Jonathan's Lecture Hall - Lecture 1, Sound Bite 7

Oct. 30, 2006

Lecture 1, Sound Bite 7

Posted in Lecture 1: Love, the Sum of all Virtue

I now proceed,

II. To show the truth of the doctrine, that all virtue that is saving or distinguishing of true Christian, is summed up in Christian love. And,

1. We may argue this, from what reason teaches of the nature of love. And if we duly consider its nature, two things will appear.

First, That love will dispose to all proper acts of respect to both God and man. This is evident because a true respect to either God or man consists in love. If a man sincerely loves God, it will dispose him to render all proper respect to him; and men need no other incitement to show each other all the respect that is due, than love. Love to God will dispose a man to honor him, to worship and adore him, and heartily to acknowledge his greatness, and glory, and dominion. And so it will dispose to all acts of obedience to God; for the servant that loves his master, and the subject that loves his sovereign, will be disposed to proper subjection and obedience. Love will dispose the Christian to behave toward God, as a child to a father; amid difficulties to resort to him for help, and put all his trust in him; just as it is natural for us, in case of need or affliction, to go to one that we love for pity and help.

It will lead us, too, to give credit to his word, and to put confidence in him; for we are not apt to suspect the veracity of those we have entire friendship for. It will dispose us to praise God for the mercies we receive from him, just as we are disposed to gratitude for any kindness we receive from our fellow-men that we love.

Love, again, will dispose our hearts to submission to the will of God, for we are more willing that the will of those we love should be done, than of others. We naturally desire that those we love should be suited, and that we should be agreeable to them, and true affection and love to God will dispose the heart to acknowledge God's right to govern, and that he is worthy to do it, and so will dispose to submission. Love to God will dispose us to walk humbly with him, for he that loves God will be disposed to acknowledge the vast distance between God and himself. It will be agreeable to such a one, to exalt God, and set him on high above all, and to lie low before him. A true Christian delights to have God exalted on his own abasement, because he loves him. He is willing to own that God is worthy of this, and it is with delight that he casts himself in the dust before the Most High, from his sincere love to him.

Cat's Q & A:

1. Edwards speaks about God's "dominion." Nowadays, we tend to think of this word only as a variant on the term "dominate." Many non-Christians are thus antagonized by the idea. Do you think that's what Edwards is referring to?

When I see these terms, I realize there is no "translation" or paraphrase for them, because they are extremely technical terms. Edwards demonstrates an awareness here of what we would now relegate to the world of mathematics as "domain theory."* However, in the Bible, it's expressed with more universal application as the doctrine of federal headship. He is talking about the fact that God is not only over and above all other domains, God is the highest domain, benig the only infinite thing in existence.

2. Are you familiar with the teaching that "self-abasement" is not a true part of the Christian worldview, but an outdated Victorian teaching that goes against Col. 2:18?** That Christians should have a healthy image of themselves? Do you agree or disagree with Edwards' ideas here?

I happen to agree strongly with him. The difference between holy God and sinful man is too huge for the modern reasoning on self-image. For this, I fall back on 2 Cor. 10:12.*** The idea of "healthy self-image" is entirely relativistic, based on measuring oneself against the human average. What Edwards talks about here is the experience of seeing God for who He really is. the fact that we are self-aware beings should tend to produce a strong reaction to this experience. The fact that we are created to love God should mean that it's a positive experience for the Christian (and a negative one for the non-believer, whose idol is himself).

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_theory
See also: Free Online Dictionary of Computing
See further references in Notes entry.

**Col. 2:18 (NASB)
Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind...

***2 Cor. 10:12 (NASB)
For we are not bold to class or compare ourselves with some of those who commend themselves; but when they measure themselves by themselves, and compare themselves with themselves, they are without understanding.

• Post A Comment! • Send to a Friend!

Comments

Oct. 31, 2006 - Untitled Comment

Posted by

I came here earlier today, but I had a headache and when I tried to comment, I realized that I didn't want to think that hard. So, I went to your other blog, I had to think hard there too... so now I am back when my head is less fuzzy.

[Edwards speaks about God's "dominion." Nowadays, we tend to think of this word only as a variant on the term "dominate." Many non-Christians are thus antagonized by the idea. Do you think that's what Edwards is referring to?]

Well, Webster's 1828 dictionary defines dominion as "sovereign or supreme authority; the power of governing and controlling" and references Daniel 4:3 (The dominion of the Most High is an everlasting dominion). Since 1828 is fairly close to the time that Edwards lived, I would say that his understanding fo the word would tie fairly closely to this definition.

The word used in Daniel; however, is sholtan, an Aramaic word. The concept being communicated through this word is to have power over, rule or domineer. So, the non-Christians understanding of this word is fairly accurate. The problem is not that God has sovereign authority and power. If there is a problem with this understanding of dominion it is that the flesh of men do not want anyone ruling over them.

[Are you familiar with the teaching that "self-abasement" is not a true part of the Christian worldview, but an outdated Victorian teaching that goes against Col. 2:18?** That Christians should have a healthy image of themselves? Do you agree or disagree with Edwards' ideas here?]

It is my understanding that self-abasement, or the act of seeking to be humble before God by self-punishment, is not just outdated, it borders on heretical. It was man trying to earn God's forgiveness. However, I am leary of the term healthy image too. All too often this is tied with one's self esteem. The Bible never tells us to have a good self image. We should work at aligning our thinking with what is scripturally correct. I am inherently sinful. I would never seek God on my own. There is nothing I can do to save myself. I have nothing to offer. I am saved by grace.

That being said, if you mean by health image...

I think there is a huge benefit in feeling a sense of humility for our sins if it leads the person to desire to become more holy. If, on the other hand, a person has a sense of humility that leads them down the path of self loathing, pity and denying God's ability to save them because they are so much worse than the rest of humanity than... they could use a better attitude.

Edited by AcceptanceWithJoy on Oct. 30, 2006 at 10:54 PM

• Permanent Link