God is Love

John 4:16.

DID we only give credit to the text, did we but view God as love-on this simple translation into another belief, would there be the translation into another character. We should feel differently of God, the moment that we thought of Him differently; and with the establishment of this new faith, there would instantly emerge a new heart and a new nature. For, let us attend, in the first place, to the original conception of Humanity, placed and constituted as it now is, m reference to this great and invisible Being–secondly, let us adduce the likeliest considerations, the likeliest arguments, by which to overcome this conception, and to find lodgement in the human breast or another and an opposite conception in its place–And, thirdly, let us stop to contemplate the effect of such a change in the state of man’s understanding as to God, on the whole system of his feelings and conduct

I. Under the first general head, then, let it be observed–that there are two reasons why we should conceive God to be so actuated as to inspire us with terror, or at least; with distrust; instead of conceiving Him to be actuated by that love which the text ascribes to. Him; and which were no sooner believed than it would set us at ease, and inspire us with delightful confidence.

1. The first of these reasons, which we shall allege, admits of being illustrated by a very genera experience of human nature. It may be shortly stated thus–Whenever placed within the reach of any Being, of imagined power, but withal of unknown purpose–that Being is the object of our dismay. It is not necessary for thin, that we should be positively assured of His hostility. It is enough, that, for aught we. know, He may be hostile; and that, for aught we know, He has strength enough For the execution of His displeasure. Uncertainty alone will beget terror; and the fancies of mere ignorance, are ever found: to be images of fear. It is thus, that a certain recoil of dread and aversion, would be felt in the presence of a strange animal, whatever the gentleness of its nature–if simply it a nature were unknown. And hence, too, the fear of a child for strangers, who must first make demonstration of their love by their gifts, or their caresses they can woo it into confidence. And, so also the consternation. of savages, on the first approach of a mighty vessel to their shores–more especially if in smoke, and thunder, ans feats of marvelous exhibition, it hath given the evidence of its power. It may a voyage of benevolence; but this they as yet know not. They only behold the power; and power beheld singly tremendous. And many often are the vain attempts at approximation, the fruitless demonstrations and signals of good-will, ere they can conquer their distrust ; or recall them to free and fearless intercourse, from the woods or the lurking-places to which they had fled for safety. Such, then, is the universal bias of nature, whenever the power is known and the purpose is unknown. Men give way to the visions of terror, to the dark misgivings of a troubled imagination. The quick and instant suggestion, on all these occasions, is that of fear; and the difficulty, an exceeding difficulty, for it is if working against a constitutional law or tendency of the heart, is to reassure it into confidence.

Read the rest of this entry »

The delegates from the Wetteraw say, “Christ is an expiation for the sins of the whole world, so far as relates to the worth and sufficiency of his ransom.” “When Christ is said to have died for all, this can be understood of the sufficiency of the merit, or the magnitude of the price.” They quote with approbation from one who says, that” the merit of Christ has an equal bearing on all as to its sufficiency, but not as to its efficacy. –The sufficiency and magnitude of the ransom of Christ, as relates to the reprobate, has a double end ; one in itself and the other by accident. The end in itself is, that God may testify that he is not delighted with the perdition of men, seeing he gave his only begotten Son, that every one who believes in him may not perish, but have eternal life. The end by accident is, that by means of its magnitude and sufficiency the reprobate may be without excuse.” And they add themselves, “For these perish, not by the fault of Christ, but by their own, since by their own unbelief they reject the benefits of Christ offered in the gospel.” “The reprobate are bound to believe this, that the merit of Christ is of so great worth that it is able to profit them also ; and it would indeed profit them, if they would believe the gospel and repent.”* [Footnote * Acts of Synod,” Part II. p. 125, 126, 128, 129.]

Edward D. Griffin, An Humble Attempt to Reconcile the Differences of Christians Respecting the Extent of the Atonement, (New York, Printed by Stephen Dodge, 1819), 362-367. See also: G Michael Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement, (Cumbernauld, Scotland: Paternoster, 1997), 139-140.

Fuller:

The reader, in applying this supposed case to the mediation of Christ, will do me the justice to remember, that I do not pretend to have perfectly represented it. Probably there is no similitude fully adequate to the purpose. The distinction between the Father and the Son, is not the same as that which subsists between a father and a son among men : the latter are two separate beings; but to assert this of the former, would be inconsistent with the divine unity. Nor can any thing be found analogous to the doctrine of divine influence, by which the redemption of Christ is carried into effect. And with respect to the innocent voluntarily suffering for the guilty, in a few extraordinary instances this principle may be adopted; but the management and application of it generally require more wisdom and more power than mortals possess. We day by the help of a machine, collect a few sparks of the electrical fluid, and produce an effect somewhat resembling that of lightning : but we cannot cause it to blaze like the Almighty, nor thunder with a voice like Him.

Imperfect, however, as the foregoing similitude may appear in some respects, it is sufficient to show the fallacy of Mr. Paine’s reasoning. “The doctrine of Redemption,” says this writer, has for its basis an idea of pecuniary justice, and not that of moral justice. If I owe a person money, and cannot pay him, and he threatens to put me in prison, another person can take the debt upon himself, and pay it for me: but if I have committed a crime, every circumstance of the case is changed. Moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty, even if the innocent would offer itself. To suppose justice to do this, is to destroy the principle of its existence, which is the thing itself. It is then no longer Justice: but is indiscriminate revenge.” This objection, which is the same for substance as has been frequently urged by Socinians as well as Deists, is founded in misrepresentation.

It is not true that redemption has for its basis the idea of pecuniary justice, and not that of moral justice. That sin is called a debt, and the death of Christ a price, a ransom, &c., is true; but it is no unusual thing for moral obligations and deliverances, to be expressed in language borrowed from pecuniary transactions. The obligations of a son to a father, are commonly expressed by such terms as owing and paying: he owes a debt of obedience, and in yielding it he pays a debt of gratitude. The same may be said of an obligation to punishment. A murderer owes his life to the justice of his country; and when he suffers, he is said to pay the awful debt. So also if a great character by suffering death, could deliver his country, such deliverance would be spoken of as obtained by the price of blood. No one mistakes these things by understanding them of pecuniary transactions. In such connections, every one perceives that the terms are used not literally, but metaphorically; and it is thus that they are to be understood with reference to the death of Christ. As sin is not a pecuniary, but a moral debt; so the atonement for it is not a pecuniary, but a moral ransom.

There is doubtless a sufficient analogy between pecuniary and moral proceedings, to justify the use of such language, both in scripture and in common life; and it is easy to perceive the advantages which which arise from it; as besides conveying much important truth, it renders it peculiarly impressive to the mind. But it is not always safe to reason from the former to the latter; much less is it just to affirm, that the latter has for its basis every principle which pertains to the former. The deliverance effected by the prince, in the case before stated, might, with propriety, be called a redemption; and the recollection of it, under this idea, would be very impressive to the minds of those who were delivered. They would scarcely be able to see or think of their Commander in Chief, even though it might be years after the event, without being reminded of the price at which their pardon was obtained, and dropping a tear of ingenuous grief over their unworthy conduct on this account. Yet it would not be just to say, that this redemption had for its basis an idea of pecuniary justice, and not that of moral justice.

It was moral justice which in this case was satisfied: not, however, in its ordinary form, but as exercised on an extraordinary occasion; not the letter, but the spirit of it.

Andrew Fuller, “The Gospel its Own Witness,” in The Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller (New Haven: W. Collier, 1824), 3:153-155.

Credit to Tony.

Gualther:

Now remains the last part of Ananias’ oration, where he exhorts him [Paul] to be baptize, that he should openly profess the name of Christ, an be grafted into his Church, according to Christ’s commandment. And this he urges with great gravity & weight: “Why lingerest thou,” (says he) not for that Paul meant to defer or shift off the matter, but to prick him forward the more earnestly, being dismayed with fear and trembling in conscience. Where he adds this saying: “Arise and be baptized, and wash away the sins in calling on the name of the Lord.” Here we have to observe his manner of speaking of the Sacrament, which declares the reason and dignity of baptism. For Ananias meaning was not, that he thought sins were washed away by water, which the Scripture every because that washing which is made by the blood of Christ, is outwardly shadowed and expressed by Baptism, it comes to pass, that by reason of such phrase of Scripture sins are said to be washed away by baptism. And because Paul should not think it a strange or hard kind of saying, he adds, thereto, “by calling on the name of the Lord.” For by these words he is ent unto Christ, which being taken hold of, and called upon by faith, bestows such gifts of salvation upon us, as the sacraments us to figure and shadow unto us. And as we must in using of the Sacraments have a respect unto Christ, if we will have them to profit us: so again we are taught, that they must not b e contemned nor thought superfluous by any means. For God has ordained nothing without great consideration, whose intent is not to have his church overcharged or clogged by any means. Therefore Philip baptized the Eunuch also after he had confessed his faith. And Peter thought it good to baptize Cornelius’ household, when they had received the Holy Ghost. Yea Paul, whom the Holy Ghost secretly commends, is here earnestly moved to receive baptism. These examples reprove the despisers of Sacraments, which while they seem too spiritual, do wickedly set light the ordinances of God.

Radulphe Gualthere, An Hundred, threescore and fifteen Sermons, uppon the Acts of the Apostles, trans., by Iohn Bridges, (London: no publ, 1572), 791.