Sinful housework

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I would present the following texts:

1 John 4:8
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

1 John 4:16
And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

What makes something "holy"? Holiness itself. Therefore, while God is holy... we don't read that God is "holiness" itself. However, the Bible tells us that God is love. That's a very absolute statement. Now, if God IS love itself... that's the very essence of His nature. Love.

God is love. The God who is love is also holy. But He isn't holiness itself. In fact, anything set aside and separated for God's purposes is also holy.

Are you saying that God is not love? If you don't want to believe that God is love... that's entirely up to you.

Lets compare scripture with scripture on this topic.

Hebrews 6:13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,

Gen. 22:16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

Notice in both of these passages God is said to have swore by Himself. This begs the question when God is said to sware by Himself because there He could sware by no great then what exactly did He sware by?

Psalms 89:34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.

35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.

Amos 4:2 The Lord God hath sworn by his holiness, that, lo, the days shall come upon you, that he will take you away with hooks, and your posterity with fishhooks.

Notice when God speaks of swaring by Himself; He is refering to swaring by His holiness. Therefore by compareing these scriptures to each other it becomes clear that God equates holiness as defining Himself.

Why did he not sware by love if that is His nature?

Also nowhere in th Bible does it say that God is "love itself" that wording does not exist.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Luke

Lets compare scripture with scripture on this topic.

Hebrews 6:13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,

Gen. 22:16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

Notice in both of these passages God is said to have swore by Himself. This begs the question when God is said to sware by Himself because there He could sware by no great then what exactly did He sware by?

Psalms 89:34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.

35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.

Amos 4:2 The Lord God hath sworn by his holiness, that, lo, the days shall come upon you, that he will take you away with hooks, and your posterity with fishhooks.

Notice when God speaks of swaring by Himself; He is refering to swaring by His holiness. Therefore by compareing these scriptures to each other it becomes clear that God equates holiness as defining Himself.

Why did he not sware by love if that is His nature?

Also nowhere in th Bible does it say that God is "love itself" that wording does not exist.

God swore by His holiness, as one would a virtue or attribute that they possess.

Are you saying that God is not love?

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Aquila

God swore by His holiness, as one would a virtue or attribute that they possess.

Are you saying that God is not love?

Love is not God's nature that is what i am saying. One of His divine attributes is love just as one of His attributes is grace or mercy or justice. His nature is Holy.

Look at these passages again.

Hebrews 6:13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,

Gen. 22:16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

Notice in both of these passages God is said to have swore by Himself. This begs the question when God is said to sware by Himself because there He could sware by no great then what exactly did He sware by?

Psalms 89:34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.

35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.

Amos 4:2 The Lord God hath sworn by his holiness, that, lo, the days shall come upon you, that he will take you away with hooks, and your posterity with fishhooks.

Notice when God speaks of swaring by Himself; He is refering to swaring by His holiness. Therefore by compareing these scriptures to each other it becomes clear that God equates holiness as defining Himself.

Why did he not sware by love if that is His nature?

Notice in the first two passages God is said to have sworn by Himself. In the next two we are told what He swore by "His HOLINESS". Therefore when God said what He was He did not say love but rather holy and holiness.

IT is also interesting that in the hebrews 6 passage it states that "He could sware by no greater" He swore by Himself and as we are shown it was by His holiness that He swore therefore there is no denying the fact as it relates to God holiness is greater than love otherwise He would have either swore by His love or He would not have said that He could not have swore by any greater.

[shazeep]

I'm seeing that God = Holy is a perspective that recognizes God alone, whereas God = Love infers an object of that love; without either being less true; but being Holy def more unapproachable than being Love. That seems pretty intuitive. Therefore, i wonder if it's better to recognize God in whatever Title applies--of which it is said you couldn't say them all in a lifetime. God is Holy; but when considering God's grace and mercy toward a sinner, it may literally not be the Holy God that applies, except maybe 'in the end.' God = Love makes more sense here--iow whenever God is considered in relation to man--because what the sinner deserves is pretty much instant death. So while God is Love may never equal God is Holy in one sense...

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Luke

Love is not God's nature that is what i am saying. One of His divine attributes is love just as one of His attributes is grace or mercy or justice. His nature is Holy.

Look at these passages again.

Hebrews 6:13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,

Gen. 22:16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

Notice in both of these passages God is said to have swore by Himself. This begs the question when God is said to sware by Himself because there He could sware by no great then what exactly did He sware by?

Psalms 89:34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.

35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.

Amos 4:2 The Lord God hath sworn by his holiness, that, lo, the days shall come upon you, that he will take you away with hooks, and your posterity with fishhooks.

Notice when God speaks of swaring by Himself; He is refering to swaring by His holiness. Therefore by compareing these scriptures to each other it becomes clear that God equates holiness as defining Himself.

Why did he not sware by love if that is His nature?

Notice in the first two passages God is said to have sworn by Himself. In the next two we are told what He swore by "His HOLINESS". Therefore when God said what He was He did not say love but rather holy and holiness.

IT is also interesting that in the hebrews 6 passage it states that "He could sware by no greater" He swore by Himself and as we are shown it was by His holiness that He swore therefore there is no denying the fact as it relates to God holiness is greater than love otherwise He would have either swore by His love or He would not have said that He could not have swore by any greater.

God, being love, desired to swear by His holiness. If God weren't love... He'd not even care to do so. Who is man that God would even concern Himself with us? It is because... God is love. The God who is love, swore by His holiness.

I believe that God is holy because love is holy... and God is love.

God desires that we be holy as He is holy. Thus we are to love. Love Him. And show our love for Him by loving others as ourselves. When the very love of God is flowing in our lives... we enter a realm of spirituality that supersedes all religiosity.

And from this vantage point we begin to realize what it means that God is jealous... what it means that God hates sin... and what it means that God hates the wicked. We begin to realize that what some believe to be God's darker attributes emanate from the reality that He is love itself.

Luke... are you saying that God is not love?

[Aquila]

A God who is holiness certainly wouldn't have planned Calvary. A God who was holiness itself would demand that His holy indignation be visited upon every human soul.

However, God is love. Being love (essence), He satisfied His holiness (attribute) through Calvary. Love is the reason behind it all. Because He is love.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by shazeep

I'm seeing that God = Holy is a perspective that recognizes God alone, whereas God = Love infers an object of that love; without either being less true; but being Holy def more unapproachable than being Love. That seems pretty intuitive. Therefore, i wonder if it's better to recognize God in whatever Title applies--of which it is said you couldn't say them all in a lifetime. God is Holy; but when considering God's grace and mercy toward a sinner, it may literally not be the Holy God that applies, except maybe 'in the end.' God = Love makes more sense here--iow whenever God is considered in relation to man--because what the sinner deserves is pretty much instant death. So while God is Love may never equal God is Holy in one sense...

God is holy. This is an unchanging fact no matter our situation. This does not mean that there are not other attributes that are seen and experienced at times rather it simply means that all other attributes flow from His nature of holiness. To the sinner it applies in that he/she is assured of judgement not because God is mean or cruel but rather because God is holy and is therefore 100% opposite and opposed to all that is sin and must judge all sin or deny his nature. To the penitent sinner it is both terrible and glorious. Terrible because when the sinner realizes the holiness of God against which they are sinning and by which they will be judged it is a terrifying thing. It is glourious in that the sinner SHOULD be brought to understand that no sin acceptable and that all sin will bring about eternal damnation and the only place of saftey is a place of holiness. To the christian it applies in that it gives us great comfort because sunce God is holy and therefore 100% oppesed and opposite to sin we have the upmost and greatest assurance that He will always keep His word. Since we as christians are called to holiness and are to have the attitude of hatred of all sin it is God's holiness that becomes glourious and beautiful.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Aquila

A God who is holiness certainly wouldn't have planned Calvary. A God who was holiness itself would demand that His holy indignation be visited upon every human soul.

However, God is love. Being love (essence), He satisfied His holiness (attribute) through Calvary. Love is the reason behind it all. Because He is love.

God is love in that love is an attribute of God but love is not God's nature.

Because Gos is holy He does demand that His indignation and wrath be poured out upon all sinful mankind but God is also merciful and kind and gracious and loveing. Therefore He offers man the choice of salvation. Mankind was created with free moral choice this does mean that man was created to fall but rather was created with the divine right to choose to follow God's law or not and suffer the consequences. Therefore when man chose to sin it was no less rebellion than that of the fallen angels but mankind was offered a chance of redemption while angels do not appear to have had such an opportunity. Why? Because of Holiness. God made man with free moral choice but not the angels therefore when the angels fell they did what they had no right to do but when man fell he was exerciseing his right to choose. Both rebelled against God and both were delt with in holiness. The fallen angels faced swift and sure judgement because the holiness of God had been offened in such a way that was never intended to happen. Man on the other hand was offered a way of redemption even though they had offended the holiness of God but only by exercising a God given right. Therefore Calvary was not an after though but a response so as to make the choice of following God possible and thus uphold God's holiness.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by shazeep

I'm seeing that God = Holy is a perspective that recognizes God alone, whereas God = Love infers an object of that love; without either being less true; but being Holy def more unapproachable than being Love. That seems pretty intuitive. Therefore, i wonder if it's better to recognize God in whatever Title applies--of which it is said you couldn't say them all in a lifetime. God is Holy; but when considering God's grace and mercy toward a sinner, it may literally not be the Holy God that applies, except maybe 'in the end.' God = Love makes more sense here--iow whenever God is considered in relation to man--because what the sinner deserves is pretty much instant death. So while God is Love may never equal God is Holy in one sense...

One thing we know for sure.... in this ongoing debate, is that God is holy, and God is love, for there are many scriptures that speak to the same. As to whether one or the other is his nature... looks like the debate will never end, although it is interesting to follow the viewpoints on either side of the coin.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Luke

...but love is not God's nature...

although i guess you have a justification for this statement, it may not preclude most peoples' understanding of it
sure reads as wrong to me.