The Aristophrenium

Proclaiming the truth of the gospel and the centrality of Christ in all things

Thursday

2

February 2012

5

COMMENTS

Love seeks to perfect the object of its love

Written by , Posted in Soteriology, Theology

Some time ago I was working through CS Lewis’s classic, The Problem of Pain. In it there is one line that I lifted out of its pages and plugged into my Twitter timeline – and shortly after that there started some dialogue with a fellow (we’ll call him Pete) who believed that the statement I offered was contradictory and he subsequently mocked it as such.

Well, either this Pete is a very intelligent man and CS Lewis was an idiotic fool or, quite probably, the quote I tweeted was most likely misunderstood.

Speaking on the necessity of God’s love for us and of the characteristic of God’s love for us, I echoed Lewis’s sentiment and tweeted:

[It is because God] already loves us [that] He must labour to make us lovable.

Moments after I shared this on Twitter, I received this reply from Pete: “lol contradiction is faith”.

When I inquired as to how the statement was contradictory, Pete wrote back that “If you’re lovable, you don’t need to be made lovable. You already are”.

Now that might sound reasonable, but I believe it misses the point entirely, let alone misreads what was actually tweeted (which was that God’s love for us compels him to make us even more lovable). Lewis was not stating that God already saw us as lovable. In an effort to correct Pete and to point this out, I tweeted: “Love seeks to perfect the object of its love”.

What did I mean by this? Parents know this all too well. When your child is born you love your child not for anything that your child has done, nor even for how adorable your child may be. I should think that you love your child simply because you choose to love your child – the word “lovable” doesn’t really come into it at this point. When your child wakes crying at 1am in the morning, then again at 2.30am, and yet again an hour later, as a parent, the word “lovable” isn’t the exact word that enters your head. But as a parent you do attend to your child out of the love you have for him / her – again, not for anything your child has done to deserve it.

Where I believe Pete erred is that he equated the term “lovable” to be a prerequisite in order to love. In other words, on his view, you cannot love someone unless that someone has a quality that you find lovable. Another problem in defining the term “lovable” in this fashion is that the definition is purely arbitrary – what I find lovable might well be unlovable to you.

God does not see us as “lovable” in this sense at all. In fact, God has some pretty strong words for how He does view us: He hates the sinner; we are far from being lovable (Psalm 5:5, Psalm 11:5, Leviticus 20:23).

Paradoxically, God loves us immensely (John 3:16, John 15:13). He cannot love us for what we are – rebellious, wanton, unruly, sinful – for God is holy and his holiness will not tolerate what is impure. So what does Lewis’s statement, it “[is because God already] loves us [that] He must labour to make us lovable” then actually mean?

Part of the implication of Lewis’s statement is that discipline is involved in the act of love. It has to be: without discipline, love is not love at all. Without discipline, love morphs into an act of, as Lewis says elsewhere in The Problem of Pain, a Benevolent Grandfather who’s sole intent is to please his grandchildren; this type of love leaves unruly behaviour unchecked; and unruly behaviour left unchecked leads to the development of selfish and self-centred adults.

God’s love for us is far removed from that of the Benevolent Grandfather’s; God’s love is richer and purer. God’s holy love entails discipline. As the writer of Hebrews writes:

It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he [God] disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. (Hebrews 12:7-11, emphasis mine.)

So this is what Lewis means when he says that it is out of God’s love for us – his desire to see us develop into an upright and holy people – that God must work at making us lovable, more perfect, more like his son Jesus. This is why I responded to Pete that Love seeks to perfect the object of its love, to desire the very best – God requires that we be perfect for he is perfect (Matthew 5:48). Yet the only way we can be perfect is for God to work on us to become so and it is out of his love for us that he “labours” to achieve this (Heb 12:5-8).

God so loved us that he sacrificed his only son, Jesus Christ, so that through Jesus’ cleansing blood we become perfect in his eyes and, as a result, become truly, purely, lovable through and through.

  • http://aristophrenium.com/ Ryft Braeloch

    Okay, I’ll play the devil’s advocate.

    Pete is right, of course, although he did not argue the point very well. There certainly is a contradiction involved in saying that God loves someone that he does not love. You said that God cannot love us for the sinners that we are, but then said that God does love us even though we are sinners. So how do you resolve the contradiction of God loving someone that he does not love?

    I understand your point about sanctification, where God perfects those who are his through discipline out of his loving desire to see us develop into an upright and holy people, but that simply assumes the preexisting contradiction is solved without having bothered to solve it.

  • http://aristophrenium.com/ Mathew

    It is a fair question, and much more difficult to respond to when put more clearly. Yet I don’t believe it’s so much a contradiction but a conundrum.

    My initial response would be an appeal to God’s sovereign grace: that, while are still sinners, he demonstrates his love via Christ’s sacrificial death (Rom 5:8). God does hate those who are vile, but the word ‘hate’ could be interpreted in much the same sense as the comparison between Jacob and Esau? Jacob God loved, while Esau he hated (or, in Hebrew understanding, ‘loved less’) ~ so that now we have God loving those he ‘loves less’? You can certainly love with varying degrees of love.

  • Marc

    Ryft,

    You’re starting to present as a non-calvinist.

    Sorry, I momentarily forgot: you were playing the devil’s advocate. Silly me!

  • http://aristophrenium.com/ Ryft Braeloch

    Mathew,

    While your response would seem to resolve the first contradiction, it ends up creating a different conflict for you to resolve. If God loves someone less, then he does in fact love them. Yet that now confronts us with a fundamental conflict in God’s nature and character. First, it means that God does not hate idolatry, murder, sexual immorality and a host of other sins. God loves such things; he simply loves righteousness more. Second, it means that God does not hate those who are exceedingly wicked. He loves them; he simply loves the righteous more. Third, it means that God inflicts his eternal wrath on those whom he loves; but what sense can be made of God pouring out his cup of wrath on those whom he loves? If he loves them, then whence this wrath?

    This attempt to avoid the first contradiction does violence to the very nature and character of God and turns Scripture on its head. I would argue that God’s hatred of the wicked and their sin consists of moral antipathy (and not of malice, as it is commonly thought), whereby they are filling up the cup of God’s wrath, to be poured out on them on the day of judgment. It is not that God loves sin but loves righteousness more (i.e., that the wicked and sin are something that God “loves less” than the saints and righteousness); it is that God truly hates the wicked and their sin, and with a righteous moral antipathy that is being stored up.

    If God cannot love us for the sinners that we are, as you said, but does love us even though we are sinners, then how are we to resolve this apparent contradiction (of God loving someone that he does not love)? My answer will annoy Marc Kay, who seemed pleased with my “non-Calvinist” reasoning up to this point, but since the answer is biblical it is therefore consistent with Reformed theology. God does not love us for the sinners that we are; he loves us for the saints that we are, for when he contemplates his elect it is in the fullness of our union with Christ. To the extent that God is not temporally constrained, neither is the landscape of human history which he surveys according to his purpose (for his attributes are essential properties); as such, he views his elect in the fullness of his purpose and plan of redemption. This is why Paul can say in Romans 8:29-30 that those whom God foreknew he also predestined (to be conformed to the image of his Son); and those he predestined, he also called; and those he called, he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified. This is why all those, his sheep, who are appointed for eternal life believe (Acts 13:48; cf. John 10:26); the names of the saints are written in the Lamb’s book of life since the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8), which means not only during the time when they are unregenerate sinners but even before they ever existed. From all eternity they are contemplated in union with Christ, although in due time they are called, justified, sanctified, and finally glorified (which is the sense in which those whom God loves he makes lovable).

  • http://aristophrenium.com/ Mathew

    David – thank you for rounding out my post. I think we were always on the same page – by and large – with only a difference of comprehension and articulation between us.