithes. People accused God even though they were the ones doing wrong.


Also we are not capable of proper love towards God outside of receiving God's love first.

 

[Simon_Templar]

First off, pride is always a danger, even when someone is doing whats right, because we are such creatures that we turn even doing right into a danger to ourselves lest we become prideful of it.


Moving on from that, my feeling on this, and the reason I quote Job is not to prove how much I love God. On the contrary, I have often lamented that I was not born in an earlier century because I largely despise the self serving, individualism that is the halmark of our modern and post-modern world.

I believe that true honor is found in service to something greater than self, and particularly in service to a worthy Lord. That is an ideal that I value highly and it is one that has, for the most part, died out in our day and age.
Lordship, by definition is based on ownership. To acknowledge someone as your Lord is to acknowledge yourself as the property, and subject of that Lord.
I desire that, a worthy Lord to whom I can pledge life, loyalty, and service.

The reason Job could say what he did, and the reason I quote it is because God is a worthy Lord.

I know that if God ordains that I should die, it will both be for a worthy purpose, and it will also be to my good.

We're all going to die at some point. Its only a matter of how, when, and most importantly why.
God will decide when I die, or I could also say God HAS decided when I will die. The timing of it is not really important. The real issue of importance to me is the why and also how I meet it.

 

[Simon_Templar]

I said something very similar last month when I was teaching the Wednesday night service at our church. I said, "Someone said to me the other day that we should love God because He is God, and no other reason." I got some hearty amens...

Then I said, "But nowhere in the Bible that I am aware of does it say that we love Him simply because He is God. In fact, my Bible says that we have all gone out of the way, and there is none that seek after God."

I continued with the same verse you quoted above,"My Bible says that we love Him because He first loved us. That is why we love Him. Any other answer is unscriptural and false."

It was kinda quiet for a minute while everyone processed what I had said, then I got some more even heartier amens.

One thing I like about my church. We believe the Bible. And when we see it says something different than our religious preconceptions, we change our thinking.

Peace...

Do you love your wife because of who she is? or because of what she does for you?

The people in your group who said that we should love God because he is God, were absolutely right.
The fact that God first loved us, is meant to show an expression of who he is. As John said, God is love. Thus to love God because of who he is.. to love him because he is himself, if you really know God, is a response to his divine love.

The way you interpet it seems to suggest that we should love God because of what he does for us, not because of who he is. That is absolutely wrong, and a total misunderstanding of the scripture.

If the people who think that we should love God because he is God don't think God is loving... then the issue is not that they love God for the wrong reasons... the issue is that they don't know God.

 

[dkbwarrior]

Do you love your wife because of who she is? or because of what she does for you?

The people in your group who said that we should love God because he is God, were absolutely right.
The fact that God first loved us, is meant to show an expression of who he is. As John said, God is love. Thus to love God because of who he is.. to love him because he is himself, if you really know God, is a response to his divine love.

The way you interpet it seems to suggest that we should love God because of what he does for us, not because of who he is. That is absolutely wrong, and a total misunderstanding of the scripture.

If the people who think that we should love God because he is God don't think God is loving... then the issue is not that they love God for the wrong reasons... the issue is that they don't know God.

This sounds nice, but you have to show me scripture. Show me scripture where it says that mankind has even the capability to love God just because He is God. I'm not trying to be difficult, but the scripture plainly says why we love Him. We love Him because He first loved us. That is what the scripture says, whether it agrees with what you believe or not.

I find it ironic that you say you want a Lord who you can belong to as property, yet you turn around and say that you dont believe what He said. It reminds me of a scripture:

46And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
-Luke 6:46

I believe in a God who didn't want slaves, but a family, and I honor Him as my Father, not as my slave-master. I choose to believe everything that He says.

I find it interesting that in my experience, those who say they see God primarily as their master, tend to pick and choose what they believe from His Word, ignoring large swaths of it, it favour of their own personal beliefs and doctrines. While those who see God primarily as a Father, are much more apt to believe all of scripture without reservation.

I choose to believe what He said, that I love Him because He first loved me.

Peace...

 

[Simon Peter]

Of course, people often quote Job, who (IMO) foolishly stated, Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him. You don't often hear people quote the other part of that verse, which says, "I will surely defend my ways to his face." It seems clear to me that Job was out of line in his comments, which may be why he had to repent at the end...

And yet Job also said this:

Job 2:10 NIV
10 He replied, "You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?" In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.




EDIT:

The most reliable literal translations, translate the word 'trouble' as "evil".

ra‛ / râ‛âh
BDB Definition:
1) bad, evil (adjective)
1a) bad, disagreeable, malignant
1b) bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)
1c) evil, displeasing
1d) bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)
1e) bad (of value)
1f) worse than, worst (comparison)
1g) sad, unhappy
1h) evil (hurtful)
1i) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)
1j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically)
1j1) in general, of persons, of thoughts
1j2) deeds, actions
2) evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity (noun masculine)
2a) evil, distress, adversity
2b) evil, injury, wrong
2c) evil (ethical)
3) evil, misery, distress, injury (noun feminine)
3a) evil, misery, distress
3b) evil, injury, wrong
3c) evil (ethical)


peace,
Simon

 

[probinson]

Do you love your wife because of who she is? or because of what she does for you?

This always seems to come up in discussions like this, and I will say quite confidently that I Love my wife because of who she is AND because of what she does for me. I am confident that my wife would tell you the same thing.

So the flip question seems apropos; if your wife told you that she Loved you, but she never spent any time with you, never talked to you, never helped you, never embraced you, never did anything for you... would you believe her, and better yet, how would you know that she Loved you?

The people in your group who said that we should love God because he is God, were absolutely right.
The fact that God first loved us, is meant to show an expression of who he is. As John said, God is love. Thus to love God because of who he is.. to love him because he is himself, if you really know God, is a response to his divine love.

The way you interpet it seems to suggest that we should love God because of what he does for us, not because of who he is. That is absolutely wrong, and a total misunderstanding of the scripture.

No, it just expounds on the false dichotomy you've already created.

I actually agree with you that we Love God for who He is. So who is God, exactly?

He IS my Father.
He IS Lord of all.
He IS King of Kings.
He IS Lord of Lords.
He IS my savior.
He IS my healer.
He IS my comforter.
He IS my provider.
He IS my peace.
He IS my joy.
He IS my Strong Tower.
He IS my Shepherd.
He IS my strength.
He IS my salvation.
He IS my counselor.
He IS my protector.
He IS the air I breathe.
He IS the Creator.
He IS the Giver of Life.
He IS His Word.
He IS Great.
He IS Mighty.
He IS Love.
He IS Compassion.
He IS Grace.
He IS Mercy.
He IS Goodnes.
He IS Kindness.
He IS Truth.
He IS Light.

He IS the Great I AM.

He IS all of those things, and so much more.
​

That's who God IS.

You're trying to separate who God is from what God does, and I have no idea why. Who God IS and what God DOES are the same thing. The names of God even illustrate that; He IS Jehovah-Nissi, the Lord My Banner. He is Jehovah-Raah, the Lord my Shepherd. He IS Jehovah-Rapha, the Lord my Healer. He IS Jehovah Shammah, the Lord is There. He IS Jehovah Tsidkenu, the Lord my Righteousness. He Is Jehovah Mekoddishkem, the Lord who sanctifies Me.

The only reason that any of us are able to Love God is because He first Loved us. Anyone who says they Love God just because is, IMO, not being honest about the fact that they Love God for who He IS AND for what He does.

 

[probinson]

And yet Job also said this:

Job 2:10 NIV
10 He replied, "You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?" In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.

I find the way the account of Job is worded to be quite... interesting.

You apparently read that verse like this; "Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble [from God]?" However, that's not what that verse actually says. It's what you assume it to say from your doctrinal standpoint, but it does not say that.

It is simply saying that if we accept good from God, then we must accept trouble also, but you'll note that Job does not attribute the trouble/evil/bad to God. In fact, not a single translation indicates that. Every translation I looked at is similar to the one you've posted, where you must make an assumption and read into the text what is not there to arrive at that conclusion.

 

[Simon_Templar]

This always seems to come up in discussions like this, and I will say quite confidently that I Love my wife because of who she is AND because of what she does for me. I am confident that my wife would tell you the same thing.

So the flip question seems apropos; if your wife told you that she Loved you, but she never spent any time with you, never talked to you, never helped you, never embraced you, never did anything for you... would you believe her, and better yet, how would you know that she Loved you?

That question was posed to someone else, not to you. Also, if you read my post you would find that I said that what God does is an expression of who he is. The fact that he loves us is an expression of the fact that he is love.

His actions, in that regard, are meant to reveal his nature.

You're trying to separate who God is from what God does, and I have no idea why. Who God IS and what God DOES are the same thing. The names of God even illustrate that; He IS Jehovah-Nissi, the Lord My Banner. He is Jehovah-Raah, the Lord my Shepherd. He IS Jehovah-Rapha, the Lord my Healer. He IS Jehovah Shammah, the Lord is There. He IS Jehovah Tsidkenu, the Lord my Righteousness. He Is Jehovah Mekoddishkem, the Lord who sanctifies Me.

What God does, is an expression of who he is. Its not quite as being the same thing. One flows out of the other. A small point granted.

However, if you would read my post, I think you'd find that I don't make a distinction between who God is and what he does in the way you are claiming I do. I'm not trying to seperate them. On the contrary.. My point was (in that particular post) that the argument that we do not love God for who he is but we love him for what he does, presupposes that there is a difference between the two. IF it does not then it is a pointless and meaningless statement.

The only reason that any of us are able to Love God is because He first Loved us. Anyone who says they Love God just because is, IMO, not being honest about the fact that they Love God for who He IS AND for what He does.

First, I agree with the last part where you say that we love God because of who he is and because of what he does. Our relationship with God is always responsive, he is the initiator and the actor, we respond, receive, and cooperate.

The first part, it seems to me, presupposes that love does not grow and that we do not grow in love.

If I initially meet someone, and love them because they show me kindness... but then I get to know them and I see that they are also very wise, can I not then also love them for their wisdom? Or if I see later that they are also very brave, can I not love them for their bravery?

It would seem that you are hung up on the idea that for someone to say the love God for who he is means some kind of pride or bragging on their part, as though they have done something great.

Well, the truth is everything we do in our relationship with God is responsive. We respond to him. Thus I suppose you could say that loving him for who he is, is a response to him revealing himself and drawing you in to greater knowledge of him.

If anyone says that the love God of their own accord.. then they are most certainly wrong and they have some serious issues. That is not at all what Job said, nor is it what those who say they love God for who he is are saying.

If you are progressing in knowledge of God then your love of God should grow beyond its initial beginning point. Since God is love, its true to say that this is always a response to God's love, because thats who he is.

 

[Simon_Templar]

I find the way the account of Job is worded to be quite... interesting.

You apparently read that verse like this; "Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble [from God]?" However, that's not what that verse actually says. It's what you assume it to say from your doctrinal standpoint, but it does not say that.

It is simply saying that if we accept good from God, then we must accept trouble also, but you'll note that Job does not attribute the trouble/evil/bad to God. In fact, not a single translation indicates that. Every translation I looked at is similar to the one you've posted, where you must make an assumption and read into the text what is not there to arrive at that conclusion.

Actually, grammatically its clear in that sentence that both the good and the trouble are coming from God.

If I were to say, shall I accept agreements from Probinson but not arguments?

The clear meaning is that both are coming from you, and I think pretty much everyone knows that. There isn't really a leg to stand on to argue otherwise.

Have you ever heard the statement "the Lord gives and the Lord takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord." Also said by Job, it is essentially the same idea.

 

[probinson]

Actually, grammatically its clear in that sentence that both the good and the trouble are coming from God.

If I were to say, shall I accept agreements from Probinson but not arguments?

The clear meaning is that both are coming from you, and I think pretty much everyone knows that. There isn't really a leg to stand on to argue otherwise.

That's not clear at all. It could means what you say, but it's not certain in the way it's worded. You've gotta love the English language for the ambiguity it presents....

If you want to clearly and unambiguously make your above statement, you would say, "Shall I accept agreements but not arguments from Probinson?" This leaves no doubt and no room for interpretation to what you mean.

Have you ever heard the statement "the Lord gives and the Lord takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord." Also said by Job, it is essentially the same idea.

I have indeed. I think that's another statement that many people grab because it sounds good, without even thinking about the implication of what they're saying.

 

[JimB]

I chose the title of this thread because I wanted to talk about something I find... interesting.

I've heard many Christians say things like, "No matter what God does to me, I'll still Love Him." Indeed, I once read a person on this very forum (years ago) state that even if they knew God would send them straight to hell at the end of their life, they'd still Love Him.

Personally, I find this to be completely and totally backwards from what scripture says and rooted in pride. It seems to place the focus on us, on our ability to Love God unconditionally, no matter what He does to us, and takes the focus away from His Love toward us.

Scripture tells us that we Love because God first Loved us. Scripture also tells us that God is Love. In 1 Corinthians 13, we see clearly what Love is and is not; it is patient and kind, not envious, not boastful, not proud, not rude, not self-seeking, not easily angered, keeps no record of wrongs, does not delight in evil, rejoices with truth, always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. These are attributes of God our Father.

Of course, people often quote Job, who (IMO) foolishly stated, Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him. You don't often hear people quote the other part of that verse, which says, "I will surely defend my ways to his face." It seems clear to me that Job was out of line in his comments, which may be why he had to repent at the end...

I can already hear the accusations forming in people's minds, saying that I'll only Love God when things are going hunky dory, peachy-keen in my life. But that's not true. I have no problem saying that I Love God no matter what trials and tribulations may come my way, but I'll stop short of saying that He is the cause of those troubles. Indeed, James says;

James 1:13-18 (NIV)
When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.
​

I find it interesting that immediately after talking about being tempted, James instructs us to not be deceived. How? By reaffirming that every good and perfect gift is from the Father of heavenly lights above. However, I think much of the church has been deceived, and attributed many things to God that should not have been.

So when people say things like, "Though He slay me, yet will I hope in Him", I have to wonder why. Why on earth would you put your hope in someone that was slaying you? That sounds a bit like an abused wife who is in denial about the realities of her abusive husband.

To the contrary, I believe that we have an enemy, whom we have been instructed to resist. I believe that God has granted us all freewill, and as a result, there are often negative consequences from our choices or the choices of others. No matter what may happen in this life, I will put my hope and trust in God, because I know and have established that even though I may not understand everything that happens or why it happens as it does, I can rest in the revelation that God IS LOVE, and Love certainly does not "slay" us.

I don't want you to think I'm some kind of wonderful because of my Love for God; I want you to know how wide and long and high and deep is the Love of Christ for you.

I think you are misquoting something I once said (see bolded sentence above) when I posed the THEORETICAL question in a thread, "Would I/you still serve God if there were no heaven to gain?" (or something like that.) I actually googled for it (like you once suggested) in order to substantiate my point and couldn't find it. Maybe you can find it for us (you seem to know how to find old posts) and we can bump it and continue the discussion.

But I don't think anyone mentioned hell in the discussion.


Anyhow, I can see that the question is still eating on you and that's a good thing. Thanks for bringing it up again. I think it is a question well worth discussing ... again.
　
FTR, though, if I remember correctly, some were uncomfortable with the idea of there being no heaven to gain and one or two of them actually admitted that they would not serve Christ for His sake alone but would have to have something personal to gain (i.e., heaven, the abundant life, prosperity, good health, etc.) before they would do it. Talk about "placing the focus on us, on our INability to Love God unconditionally."
　
Actually, I do not know if I would serve Christ for His sake alone, even if I received no tangible reward for doing so, but I would hope that I would be willing serve Him for His sake alone ... i.e., unconditionally. That is certainly my goal.
　
~Jim

 

[probinson]

That question was posed to someone else, not to you.

Your point? This is a public forum, and I responded to the question. I won't claim to speak for dkbwarrior, but I suspect his answer will be similar.

Also, if you read my post you would find that I said that what God does is an expression of who he is. The fact that he loves us is an expression of the fact that he is love.

His actions, in that regard, are meant to reveal his nature.

Agreed.

What God does, is an expression of who he is. Its not quite as being the same thing. One flows out of the other. A small point granted.

However, if you would read my post, I think you'd find that I don't make a distinction between who God is and what he does in the way you are claiming I do. I'm not trying to seperate them. On the contrary.. My point was (in that particular post) that the argument that we do not love God for who he is but we love him for what he does, presupposes that there is a difference between the two. IF it does not then it is a pointless and meaningless statement.

But to some people, there is a difference. People will tell you things like, "You shouldn't Love God because of what He does for you, only for who He is". IMO, This is a foolish, pride filled statement. It presupposes that we can Love God just because. It doesn't really matter if He does anything for us. Just the fact that He is God is enough for some people, or so they say.

But this makes no sense, because there is little, if any, difference between who God IS and what God does.

First, I agree with the last part where you say that we love God because of who he is and because of what he does. Our relationship with God is always responsive, he is the initiator and the actor, we respond, receive, and cooperate.

Agreed.

The first part, it seems to me, presupposes that love does not grow and that we do not grow in love.

Not sure why you'd think that. I believe we are (or at least should be) growing in our relationship with God every minute of every day.

If I initially meet someone, and love them because they show me kindness... but then I get to know them and I see that they are also very wise, can I not then also love them for their wisdom? Or if I see later that they are also very brave, can I not love them for their bravery?

Sure. I have no problem with any of that.

It would seem that you are hung up on the idea that for someone to say the love God for who he is means some kind of pride or bragging on their part, as though they have done something great.

Not always, but there are certainly some people who fit that description.

Well, the truth is everything we do in our relationship with God is responsive. We respond to him. Thus I suppose you could say that loving him for who he is, is a response to him revealing himself and drawing you in to greater knowledge of him.

If anyone says that the love God of their own accord.. then they are most certainly wrong and they have some serious issues. That is not at all what Job said, nor is it what those who say they love God for who he is are saying.

Are you sure you speak for everyone who says they Love God for who He is?

About 2 years ago, the following quote was posted on this forum;

“Take away material prosperity; take away emotional highs; take away miracles and healing; take away fellowship with other believers; take away church; take away all opportunity for service; take away assurance of salvation; take away the peace and joy of the Holy Spirit... Yes! Take it all, all, far, far away. And what is left? Tragically, for many believers there would be nothing left. For does our faith really go that deep? Or do we, in the final analysis, have a cross-less Christianity? Unless the simple gospel has center-place in our faith, it has no place at all. Unless the cross is everything, it is nothing.” (Mason, Gospel According to Job, 210)
​

Let's see what we've taken away; material prosperity, emotional highs, miracles, healing, fellowship with other believers, church, opportunity to serve, assurance of salvation, take away peace, joy.... and what's left? The answer is nothing! The quote then goes on to say that we must have the "simple gospel", and that the cross must be everything, but in this quote, the cross is nothing more than 2 meaningless pieces of wood that has no power to do anything, not even assure us of our salvation.

If you are progressing in knowledge of God then your love of God should grow beyond its initial beginning point. Since God is love, its true to say that this is always a response to God's love, because thats who he is.

My point is, and you seem to be saying the same thing in different words, that who God IS is virtually inseparable from what God does. There are, however, people who will try to tell you otherwise, and it that idea that I am attempting to address with this thread.

 

[probinson]

I think you are misquoting something I once said (see bolded sentence above) when I posed the THEORETICAL question in a thread, "Would I/you still serve God if there were no heaven to gain?" (or something like that.)

Actually, I think the quote I am thinking of came from a member in the GT forum, many years ago.

I actually googled for it (like you once suggested) in order to substantiate my point and couldn't find it. Maybe you can find it for us (you seem to know how to find old posts) and we can bump it and continue the discussion.

It's OK. Not everyone can have the amazing searching skills I possess.
http://www.christianforums.com/t5629208/

That thread is closed, so you can't bump it.

But I don't think anyone mentioned hell in the discussion.

I don't know. You'd have to read through the 461 posts in the thread to find out.

Anyhow, I can see that the question is still eating on you and that's a good thing. Thanks for bringing it up again. I think it is a question well worth discussing ... again.

Yes, it has consumed me night and day for almost 4 years. I've thought of nothing else as it "eats" at me.

FTR, though, if I remember correctly, some were uncomfortable with the idea of there being no heaven to gain and one or two of them actually admitted that they would not serve Christ for His sake alone but would have to have something personal to gain (i.e., heaven, the abundant life, prosperity, good health, etc.) before they would do it. Talk about "placing the focus on us, on our INability to Love God unconditionally."

There were many who were "uncomfortable" with your hypothetical. You attempted to make people feel guilty and selfish and indulgent for rejoicing that there was a heaven to gain.

In that thread, you said (emphasis added);

"...While I am grateful that I am not going to hell and that heaven lies in my future, today I would hope that my service for Christ is prompted purely out of my devotion to Him and as a response of my gratitude.

Source: http://www.christianforums.com/t5629208-11/#post36639023
​

This is what my OP is referring to. Your devotion and gratitude for God becomes the focus, rather than God's Love for us.

Then, just a few posts later, you refined the question to include the reward of heaven, but removed earthly rewards (here) to which people easily agreed that they would serve God regardless of what happened on this earth.

Actually, I do not know if I would serve Christ for His sake alone, even if I received no tangible reward for doing so, but I would hope that I would be willing serve Him for His sake alone ... i.e., unconditionally. That is certainly my goal.

I can say with certainty that I would not. It is only because God first Loved me, and demonstrated that Love to me by offering His Son for me, that I have any ability to Love at all.

 

[JimB]

*****

It's OK. Not everyone can have the amazing searching skills I possess.
http://www.christianforums.com/t5629208/

That thread is closed, so you can't bump it.

****

I knew I could count on you.

Yep, it’s closed … fortunately (for some). But thanks for the link. I could rephrase the question under a different thread title and repost it. (I'm considering it ... you might want to keep posted.)

~Jim

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. ~C.S. Lewis​

 

[probinson]

I knew I could count on you.

Yep, it’s closed … fortunately (for some). But thanks for the link. I could rephrase the question under a different thread title and repost it. (I'm considering it ... you might want to keep posted.)

I would expect no less. I have no doubt that you will continue to call people self-indulgent for simply rejoicing that we have a Heaven to gain.

 

[JimB]

Actually, I think the quote I am thinking of came from a member in the GT forum, many years ago.


*****


There were many who were "uncomfortable" with your hypothetical. You attempted to make people feel guilty and selfish and indulgent for rejoicing that there was a heaven to gain.

In that thread, you said (emphasis added);

"...While I am grateful that I am not going to hell and that heaven lies in my future, today I would hope that my service for Christ is prompted purely out of my devotion to Him and as a response of my gratitude.

Source: http://www.christianforums.com/t5629208-11/#post36639023
​

This is what my OP is referring to. Your devotion and gratitude for God becomes the focus, rather than God's Love for us.

*****

This is a bit confusing, Pete. Personally, I think you are talking out both sides of your mouth. Either you are specifically referring to some imaginary thread in the GT forum (which you failed to post a link to) or you are talking about my thread in this forum. Which is it?

~Jim

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. ~C.S. Lewis​

 

[Simon Peter]

Originally Posted by Simon Peter

And yet Job also said this:

Job 2:10 NIV
10 He replied, "You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?" In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.

​

I find the way the account of Job is worded to be quite... interesting.

You apparently read that verse like this; "Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble [from God]?" However, that's not what that verse actually says. It's what you assume it to say from your doctrinal standpoint, but it does not say that.

It is simply saying that if we accept good from God, then we must accept trouble also, but you'll note that Job does not attribute the trouble/evil/bad to God. In fact, not a single translation indicates that. Every translation I looked at is similar to the one you've posted, where you must make an assumption and read into the text what is not there to arrive at that conclusion.

LOL, so you're saying we should accept evil from Satan? That's not very 'Prosperity Gospel' of you...I think Hagin is turning over in his grave even as we speak.


peace,
Simon

 

[probinson]

This is a bit confusing, Pete. Personally, I think you are talking out both sides of your mouth. Either you are specifically referring to some imaginary thread in the GT forum (which you failed to post a link to) or you are talking about my thread in this forum. Which is it?

Please, try to pay attention.

In my OP, I posted this;

Indeed, I once read a person on this very forum (years ago) state that even if they knew God would send them straight to hell at the end of their life, they'd still Love Him.

Now, because this occurred years ago, and because I don't remember exactly how it was worded, I don't know where it's at, and have (as of yet) been unable to find it, but I do think it was in GT if I recall correctly

However, you said that you thought I was misquoting you from your thread (that I posted the link to), but that was not the case. 2 threads, 2 different situations, 2 different people.

Understand now?