Matt,
I too have been "sleeping on our discussion" and I had a few things I wanted to pass on. In my last post, I talked briefly about the different uses of language within an evangelical context versus an evangelistic context; and I said that I was talking to you in an evangelical context. What I did not stop to think about was the fact that you may have been doing the same when you said "God loves homosexuals." Using short-term terminology without the loaded implications that come through the culture we live in. So if that was the case, my apologies.
With regards to your noun versus adjective question, here are my thoughts. First, you raise an excellent point; and I can honestly say that I have never really thought about that before. Does a declarative statement that God = noun carry more weight than the numerous statements where God is described as an adjective God [e.g. loving, holy, etc...] On a gut level, without any real study, I tend to think it might. But that might just be my initial reaction. Regardless, quite an interesting thought, and one that I will raise with a pastor friend of mine tonight when we gather for dinner.
Now, as for the specifics of this discussion, let us assume that the statement God = x is, in fact, more authoritative than a statement with an adjective that describes God. 2 Thessalonians 1:6 records a statement that "God is just," while 1 John 1:5 says that "God is light" and Psalm 99:9 states that "God is holy." So even if the premise of your question is, in fact, correct, it wouldn't impact the core of our conversation. Love cannot be elevated over and above the fact that God is holy, just and light (which is contrasted with the darkness of sin).
In the end, I think you and I are actually on the same page. The core of your thought appears to center around not wanting to be a putz-monkey when it comes to caring for a population that has largely been demonized by the church. I remember that you had a friend at Wheaton who struggled with homosexuality and as I said earlier, I had a friend who committed suicide over the issue. So if anything I have said strikes you as being "intolerant" or spiteful, than chalk that up to the issues that plague internet communication.
My heart on this issue is very clear. I beleive that God loves His creation and that would include everyone within it. But at a certain point (and I do not necessarily think that that point can only arrive on Judgment Day [consider God's hardening of Pharoah's heart after Scripture records that Pharoah repeatedly hardened his own heart]), God justice and holiness also demand that He cannot tolerate sin indefinitely. Sin has corrupted His order, and while He desires to redeem it, He also gives us a freedom to reject that redemption. And I think all of this must be kept in a balanced perspective, especially as we live in a society that increasingly views God as a lovely entity that couldn't possibly frown on their choices.
So I think the only thing we are in disagreement over is the issue of whether or not there is a genetic predisposition to sin. And that is where I struggle. Because while the Fall was certainly universal in scope, I find it difficult to believe that the Fall necessarily forces someone into a life of sin. But ... even if I granted you a genetic predisposition for the sake of this argument, I still believe that God is a God of miracles. And He has power over the physical as well as the spiritual. So even if, for the sake of argument, the Fall has corrupted our genetic make-up in such a way that it actually causes us to gravitate towards sin (against our own desire), God can still heal that genetic disfunction. To say that He can't is to say that something is beyond the power of God. And that is an untenable proposition from my perspective.
Have you had a chance to read Satinover's article?
I too have been "sleeping on our discussion" and I had a few things I wanted to pass on. In my last post, I talked briefly about the different uses of language within an evangelical context versus an evangelistic context; and I said that I was talking to you in an evangelical context. What I did not stop to think about was the fact that you may have been doing the same when you said "God loves homosexuals." Using short-term terminology without the loaded implications that come through the culture we live in. So if that was the case, my apologies.
With regards to your noun versus adjective question, here are my thoughts. First, you raise an excellent point; and I can honestly say that I have never really thought about that before. Does a declarative statement that God = noun carry more weight than the numerous statements where God is described as an adjective God [e.g. loving, holy, etc...] On a gut level, without any real study, I tend to think it might. But that might just be my initial reaction. Regardless, quite an interesting thought, and one that I will raise with a pastor friend of mine tonight when we gather for dinner.
Now, as for the specifics of this discussion, let us assume that the statement God = x is, in fact, more authoritative than a statement with an adjective that describes God. 2 Thessalonians 1:6 records a statement that "God is just," while 1 John 1:5 says that "God is light" and Psalm 99:9 states that "God is holy." So even if the premise of your question is, in fact, correct, it wouldn't impact the core of our conversation. Love cannot be elevated over and above the fact that God is holy, just and light (which is contrasted with the darkness of sin).
In the end, I think you and I are actually on the same page. The core of your thought appears to center around not wanting to be a putz-monkey when it comes to caring for a population that has largely been demonized by the church. I remember that you had a friend at Wheaton who struggled with homosexuality and as I said earlier, I had a friend who committed suicide over the issue. So if anything I have said strikes you as being "intolerant" or spiteful, than chalk that up to the issues that plague internet communication.
My heart on this issue is very clear. I beleive that God loves His creation and that would include everyone within it. But at a certain point (and I do not necessarily think that that point can only arrive on Judgment Day [consider God's hardening of Pharoah's heart after Scripture records that Pharoah repeatedly hardened his own heart]), God justice and holiness also demand that He cannot tolerate sin indefinitely. Sin has corrupted His order, and while He desires to redeem it, He also gives us a freedom to reject that redemption. And I think all of this must be kept in a balanced perspective, especially as we live in a society that increasingly views God as a lovely entity that couldn't possibly frown on their choices.
So I think the only thing we are in disagreement over is the issue of whether or not there is a genetic predisposition to sin. And that is where I struggle. Because while the Fall was certainly universal in scope, I find it difficult to believe that the Fall necessarily forces someone into a life of sin. But ... even if I granted you a genetic predisposition for the sake of this argument, I still believe that God is a God of miracles. And He has power over the physical as well as the spiritual. So even if, for the sake of argument, the Fall has corrupted our genetic make-up in such a way that it actually causes us to gravitate towards sin (against our own desire), God can still heal that genetic disfunction. To say that He can't is to say that something is beyond the power of God. And that is an untenable proposition from my perspective.
Have you had a chance to read Satinover's article?
posted by Just a Few Things about Scott ... | 10:12 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home