"Only the renunciation of the logically satisfying theory creates room for true decision; but the Gospel is the Word which confronts us with the summons to decision" (pg. 353), so ends the first book of Brunner's trilogy on Christian Doctrine. In this statement, Dr. Brunner sums up his whole project by revealing two truths.
The first truth is that to make sense of the Biblical narrative and the Divine, we need to renounce that which is logically satisfying. We need to understand that God is not the God of the philosophers (logicians, academics, or scientists), but the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (as Blaise Pascal so eloquently put it). God is not knowable through Reason, but through living with Him. We do a dis-service to the Divine when we erect a system of thought and then try to fit God into it. We need to remember Brunner's earlier warning that "the truly personal God is He who is not known through thought" (pg. 123) and that "Wherever dogmatics becomes a system, or is systematically dominated by a fundamental idea then already there has been a fatal declension from the attitude of the faithful translator. The very thing that makes such an impression, and attracts people with good brains: rigid unity of thought, in dogmatics is the infallible sign of error. Revelation cannot be summed up in a system." (pg. 72) We worship a God that cannot be summed up in system. This is a powerful statement. We wish to categorize God and place on Him our logic and control Him. Faith might not be logically satisfying, but it satisfies live.
The second truth in this statement is that the Gospel confronts us with a decision. We are not Elect from the beginning of time. Our lives are not determined by God. Out of His Love, God limited Himself by creating us and giving us the freedom to choose. In Jesus Christ, in His death, burial, descent and resurrection we are not automatically saved or damned. We are elect through Christ, but not by Christ. (see previous post, (http://lentenhope.blogspot.com/2011/03/elect.html) God, in His Freedom, has given us freedom. We are called to worship, not demanded to worship.
"To the Elect (those who believe) it is said: "come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (pg. 327). It is with this invitation we can come to the celebration, the inauguration of the Kingdom of God. The call has gone out, but many will not hear it. This is what Brunner is trying to get us to think about. We are called to freedom, called out of bondage, but instead of slipping loose the chains and leaving them behind, we try then to use the chains to bind God.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
The Elect
"All is Meaningless!" says the Preacher in Ecclesiastes. "The whole history of humanity is a mere nothing, which is swallowed up in the whirlpool of the temporal." (pg. 304) say s Brunner. Because we are finite, we are have no meaning in and of ourselves. We have tried to create meaning, but that has accounted to be meaningless. The sons of Lamech in Genesis 4 tried to fill this void by creating music, history, and war, but this lead not to meaning. For God looked at what He had created, this finite being trying to fill the void, and declared, "I am sorry that I have made them." (Genesis 6:7) By trying to create meaning on our own, we grieved the heart of God and "The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth" (Genesis 6:6), for man in his quest for meaning had turned from Him and tried to replace Him.
Instead of plumbing the depths of the Infinite, Humanity was content to have "his life played out on the surface of the finite." (pg. 304) We have left "the firm foundation in our eternal Origin, and without the firm goal in the eternity at the end of theages, man literally lives 'for the day'."(pg. 304) Carpe Deim has become our motto, forgetting who we were created to be. For humanity is eschatological, not ontological or metaphysical. We are called not to live for the finite, but to live for the Infinite.
We have elected to live outside of Christ, content to be outside of not only Love, but to be outside of Life. "Whoever excludes himself, is excluded; he who does not allow himself to be included, is not included. But he who allows himself to be included, he who believes, is elect." (pg. 320) When we choose, in our arrogance, not to believe, not love as Christ first loved us, we choose not to participate in or accept the Divine Gift, which is the Life and Love of Christ. We all know John 3:16, the statement that "God so loved the world that He gave His only Son." but we choose to ignore the love poured out on us.
It is not the work of the Cross to elect us, to choose us, to be saved. For it is "In Him, through Him, but not by Him" (pg. 314) we come to salvation. It is only in Christ, through Christ, that we can find salvation and be saved from from our meaningless existence, according to Brunner. Brunner continues to say that "it is this revealed eternity alone, through which, and in which, I, this individual human being, this individual person, receive eternal meaning, and my individual personal existence is taken seriously." (pg. 305)
While Dr. Brunner is right that it is only after finding the revealed eternal meaning, Christ, that we can take personal existence meaningful, we do so at the risk of of forgetting the lessons of Ecclesiastes. We live a live that is marked by the curse to toil under the sun, and to labor all of our days to find meaning, only to come up empty. "For to a person who is good in His sight He has given wisdom and knowledge and joy, while to the sinner He has given the task of gathering and collecting so that he may give to one who is good in God's sight. This too is vanity and striving after the wind." (Ecclesiastes 2:26, NASB) Even after we have been given the gift of wisdom and knowledge, the Gift of Christ, we still toil and look for meaning, which is a striving after the wind. We seek meaning for ourselves, it is our lot in this world of vanity and meaninglessness.
We need to take both sides seriously. We need to understand that God has given us meaning in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. To add to this, we need to look at the paradoxes that Luther posited. We are both "simultaneously cursed and blessed (simul maledictus et benedictus, simultaneously living and dead (simul vivus et mortus), simultaneously grieving and joyful (simul dolens et gaudens...simultaneously just and a sinner (simul justus et peccator)." (Luther's Theology II, quoted in Hans Urs von Balthasar's Mysterium Paschale
) In the same way we can say that we are both just and a sinner, we can say that we participate in the Eternal meaning given to us by the Revelation of Christ. Yet, we need to keep in mind that we are simul infinitus et finitus, simultaneously finite and infinite, simultaneously meaningful and meaningless.
Instead of plumbing the depths of the Infinite, Humanity was content to have "his life played out on the surface of the finite." (pg. 304) We have left "the firm foundation in our eternal Origin, and without the firm goal in the eternity at the end of theages, man literally lives 'for the day'."(pg. 304) Carpe Deim has become our motto, forgetting who we were created to be. For humanity is eschatological, not ontological or metaphysical. We are called not to live for the finite, but to live for the Infinite.
We have elected to live outside of Christ, content to be outside of not only Love, but to be outside of Life. "Whoever excludes himself, is excluded; he who does not allow himself to be included, is not included. But he who allows himself to be included, he who believes, is elect." (pg. 320) When we choose, in our arrogance, not to believe, not love as Christ first loved us, we choose not to participate in or accept the Divine Gift, which is the Life and Love of Christ. We all know John 3:16, the statement that "God so loved the world that He gave His only Son." but we choose to ignore the love poured out on us.
It is not the work of the Cross to elect us, to choose us, to be saved. For it is "In Him, through Him, but not by Him" (pg. 314) we come to salvation. It is only in Christ, through Christ, that we can find salvation and be saved from from our meaningless existence, according to Brunner. Brunner continues to say that "it is this revealed eternity alone, through which, and in which, I, this individual human being, this individual person, receive eternal meaning, and my individual personal existence is taken seriously." (pg. 305)
While Dr. Brunner is right that it is only after finding the revealed eternal meaning, Christ, that we can take personal existence meaningful, we do so at the risk of of forgetting the lessons of Ecclesiastes. We live a live that is marked by the curse to toil under the sun, and to labor all of our days to find meaning, only to come up empty. "For to a person who is good in His sight He has given wisdom and knowledge and joy, while to the sinner He has given the task of gathering and collecting so that he may give to one who is good in God's sight. This too is vanity and striving after the wind." (Ecclesiastes 2:26, NASB) Even after we have been given the gift of wisdom and knowledge, the Gift of Christ, we still toil and look for meaning, which is a striving after the wind. We seek meaning for ourselves, it is our lot in this world of vanity and meaninglessness.
We need to take both sides seriously. We need to understand that God has given us meaning in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. To add to this, we need to look at the paradoxes that Luther posited. We are both "simultaneously cursed and blessed (simul maledictus et benedictus, simultaneously living and dead (simul vivus et mortus), simultaneously grieving and joyful (simul dolens et gaudens...simultaneously just and a sinner (simul justus et peccator)." (Luther's Theology II, quoted in Hans Urs von Balthasar's Mysterium Paschale
) In the same way we can say that we are both just and a sinner, we can say that we participate in the Eternal meaning given to us by the Revelation of Christ. Yet, we need to keep in mind that we are simul infinitus et finitus, simultaneously finite and infinite, simultaneously meaningful and meaningless.The Repentant God
The Christian God is not unchanging. He is not a God that looks at the world with disinterest, like the God of Deism. He is affected by what happens to us, His creatures. God "does care what happens to men and women - He is concerned about the changes upon earth. he alters His behaviour in accordance with the changes in men." (pg. 268) To say that God changes at the beginning sounds like heresy at best and blasphemy at worst. But the opposite is true. If God did not change, at least in behaviour, he would be a cruel God that was not Loving or Merciful. God, to be loving, has to change.
"God 'reacts', He changes. God says: "I will not cause my countenance to fall upon you." He "hideth His Face", H withdraws Himself- and again: He draws near, He discloses Himself, He "makes His face to shine upon thee"." (pg. 268) In this quote, Brunner reminds us that the Divine Activities are full of actions that constitute change. God is not a passive God, but an active God, reacting and changing.
This doctrine is easy to grasp once getting over the initial shock. However, it entails a statement that is much more troubling. "God repented Himself". (Amos 7:3, Jer. 42:10, I Sam 15:11) "Behind this expression 'God repented Himself', there lies, in point of fact, nothing less than the fundamental Biblical idea of the relation between God and the world." (pg. 269) This fundamental idea is that God has willed the independence of those that He created, and then enters into the world His creatures have created. By entering the world not created by Him, He limits Himself and behaves according "to the behaviour of man." (pg. 269) This idea might raise hostility, if we are still operating under the understanding that God is potestas absoluta, the Absolute Power that cannot change and cannot be limited. Yet, in His Love, God limits Himself, which causes Him, in His Mercy to repent of Himself.
Brunner continues to say, "If the expression 'God repented Himself' arouses hostility, then on the other hand, the assurance that God hears prayer shows the significance of this hostility very clearly."(pg. 269) We want a God that has the absolute power to change everything when we petition in Him in prayer, yet at the same time, we do not want a God that can change. This is not a paradox, but a blatant contradiction. For both the God who hears prayer and the God who repents is the God that "is interested in what happens upon earth." (pg. 269)
"God 'reacts', He changes. God says: "I will not cause my countenance to fall upon you." He "hideth His Face", H withdraws Himself- and again: He draws near, He discloses Himself, He "makes His face to shine upon thee"." (pg. 268) In this quote, Brunner reminds us that the Divine Activities are full of actions that constitute change. God is not a passive God, but an active God, reacting and changing.
This doctrine is easy to grasp once getting over the initial shock. However, it entails a statement that is much more troubling. "God repented Himself". (Amos 7:3, Jer. 42:10, I Sam 15:11) "Behind this expression 'God repented Himself', there lies, in point of fact, nothing less than the fundamental Biblical idea of the relation between God and the world." (pg. 269) This fundamental idea is that God has willed the independence of those that He created, and then enters into the world His creatures have created. By entering the world not created by Him, He limits Himself and behaves according "to the behaviour of man." (pg. 269) This idea might raise hostility, if we are still operating under the understanding that God is potestas absoluta, the Absolute Power that cannot change and cannot be limited. Yet, in His Love, God limits Himself, which causes Him, in His Mercy to repent of Himself.
Brunner continues to say, "If the expression 'God repented Himself' arouses hostility, then on the other hand, the assurance that God hears prayer shows the significance of this hostility very clearly."(pg. 269) We want a God that has the absolute power to change everything when we petition in Him in prayer, yet at the same time, we do not want a God that can change. This is not a paradox, but a blatant contradiction. For both the God who hears prayer and the God who repents is the God that "is interested in what happens upon earth." (pg. 269)
Thursday, March 17, 2011
God is not Omnipotent
Growing up, I learned early on that God was a collection of "Omni"'s: Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscience, and so for. Sadly, this is not true. At least, it is not true in the way that we think about them. God, as we have been discussing is Holy and God is Love. For God to be Omnipotent, He could not be other.
As we have seen, it is easy to slip into error when speaking of the Divine. For God is mystery, and we want to solve mysteries. One way to solve the mystery of God is offered to use by Dionysius the Areopagite. He defines the "via eminentiae", a way "that consists in moving from the creaturely analogy, by a process of gradual ascent, to the Infinite, to positive statements about the Attributes of God." (pg. 245) We can then move up, gradually, from the lowly to the highest forms. A relevant example of this is the proof: "Man is mighty, the angels are mightier, God is Almighty." (pg. 245) If we understand that there is something mightier than us, then we can move up in degrees until we can say that God is that way. This way is highly problematic, and is one of the ways that lead us to formulate that God is omnipotent.
However, "the Biblical conception (of God's power) means God's power is over the whole universe; but omnipotentia means the abstract idea that 'God can do everything'." (pg. 248) It is from this conception, that God can do all things that all the silly questions arise. We jokingly ask if God can make a rock so big that He cannot lift it or if God can make the past never happen. This is not only a misunderstanding of Go'd's power, but it is a misunderstanding of who God is.
If God is Omnipotent, then God would have to be understood as potstas absoluta, or as the absolute power. "This idea swallows up all craturely independence. God, the Almighty, becomes the One who alone is the Sole Reality, and this means Pantheism or Theopanism."(pg. 249) If God was the absolute power, we as creatures would have no power, and thus we would have no freedom. In fact, it goes further than that. If God was All-Powerful, He would be All, for He would be the Sole Reality.
The argument here contains two lines of thought. The first is "that the entire system of Nature, comprehending all times and spaces, is founded upon divine causality, which, as eternal and omnipresent, is in contrast to all finite causality." (pg. 249-250) This first line of thought says, If God is the cause of all, then we could not cause anything. The second line of thought is as follows: "as affirmed in our feeling of absolute dependence, is completely presented in the totality of finite being, and consequently everything for which there is a causality in God happens and becomes real." (pg. 250) By presenting these thoughts, the German theologian Schleierrmacher says that we feel dependent on God because He is the cause of everything, and that we as finite creatures cannot cause anything. We then have to wonder, what are we here for? If we have no power and are caught up in the cause and effect cycle set in motion by God, why does anything but God exist?
If God, however is not Omnipotent, what is He? We are not trying to argue here that God is not Mighty, that He is not Powerful. What is being said is that God wills to be limited in His power. "God limits Himself by creating something which is not Himself, something over against Himself, which he endows with a relative independence." (pg. 251) By creating something that is not Himself, He needed to limit Himself, "in order that a creature may have room alongside of Himself, in whom and to whom he can reveal and impart Himself." (pg. 251)
The only power that can love is the sublime power of the self-limiting God. "He wins our hearts through His condescension in his Son, in the Cross of the Son."( pg. 254) The real showing of God's limited power is in the giving of Himself on the cross. If God was Omnipotent, He could have saved the world through any way, but because He limited Himself, He showed his power "in highest sovereignty where the impotence of the Crucified, the defeat of the Son of God, must accomplish the work of revelation and reconciliation." (pg. 253) God's refusal to be Omnipotent is shown to us at the beginning, when He gave of Himself and created, and is continually shown in the revelation of the Crucified.
As we have seen, it is easy to slip into error when speaking of the Divine. For God is mystery, and we want to solve mysteries. One way to solve the mystery of God is offered to use by Dionysius the Areopagite. He defines the "via eminentiae", a way "that consists in moving from the creaturely analogy, by a process of gradual ascent, to the Infinite, to positive statements about the Attributes of God." (pg. 245) We can then move up, gradually, from the lowly to the highest forms. A relevant example of this is the proof: "Man is mighty, the angels are mightier, God is Almighty." (pg. 245) If we understand that there is something mightier than us, then we can move up in degrees until we can say that God is that way. This way is highly problematic, and is one of the ways that lead us to formulate that God is omnipotent.
However, "the Biblical conception (of God's power) means God's power is over the whole universe; but omnipotentia means the abstract idea that 'God can do everything'." (pg. 248) It is from this conception, that God can do all things that all the silly questions arise. We jokingly ask if God can make a rock so big that He cannot lift it or if God can make the past never happen. This is not only a misunderstanding of Go'd's power, but it is a misunderstanding of who God is.
If God is Omnipotent, then God would have to be understood as potstas absoluta, or as the absolute power. "This idea swallows up all craturely independence. God, the Almighty, becomes the One who alone is the Sole Reality, and this means Pantheism or Theopanism."(pg. 249) If God was the absolute power, we as creatures would have no power, and thus we would have no freedom. In fact, it goes further than that. If God was All-Powerful, He would be All, for He would be the Sole Reality.
The argument here contains two lines of thought. The first is "that the entire system of Nature, comprehending all times and spaces, is founded upon divine causality, which, as eternal and omnipresent, is in contrast to all finite causality." (pg. 249-250) This first line of thought says, If God is the cause of all, then we could not cause anything. The second line of thought is as follows: "as affirmed in our feeling of absolute dependence, is completely presented in the totality of finite being, and consequently everything for which there is a causality in God happens and becomes real." (pg. 250) By presenting these thoughts, the German theologian Schleierrmacher says that we feel dependent on God because He is the cause of everything, and that we as finite creatures cannot cause anything. We then have to wonder, what are we here for? If we have no power and are caught up in the cause and effect cycle set in motion by God, why does anything but God exist?
If God, however is not Omnipotent, what is He? We are not trying to argue here that God is not Mighty, that He is not Powerful. What is being said is that God wills to be limited in His power. "God limits Himself by creating something which is not Himself, something over against Himself, which he endows with a relative independence." (pg. 251) By creating something that is not Himself, He needed to limit Himself, "in order that a creature may have room alongside of Himself, in whom and to whom he can reveal and impart Himself." (pg. 251)
The only power that can love is the sublime power of the self-limiting God. "He wins our hearts through His condescension in his Son, in the Cross of the Son."( pg. 254) The real showing of God's limited power is in the giving of Himself on the cross. If God was Omnipotent, He could have saved the world through any way, but because He limited Himself, He showed his power "in highest sovereignty where the impotence of the Crucified, the defeat of the Son of God, must accomplish the work of revelation and reconciliation." (pg. 253) God's refusal to be Omnipotent is shown to us at the beginning, when He gave of Himself and created, and is continually shown in the revelation of the Crucified.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Mysterium Majestatis et Caritatas
The heart of the Bible lies in the "mysterium majestatis et caritatas" (pg. 226), that is the mystery of majesty and love. The idea that God is both majestic and loving is one of the most perplexing statements found in Scripture. As shown in the previous posts, God is Holy and Majestic while being Loving and Gracious. These are in tension with each other. One demands Wrath while the other demands Love. Brunner says it this way: "The Biblical message contains in itself the dialectical tension between Wrath and Mercy, between the Holiness which is identical with Love, and the Holiness which, as the wrath of God, in opposition to it." (pg. 234)
The last two posts have been trying to unpack this idea: God is Love and God is Wrath. It would be much easier if we could say that the Revelation of God in Jesus Christ removed this paradox, that God has given up His Wrath and now is only Love. In the last post, we tried to show that God's wrath is His Love, yet this seems unsatisfactory. It is unsatisfactory because it is not in the Biblical text. "Human thought...is always trying to evade this dialectic. It desires and demands an obvious unity." (pg. 234)
Before starting to think about this dialectic, we are warned by the Reformer Melanchtohon, "Mysteria divinitas rectius adoraverimus quam vestigaverimus. " (pg. 205) This means that the Mystery of The Nature of God is found through worship than through investigation. Thus, let us continue on not in attitude of intellectual curiosity, but as worshipers of God.
"God, as the Lord, wills to rule over us. Therefore He wills to put an end to our rebellion, to sin" (pg.
218) This is the Holiness of God. Yet, this ending of our rebellion is not accomplished by The Law of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant, by revealing a Holy God, "simply brings sin to a head, without...overcoming it." (pg. 218) If God only was Holy, He would leaves us here. For "through sin we are in isolation, due to the fact that we are separated from God by His wrath." (pg. 219) If God was only Holy, we would not be able to approach Him, and would be left to our self-deception and blindness to Truth. We are in a condition of loss and accursedness. We are left in a state of meaninglessness, where "the day of one's death is better than the day of one's birth" (Ecclesiastes 7:1, NASB)
"God, who is Love, wills to give Himself to us - that is, He wills to give us this love, which is Himself." (pg. 218) The Holy God, stoops-down, and becomes Immanuel, God-with -us. It is only by revealing and veiling Himself as Jesus Christ that the gulf between sinners and the Holy God can be bridged. Only when God kills God on a cross can God's Holiness and God's Love exist in unity. The Holy God gave Himself to us, not just be with us, but to fulfill both the Love and Wrath of God. This is the Divine Mystery, we will never understand it. There is no room in the Church for a "mysterium logicum" but only room for the "mysterium majestatis et caritatis".
The last two posts have been trying to unpack this idea: God is Love and God is Wrath. It would be much easier if we could say that the Revelation of God in Jesus Christ removed this paradox, that God has given up His Wrath and now is only Love. In the last post, we tried to show that God's wrath is His Love, yet this seems unsatisfactory. It is unsatisfactory because it is not in the Biblical text. "Human thought...is always trying to evade this dialectic. It desires and demands an obvious unity." (pg. 234)
Before starting to think about this dialectic, we are warned by the Reformer Melanchtohon, "Mysteria divinitas rectius adoraverimus quam vestigaverimus. " (pg. 205) This means that the Mystery of The Nature of God is found through worship than through investigation. Thus, let us continue on not in attitude of intellectual curiosity, but as worshipers of God.
"God, as the Lord, wills to rule over us. Therefore He wills to put an end to our rebellion, to sin" (pg.
218) This is the Holiness of God. Yet, this ending of our rebellion is not accomplished by The Law of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant, by revealing a Holy God, "simply brings sin to a head, without...overcoming it." (pg. 218) If God only was Holy, He would leaves us here. For "through sin we are in isolation, due to the fact that we are separated from God by His wrath." (pg. 219) If God was only Holy, we would not be able to approach Him, and would be left to our self-deception and blindness to Truth. We are in a condition of loss and accursedness. We are left in a state of meaninglessness, where "the day of one's death is better than the day of one's birth" (Ecclesiastes 7:1, NASB)
"God, who is Love, wills to give Himself to us - that is, He wills to give us this love, which is Himself." (pg. 218) The Holy God, stoops-down, and becomes Immanuel, God-with -us. It is only by revealing and veiling Himself as Jesus Christ that the gulf between sinners and the Holy God can be bridged. Only when God kills God on a cross can God's Holiness and God's Love exist in unity. The Holy God gave Himself to us, not just be with us, but to fulfill both the Love and Wrath of God. This is the Divine Mystery, we will never understand it. There is no room in the Church for a "mysterium logicum" but only room for the "mysterium majestatis et caritatis".
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
The Veiled God
The Naked and Veiled God are "the characteristic and decisive element(s) in the Christian Idea of God. Thus, in this paradoxical dualism of Holiness and Love, God reveals His name to us; it is thus that He wills to be known and worshipped [sic]. It is thus that He reveals Himself simply and solely, in the Bible, in Jesus Christ."(pg. 183) God is not knowable as God as the Deus Nudus, the Naked God. In order to be approached, God must approach us first. He does this by a Divine Kenosis, a self-emptying that takes place in the Person of Jesus Christ, according to Brunner.
If, what we established in the previous post is correct, God is too Majestic to be entered into relationship with unless He veils Himself. He veils Himself as "the incarnation of the Word in Jesus Christ...whose whole revelation is one sole movement of gracious condescension to man, an act of saving Mercy." (pg. 184) It is not until God reveals Himself by veiling Himself that we can be approached by Him or can approach Him. This veiling is done at various points during the Old Testament, but the full self-emptying and condescension is not accomplished until the Incarnation. If God had not veiled Himself, we could not cry "Abba, Father". We could only cry the cry of Isaiah, "Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts." (Isaiah 6:5)
It is only after we have been cleansed that we can even bear the voice of the Deus Nudus. Yet, when God becomes the Deus Velatus, we can emulate the Deus Incarnatus and cry "Abba, Father!" (Mark 14:36) It is only then can we "express the most daring statement that has ever been made in human language: God is Love." (pg. 184-185) What makes this the most daring statement is that it is new in the world. "It is proper to say that man can, and indeed must God, yet it is equally clear that to introduce the statement "God is Love" in their systems of thought (Platonism, Aristotelianism, or Neo-Platonism) would be completely nonsensical." (pg. 183) In the history of thought, only Christianity can get away with saying that God is love. For these philosophical systems can only think in terms of Eros or Erotic love and not Agape, Self-giving Love.
"The Love of God, the Agape of the New Testament, is quite different" (pg. 186) from Eros. "Eros is the desire for value, and the will appropriate such value" (pg. 186) while Agape "does not seek value, but it creates value or gives value; it does not desire to get but to give; it is not 'attracted' by some lovable quality, but it is poured out on those who are worthless and degraded." (pg. 186) Erotic love is trying to be valued, while Agape creates it. This is a striking difference.
Now, if God remained the Deus Nudus, all we could do is desire for Him to value us, to call us worthy. The only Persons worthy to enter relationship with the Deus Nudus is the Trinity. Quoting Luther, Brunner states that "there is at all times enmity between man and God, and they cannot be friends and agree with one another' and where the two persons come into conflict with each another, there must man be broken to pieces, for he cannot stand against God." (pg. 170) Thus, man is excluded from relationship with the Deus Nudus.
However, the Deus Nudus only exercises the "left hand of God", the non-will of God. The Left Hand is the Hand of Holiness that must be set against humanity. It is not part of God's nature to be wrathful, but because he "takes Himself, His Love, infinitely seriously, and in so doing also takes man infinitely seriously, He cannot do otherwise than be angry, although 'really' He is only Love." (pg. 170)
The "right hand of God", the will of God is His Love. In His Love, He veils Himself, covers Himself in Love. Yet, "This concealing is...not a real hiding of God's Face, but it is indeed the real unveiling."(pg. 172) This covering in Love is not "to impart...'something', but his very Self, for this Love is self-surrender, self-giving to the other, to whom love is directed." (pg. 186-187)
The left and right hand of God is the paradox we spoke of at the beginning. For "there is a sharp and essential contrast; for Holiness creates distance, but love creates communion. Holiness erects barriers, love breaks through them."(pg. 188) Thus, we must ask, how can we hold to both the complete Holiness of God and the Love of God?
We need to understand and recognize that without God being Holy, God could not love. "Only the God who in Himself possesses all Perfection, who is perfectly self-sufficient and needs no other, thus only the God who is absolute Lord, sovereign personality, can love in freedom, can love unfathomably. One who needs another loves the other with Eros, not with Agape." (pg. 189) If God was not Holy, His love would be seeking validation, instead of being able to validate.
Secondly, "God's Holy will is fulfilled in the creature as perfect communion with Him, the Holy One, and this is His Love." (pg. 190) Only when His Holy Will is completed and all resistance is broken down can His love stream back to Him from the hearts of the saints. If we are not wholly united with this Holy Will and if we are not a mirror of His Holiness, God would not have any glory.
Thus, God's Glory does not stem from His non-will, His Wrath, but from His will, His Love. "love completes Holiness and is only fully Love in the fulfillment of Holiness." (pg. 190) Without Holiness, there would not be Love. Conversely, if there was not Love, there would not be Holiness. They are inseparable. In the veiling of God, both Love and Holiness are one; "complete communion and salvation." (pg. 190)
Faith is not merely crying out, begging for Mercy, but is "simply being grasped and held by the love of God in Jesus Christ.' (pg. 198-199) God is not Wrath, but is Love. When we repent, the left-hand can come together and merge with the right-hand and cradle us. "The fact that God is love" is not just a statement meant to reassure and comfort us, "but is the quintessence, the central word of the whole bible. The God of revelation is the God of Love." (pg. 199)
I feel that it is appropriate to end with the words of Rich Mullins: "You were then my King of Glory, won't you be my Prince of Peace."
If, what we established in the previous post is correct, God is too Majestic to be entered into relationship with unless He veils Himself. He veils Himself as "the incarnation of the Word in Jesus Christ...whose whole revelation is one sole movement of gracious condescension to man, an act of saving Mercy." (pg. 184) It is not until God reveals Himself by veiling Himself that we can be approached by Him or can approach Him. This veiling is done at various points during the Old Testament, but the full self-emptying and condescension is not accomplished until the Incarnation. If God had not veiled Himself, we could not cry "Abba, Father". We could only cry the cry of Isaiah, "Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts." (Isaiah 6:5)
It is only after we have been cleansed that we can even bear the voice of the Deus Nudus. Yet, when God becomes the Deus Velatus, we can emulate the Deus Incarnatus and cry "Abba, Father!" (Mark 14:36) It is only then can we "express the most daring statement that has ever been made in human language: God is Love." (pg. 184-185) What makes this the most daring statement is that it is new in the world. "It is proper to say that man can, and indeed must God, yet it is equally clear that to introduce the statement "God is Love" in their systems of thought (Platonism, Aristotelianism, or Neo-Platonism) would be completely nonsensical." (pg. 183) In the history of thought, only Christianity can get away with saying that God is love. For these philosophical systems can only think in terms of Eros or Erotic love and not Agape, Self-giving Love.
"The Love of God, the Agape of the New Testament, is quite different" (pg. 186) from Eros. "Eros is the desire for value, and the will appropriate such value" (pg. 186) while Agape "does not seek value, but it creates value or gives value; it does not desire to get but to give; it is not 'attracted' by some lovable quality, but it is poured out on those who are worthless and degraded." (pg. 186) Erotic love is trying to be valued, while Agape creates it. This is a striking difference.
Now, if God remained the Deus Nudus, all we could do is desire for Him to value us, to call us worthy. The only Persons worthy to enter relationship with the Deus Nudus is the Trinity. Quoting Luther, Brunner states that "there is at all times enmity between man and God, and they cannot be friends and agree with one another' and where the two persons come into conflict with each another, there must man be broken to pieces, for he cannot stand against God." (pg. 170) Thus, man is excluded from relationship with the Deus Nudus.
However, the Deus Nudus only exercises the "left hand of God", the non-will of God. The Left Hand is the Hand of Holiness that must be set against humanity. It is not part of God's nature to be wrathful, but because he "takes Himself, His Love, infinitely seriously, and in so doing also takes man infinitely seriously, He cannot do otherwise than be angry, although 'really' He is only Love." (pg. 170)
The "right hand of God", the will of God is His Love. In His Love, He veils Himself, covers Himself in Love. Yet, "This concealing is...not a real hiding of God's Face, but it is indeed the real unveiling."(pg. 172) This covering in Love is not "to impart...'something', but his very Self, for this Love is self-surrender, self-giving to the other, to whom love is directed." (pg. 186-187)
The left and right hand of God is the paradox we spoke of at the beginning. For "there is a sharp and essential contrast; for Holiness creates distance, but love creates communion. Holiness erects barriers, love breaks through them."(pg. 188) Thus, we must ask, how can we hold to both the complete Holiness of God and the Love of God?
We need to understand and recognize that without God being Holy, God could not love. "Only the God who in Himself possesses all Perfection, who is perfectly self-sufficient and needs no other, thus only the God who is absolute Lord, sovereign personality, can love in freedom, can love unfathomably. One who needs another loves the other with Eros, not with Agape." (pg. 189) If God was not Holy, His love would be seeking validation, instead of being able to validate.
Secondly, "God's Holy will is fulfilled in the creature as perfect communion with Him, the Holy One, and this is His Love." (pg. 190) Only when His Holy Will is completed and all resistance is broken down can His love stream back to Him from the hearts of the saints. If we are not wholly united with this Holy Will and if we are not a mirror of His Holiness, God would not have any glory.
Thus, God's Glory does not stem from His non-will, His Wrath, but from His will, His Love. "love completes Holiness and is only fully Love in the fulfillment of Holiness." (pg. 190) Without Holiness, there would not be Love. Conversely, if there was not Love, there would not be Holiness. They are inseparable. In the veiling of God, both Love and Holiness are one; "complete communion and salvation." (pg. 190)
Faith is not merely crying out, begging for Mercy, but is "simply being grasped and held by the love of God in Jesus Christ.' (pg. 198-199) God is not Wrath, but is Love. When we repent, the left-hand can come together and merge with the right-hand and cradle us. "The fact that God is love" is not just a statement meant to reassure and comfort us, "but is the quintessence, the central word of the whole bible. The God of revelation is the God of Love." (pg. 199)
I feel that it is appropriate to end with the words of Rich Mullins: "You were then my King of Glory, won't you be my Prince of Peace."
Monday, March 14, 2011
The Naked God
One of the major heresies at work today in the church is Pelagianism. The chief error of Pelagius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm) was that he did "not regard the wrath of God, (and Pelagianism( constructs for itself such a God who is merciful" (pg. 174) Now, that is striking! The idea that God is merciful is heresy! Before telling me that I am wrong, let me explain myself (and with that, Brunner and Luther's position). The problem with the idea that God is merciful is that in today's age, we want to think of God as only merciful. That is clearly not the case if we read Scripture faithfully.
The flip side of this heresy is to think that God is only un-merciful, that the Divine is only here to crush us and condemn us to punishment. In some churches, we stress the doctrine of Hell and torment and create a God that does not love, and only punishes. This too leaves us with an incomplete picture of God.
What we should understand is that God is both merciful and full of wrath. The mercy of God flows from His right hand, while the wrath of God flows from his left. This is an important distinction made by Martin Luther and carried on by Brunner and Barth. There are two sides (at least!) to God and His will.
Luther explained this by positing that God is both Deus Absconditus and Deus Revalatus. God is both Hidden and Revealed to us simultaneously. God is a mystery to us, and is truly the mysterium tremendum", the Tremendous Mystery that we cannot fathom and cannot know, if it were not for the second part, which is that God reveals Himself to us. This means, that on one side, God is separate from us, apart from us, and not with us.God is, in a word, Holy.
If it were not for the fact that He is a God who Reveals, we would know nothing about Him. He would be reduced down to a concept that would not be necessary to know about. He would become Aristotle's Unmoved Mover or First Cause, that which started the world, and absconded.
However, we cannot approach such a God that is Holy if He did not veil Himself. This leads us to Luther's second distinction, that God is both Deus Nudus and Deus Velatus. "The Deus nudus is that naked Majesty, the of whom is intolerable for the sinful creature." (pg. 171) Brunner goes on talking about 'the naked God', saying that "it is impossible that human weakness should grasp and be able to bear the High Majesty of God" (pg. 172) With this, we should think of Moses on the mount when God passes by, unveiled, revealing only his back, lest Moses die. It is not that we cannot intellectually comprehend the naked God, but that we cannot even see the full majesty, lest we die. "Hence, "he who does not wish to fall on this stone and be broken to pieces, let him beware, and not deal with God 'nakedly' apart from His Word and His promise" (pg. 172)
The Naked God refers "to God apart from Christ" (pg. 172), apart from His revelation. It is then the work of the Naked God, of His Left Hand to pour out judgment and wrath on humanity. "Sin", not God's Will or Nature, "the resistance of man, is the reason why God must do this 'strange work' (Opus alienum), why He must show Himself and express Himself as the wrathful God." (pg. 169) It is not because God is wrathful that he punishes. It is because God is Holy and man resists to be Holy that God pours out wrath and anger. "Sin obliges Him 'to turn his back on man', to do His work 'on the left hand', instead of His work of grace 'on the right hand." (pg. 169) The wrath of God "attains its end, in the repentance and faith of the sinner, it is in very deed the most characteristic work of the Grace of God." (pg. 169) Brunner, through Luther, here is making a claim that needs to be listened to. The wrath of God is not punishment for punishment sake, but punishment as chastisement. It is not wrath, it is grace.
God, due to His Grace, becomes the veiled, through His Revelation (that is to say, through Christ), so that He can become known to us. He becomes known to us "not as the unveiled naked Majesty, but only in this veiled form as Love." (pg. 172) God, in His Nature, is Love, not wrath. Brunner here quotes Luther, who says "His Heart and Thoughts are full of love and nothing else." (Pg. 171)
We must then be guarded when talking about God being a God of love. For love "does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth" (1 Corinthians 13:6, NASB). Love only exists where Truth and Righteousness exist. "In Jesus Christ alone, God makes Himself known as He really is. In Him God shows Himself to us as 'an abyss of eternal love'. The revelation and the communication of this love, the work of free grace is 'God's proper work, His opus proprium." (Pg. 168-169)
Thus, it is not that God is wrathful or merciful. It is that God is loving. Maybe it is right to say that in the end, Love wins.
The flip side of this heresy is to think that God is only un-merciful, that the Divine is only here to crush us and condemn us to punishment. In some churches, we stress the doctrine of Hell and torment and create a God that does not love, and only punishes. This too leaves us with an incomplete picture of God.
What we should understand is that God is both merciful and full of wrath. The mercy of God flows from His right hand, while the wrath of God flows from his left. This is an important distinction made by Martin Luther and carried on by Brunner and Barth. There are two sides (at least!) to God and His will.
Luther explained this by positing that God is both Deus Absconditus and Deus Revalatus. God is both Hidden and Revealed to us simultaneously. God is a mystery to us, and is truly the mysterium tremendum", the Tremendous Mystery that we cannot fathom and cannot know, if it were not for the second part, which is that God reveals Himself to us. This means, that on one side, God is separate from us, apart from us, and not with us.God is, in a word, Holy.
If it were not for the fact that He is a God who Reveals, we would know nothing about Him. He would be reduced down to a concept that would not be necessary to know about. He would become Aristotle's Unmoved Mover or First Cause, that which started the world, and absconded.
However, we cannot approach such a God that is Holy if He did not veil Himself. This leads us to Luther's second distinction, that God is both Deus Nudus and Deus Velatus. "The Deus nudus is that naked Majesty, the of whom is intolerable for the sinful creature." (pg. 171) Brunner goes on talking about 'the naked God', saying that "it is impossible that human weakness should grasp and be able to bear the High Majesty of God" (pg. 172) With this, we should think of Moses on the mount when God passes by, unveiled, revealing only his back, lest Moses die. It is not that we cannot intellectually comprehend the naked God, but that we cannot even see the full majesty, lest we die. "Hence, "he who does not wish to fall on this stone and be broken to pieces, let him beware, and not deal with God 'nakedly' apart from His Word and His promise" (pg. 172)
The Naked God refers "to God apart from Christ" (pg. 172), apart from His revelation. It is then the work of the Naked God, of His Left Hand to pour out judgment and wrath on humanity. "Sin", not God's Will or Nature, "the resistance of man, is the reason why God must do this 'strange work' (Opus alienum), why He must show Himself and express Himself as the wrathful God." (pg. 169) It is not because God is wrathful that he punishes. It is because God is Holy and man resists to be Holy that God pours out wrath and anger. "Sin obliges Him 'to turn his back on man', to do His work 'on the left hand', instead of His work of grace 'on the right hand." (pg. 169) The wrath of God "attains its end, in the repentance and faith of the sinner, it is in very deed the most characteristic work of the Grace of God." (pg. 169) Brunner, through Luther, here is making a claim that needs to be listened to. The wrath of God is not punishment for punishment sake, but punishment as chastisement. It is not wrath, it is grace.
God, due to His Grace, becomes the veiled, through His Revelation (that is to say, through Christ), so that He can become known to us. He becomes known to us "not as the unveiled naked Majesty, but only in this veiled form as Love." (pg. 172) God, in His Nature, is Love, not wrath. Brunner here quotes Luther, who says "His Heart and Thoughts are full of love and nothing else." (Pg. 171)
We must then be guarded when talking about God being a God of love. For love "does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth" (1 Corinthians 13:6, NASB). Love only exists where Truth and Righteousness exist. "In Jesus Christ alone, God makes Himself known as He really is. In Him God shows Himself to us as 'an abyss of eternal love'. The revelation and the communication of this love, the work of free grace is 'God's proper work, His opus proprium." (Pg. 168-169)
Thus, it is not that God is wrathful or merciful. It is that God is loving. Maybe it is right to say that in the end, Love wins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)