RE: Re: [asa] truth with love award

"The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love." 1 John 4:8. How can we define what love is if we cannot "define" what God is?

 
Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Rich Blinne
Sent: Sun 7/30/2006 9:05 AM
To: Iain Strachan
Cc: Janice Matchett; D. F. Siemens, Jr.; mrb22667@kansas.net; asa@calvin.edu; Michael Roberts
Subject: Re: Re: [asa] truth with love award

On 7/30/06, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/30/06, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 06:38 PM 7/29/2006, D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:
> >
> >
> > I discovered long ago that some brethren who sign an evangelical or even
> fundamentalist statement of faith with an easy conscience can remake
> scripture to say whatever they want it to say. - Dave
> >
> >
> > @ That's right. Many quote the Scriptures thinking they can make them
> say anything the want. Take this one, for instance:
> >
>
> <Holding quotation snipped>
>
> There was I thinking that Janice had actually constructed an original
> argument. Then half way through I began to recognise Holding's distinctive
> style.
>
> Janice, why not, for a change use your brain instead of just pasting in
> large quotes from someone else as a substitute for thought. It wouldn't
> have taken much effort to summarise the salient points of Holding's argument
> in a couple of lines? How about:
>
> "In J.P. Holding's article at <link> he argues that love isn't just about
> being sentimental and kind to people. Sometimes real love means offering a
> sharp rebuke, and you can find many examples of this in Paul's letters and
> Jesus's sayings".
>
> Now that wouldn't have been much effort would it, and it would have
> demonstrated you can think for yourself before you hit the paste button.
>

When I read the original it struck me as very strange as a definition
of love but now that you mentioned that this was Bob Terkel I
understand. It should be noted that the title of this article was
"What is Love". He didn't go into any other facets of Biblical love as
say Jonathan Edwards did in Charity and Its Fruits. Thus, he seems to
make rebuking as the very definition of love. Sometimes the loving
thing does involve rebuking but Matthew 18 puts restrictions on who is
the one to rebuke and and under what circumstances this should occur.
Thus, to make rebuking the warp and woof of love rather than an
exception that may be necessary when all else is exhausted is to turn
love on its head.

Speaking of Edwards here's how he dealt with the same topic in Charity
and Its Fruits. The chapter I will be quoting from can be found on
line here:
http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/charity10.htm

Charity . . . thinks no evil." -- 1 Corinthians 13:5

Having remarked how charity, or Christian love, is opposed not only to
pride and selfishness, but to the ordinary fruits of these evil
dispositions, viz. an angry spirit and a censorious spirit, and having
already spoken as to the former, I come now to the latter. And in
respect to this, the apostle declares, that charity "thinketh no
evil." The doctrine set forth in these words is clearly this:

 THAT THE SPIRIT OF CHARITY, OR CHRISTIAN LOVE, IS THE OPPOSITE OF A
CENSORIOUS SPIRIT [emphasis in the original]

or, in other words, it is contrary to a disposition to think or judge
uncharitably of others.

Charity, in one of the common uses of the expression, signifies a
disposition to think the best of others that the case will allow.
This, however, as I have shown before, is not the scriptural meaning
of the word charity, but only one way of its exercise, or one of its
many and rich fruits. Charity is of vastly larger extent than this. It
signifies, as we have already seen, the same as Christian or divine
love, and so is the same as the Christian spirit. And, in accordance
with this view, we here find the spirit of charitable judging
mentioned among many other good fruits of charity, and here expressed,
as the other fruits of charity are in the context, negatively, or by
denying the contrary fruit, viz. censoriousness, or a disposition
uncharitably to judge or censure others. And in speaking to this
point, I would, first, show the nature of censoriousness, or wherein
it consists; and then mention some things wherein it appears to be
contrary to a Christian spirit.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jul 30 09:52:42 2006