Predestined

Originally posted by Received
And let us also remember that God cannot intentionally 'hate' any man, for hate is an evil in itself if used in such a way, and such is not found in God. The hate, or 'wrath', of God is the reflexive response that God gives to man that hates Him. By quoting in Romans, from Malachi, this instance of recollection is in the past tense - God is reveiwing events that are already past completion.

Click to expand...

Like all profound truths, this one, you have posted, is simple.  God does not hate babies who die in birth or who are aborted before they could believe.  They are not in hell as Calvinist theology declares.  God loves them.

Of course, it is a rather simple truth, but I feel it is too often overlooked.  God is impassible, as He is maximally excellent, and cannot have emotions, be them the romantic false expressions that many have, or those of hate and rage.  Now, many seem to believe that a God who cannot have emotions is one who cannot have feelings as well, which is false.  He loves the world, and delights in virtue, hates vice, and interacts with those who commune with Him.  When we hear the word 'wrath' and notice it attributed to God, we tend to relate this to an earthly wrath that sinful men have - the sort that is self-seeking and contemptous.  But God cannot be this way, not intrinsically.  It is man's wrath that results in God's wrath.  Peter Kreeft even said that Hell could very well be the love of God pressed (not forcefully) upon the condemned, and the result would be similar to a rebellious child being smothered by his mother's kisses - extreme distaste and torment. 

I think that it was the revelation of God's simple nature, aside from His amazing sovereignty, that really changed my view on Christianity.  It is a truly profound reality; a paradox of paradoxes.

blessings,

John

Recieved,

I have not heard of molinism before, but it seems to line up with my own feelings on predestination, molinism probably being better defined and more rationalistically sound I'm sure. Any books/websites you could point me to for more information on the subject? Bill

Originally posted by Received
Of course, it is a rather simple truth, but I feel it is too often overlooked.  God is impassible, as He is maximally excellent, and cannot have emotions, be them the romantic false expressions that many have, or those of hate and rage.  Now, many seem to believe that a God who cannot have emotions is one who cannot have feelings as well, which is false.  He loves the world, and delights in virtue, hates vice, and interacts with those who commune with Him.  When we hear the word 'wrath' and notice it attributed to God, we tend to relate this to an earthly wrath that sinful men have - the sort that is self-seeking and contemptous.  But God cannot be this way, not intrinsically.  It is man's wrath that results in God's wrath.  Peter Kreeft even said that Hell could very well be the love of God pressed (not forcefully) upon the condemned, and the result would be similar to a rebellious child being smothered by his mother's kisses - extreme distaste and torment. 

I think that it was the revelation of God's simple nature, aside from His amazing sovereignty, that really changed my view on Christianity.  It is a truly profound reality; a paradox of paradoxes.

blessings,

John

Click to expand...

 

Your statement is consistent with Lewis' statment tht God doesn't fault of for desiring too much but for disiring so little.  Your thoughts, which I assume are also others' for you are standing on the shoulders of giants, tax the limit of English language and many will object to the statement that God cannot have emotions because they will never get beyond the language to what you mean.

Great thoughts.  Just as Jesus couched his descriptions of heaven and hell in terms we understand (mansions and inferno) so too the descriptions of what God "feels" are couched in the language of human emotion because those emotions are the closest we can come to understanding what God experiences. 

wryan,

I wouldn't be sure where to start.  Molinism as a whole seems to be a route that those - at least speaking today - take if they reject the eternality of God.  And in my opinion, the eternality of God, and His being outside of time or not, matters little to me.  In my mind, it seems logical to claim that God is both; in time and outside of it, for time is measured by the relation that matter has with change, and 'before' the creation of the cosmos there was not even any space for matter to take place in - there wasn't even a nothing!  And God, being 'before' this (I use the quotes because before implies time, which God was not a part of, for time started with the creation of the cosmos), would be outside of it, as well as within space, for,contrary to popular belief, God is not occupying the third heaven only, but the heavens period - He is everywhere - ""Am I a God who is near," declares the LORD, "And not a God far off?  Can a man hide himself in hiding places so I do not see him?" declares the LORD." (Jeremiah 23:23,24). 

I choose Molinism primarily for the idea of Middle-knowledge, not saying that this is exactly how things are done, but at least a step in a better direction.  William Lane Craig wrote a book where he includes his ideas on Molinism in "The Only Wise God".  He also has articles concerning this, holding to his 'omnitemporal' position, rather than strict timelessness that many have held in the past.  I believe this is something along the lines of what I believe.  Here are his articles - they are rather difficult: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/eternity.html

FluviusNeckar,

I don't think an emotionless God is a bad thing; though I certainly thought otherwise when I first read Aquinas.  I believe the reason He is impassible is not because He cannot have emotions - that is, He refuses to -, but because He is the fulfillment of emotion - He is infinite love.  When humans get 'emotional', it can be said that they are acting in a way more passionately than usual; that is, they are not professing the real person they are, but elevating it for a certain occasion - and there is nothing wrong with this at all, considering that it isn't done every second of the day (I am against this type of Romanticism).  God cannot do this, for infinite love has no room for elevation.  He simply is.  Negative emotions, like wrath and anger cannot be found in Him intrinsically, though external surroundings may cause Him to be this way.  He would not be having emotions because He is not expressing Himself any further than necessary; He is acting out the foolish and heartless acts of man in perfect accordance with their rebellion through punishment.  If it were a step further, it would be emotion.  But this is not the case, for God cannot 'overdo' it - He is over the over!  Many who hold divine impassibility claim that God's 'changing His mind' in passages such as Exodus 32 and Isaiah 38 are mere metaphor; I would disagree.  God's relenting in these passages has not to do with His own doubt, but with the power of prayer.  Though it is difficult for us to grasp, I think it is incorrect to claim that His relenting is mere metaphor.  Compassionate passages such as Hosea 11 would not deal with emotions, but with feelings.  God hates the idea of punishment - the scripture says He takes no joy in the death of the wicked - and to such can be reconciled with an omnipotent, eternal deity. 

All emotions that are negative in themselves cannot be found in God's character, but only through the rebellion of man.  Love, on the other hand, can be worked in a number of ways, for love is a feeling, a state, rather than an extended or elevated proliferation of a person's character for a limited amount of time.  Anselm asked how it was that he felt God's mercy when He could not give mercy, and the answer was that God's love given in the specific situation that Anselm was in registered as mercy.  Love is love, and God is love (1 John 4:8).  There is no other virtue that God is called in the bible as He is with love.  When our loved ones are down, and they need our help even though they may have been rude to us, we simply love them regardless and they feel not only love, but mercy, for their guilt given their situation is given rest, wheras this would not be the case with one who is not in a similar position.  We cannot choose the subgroups of love as we wish when dealing with people; we are not commanded to.  We are to simply love, and so it is with God - a thinking (meditative) being, who loves us all differently, planning each of our paths accordingly.  To go into this doctrine any further would simply be folly - we must leave this to wonder. 

Originally posted by Received
I don't think an emotionless God is a bad thing; though I certainly thought otherwise when I first read Aquinas.  I believe the reason He is impassible is not because He cannot have emotions - that is, He refuses to -, but because He is the fulfillment of emotion - He is infinite love.  When humans get 'emotional', it can be said that they are acting in a way more passionately than usual; that is, they are not professing the real person they are, but elevating it for a certain occasion - and there is nothing wrong with this at all, considering that it isn't done every second of the day (I am against this type of Romanticism).  God cannot do this, for infinite love has no room for elevation.  He simply is.  Negative emotions, like wrath and anger cannot be found in Him intrinsically, though external surroundings may cause Him to be this way.  He would not be having emotions because He is not expressing Himself any further than necessary; He is acting out the foolish and heartless acts of man in perfect accordance with their rebellion through punishment.  If it were a step further, it would be emotion.  But this is not the case, for God cannot 'overdo' it - He is over the over!  Many who hold divine impassibility claim that God's 'changing His mind' in passages such as Exodus 32 and Isaiah 38 are mere metaphor; I would disagree.  God's relenting in these passages has not to do with His own doubt, but with the power of prayer.  Though it is difficult for us to grasp, I think it is incorrect to claim that His relenting is mere metaphor.  Compassionate passages such as Hosea 11 would not deal with emotions, but with feelings.  God hates the idea of punishment - the scripture says He takes no joy in the death of the wicked - and to such can be reconciled with an omnipotent, eternal deity. 

All emotions that are negative in themselves cannot be found in God's character, but only through the rebellion of man.  Love, on the other hand, can be worked in a number of ways, for love is a feeling, a state, rather than an extended or elevated proliferation of a person's character for a limited amount of time.  Anselm asked how it was that he felt God's mercy when He could not give mercy, and the answer was that God's love given in the specific situation that Anselm was in registered as mercy.  Love is love, and God is love (1 John 4:8).  There is no other virtue that God is called in the bible as He is with love.  When our loved ones are down, and they need our help even though they may have been rude to us, we simply love them regardless and they feel not only love, but mercy, for their guilt given their situation is given rest, wheras this would not be the case with one who is not in a similar position.  We cannot choose the subgroups of love as we wish when dealing with people; we are not commanded to.  We are to simply love, and so it is with God - a thinking (meditative) being, who loves us all differently, planning each of our paths accordingly.  To go into this doctrine any further would simply be folly - we must leave this to wonder. 

Click to expand...

The agape of the New Testament certainly includes a rational element of choice if we are to understood at all the command to love our enemies whom we hate or for whom we at least have a negative emotional attachment.  The love you describe and which we observe in Christ is certainly more than an emotion---it is a perfect integration of reason and emotion into the most improtant personality trait of God, love.  (Please keep God's rationality a secret for now since Western society in general and American churches in particular have jettisoned the rationality of both Aquinas and John Locke for superstition and emotion.)

I have given some thought to the idea that our human words and experiences cannot adequately convey the spiritual truths of reality (our world being only a shadow of the reality which is the spiritual world.)  The trouble with this position is that it is inconsistent with Jesus as the perfect revelation of God.  That inconsistency denigrates the human experience to the point that Jesus cannot be wholly human because he cannot perfectly express God on our human level and in our human language and experience.  We run (innocuously) afoul of sound Christology.

Totally. The love of God is simple enough for a child to comprehend, but difficult even for thousands of years of men still in an awe forever growing towards infinity and eternity.

Thanks Recieved, much appreciated. Bill