Thank you for this. For me, a good question to ask is "How are love and hope connected?" I have been interested in Process Theology for a while and how that relates to eschatological hope. PT's central point is taken from Plato's Timaeus where the contrast between coercive power and persuasive love are highlighted. This would imply that the future is open. Nothing is certain because nothing is forced unilaterally - because God isn't like that.
A Calvinist would argue for greater eschatological certainty with their position but I reckon there is a twist here ... Love, divine love particularly, has a unique relational power of its own where, being of a different nature, it has more certainty in its uncertainty, than that of raw controlling power.
So for me, because love always hopes, I concentrate more on relationality than on what I'm hoping for knowing that love will provide the hope needed for every situation. Furthermore the space provided is open where "the possibility of the impossible" is implied.
So to live in Christ is to live in hope always expecting God through him to do "far more than we could ever ask or think"!
Love always hopes - I like it, and I would like to expand on it if I may.
Faith, hope, and love are all related, and their relationship is not necessarily intuitive. Their relationships are embodied in the New Commandment: As I have loved you, love one another.
The non-contextual definition of grace is God's divine love: it is the love that originates with the Father and comes to us through Jesus Christ. (Words inherit their meaning from the things they represent, not from the context of how they are used in scripture. A story for another day.)
Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith. He authorizes our faith by grace when he loves us, and he finalizes our faith by grace when he loves another through us.
When he loves us, he does so with the hope that we will continue in his love by loving another in the same way, in the strength of the Spirit, not the weakness of the flesh.
When I receive his love, I receive it from him in hope: his hope that I will continue in that love: it is the substance of things hoped for. When I love another in the power of the Spirit, I do so with the hope that the recipient of his love through me will continue in that love: this is the evidence of things not seen from my perspective, but from his perspective it is the substance of things hoped for: two sides of the same transaction.
All transactions are recorded in the tables of my heart, in my account. My heart is hidden to man, but visible in the sight of God. In the brief moment of the grace transaction, however, the love becomes visible; the Bible says it is manifested. It becomes visible briefly only to disappear again into the darkness, back into the realm of the invisible, in the tables of my heart. My heart is dark, not because it is evil, but because it is not visible to anyone but God.
The finalization of my faith is the evidence of things not seen: it is the fulfillment of the law of love written on my heart, making a brief appearance. Seeing God's love at work in me is evidence that I had previously received his love, the law written upon my heart. That is the thing not seen.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for (grace received), and the evidence of things not seen (grace delivered). Grace received without grace delivered is incomplete faith; or as James would put it, it is dead.
"(Words inherit their meaning from the things they represent, not from the context of how they are used in scripture. A story for another day.)"
That's an fascinating idea Ken, but I wonder if it's true in all cases, especially when considering the conceptual semantics involved in the etymology of the word - "Light" for example as its found in scripture? Could not the representation of a word and how its used, evolve and change over time contextually?
Thank you for your response. I had to look up what etymology means.
The point is that the meaning of Biblical words should not evolve. Our language evolves, and our system for constructing definitions from the contexts of how words are used works well for evolving languages.
However, I would expect Biblical text to have a meaning that does not evolve over time. In the case of Biblical terms, their etymology is interesting to the point of what the words meant when they were first used. Light, when used in the Bible, has a consistent meaning which should be inherited from the thing it represents apart from its contextual usages. Using contextual definitions, I can make the Bible say anything I want it to say, I'll just start using a word in a new context that will suit my needs. If I use it enough in that context, a new definition will be constructed, and a new theology is born.
To speak to the meaning of light, I first need to explain truth. The Greek word for truth is aletheia. It begins with an alpha, a negative particle, negating the remainder of the word, lanthano, meaning hidden. Truth unhides that which has been unhidden, revealing what has been concealed. Light makes things visible. Jesus was the light because he revealed the mysteries that had been hidden for ages and generations. We are the light of the world because, when the Spirit works in us, his work becomes visible, revealing God to the world as they see him doing what only he can do.
The key to discovering the things that words represent is to visualize the kingdom of heaven, because all these words only exist there. It is hard to identify entities that words represent when you have never seen the entities.
Seek ye first the kingdom of God. Jesus explained the government of the kingdom of heaven in John 15. That is where you begin. Government has to do with laws of governance. Jesus said, This is MY commandment. I kept my Father's commandments, you keep mine. He made a distinction between the two. If you cannot see the distinction, you have not seen the kingdom of heaven. Keep looking.
I think the transparent beauty of biblical hermeneutics is often found in the flexibility of both the [exegesis & eisegesis] of interpretation. Astronomy, Psychology, Archeology, Physics, etc…can inform, reveal and expand on the ‘Truths’ presented in scripture by revealing the beauty and power of ‘The Kingdom of Heaven’, which is inclusive of these things. When Heraclitus used the word ‘Logos’ in the c. 5th Century BC, did he mean the exact same thing that the Apostle John did when he wrote his Gospel in Koine Greek, 600 years later? Probably not, but the essential gist of the evolving definition was definitely there as it went through Proto-Greek, Aeolic, Ionic, and Doric, Archaic and Classical phases. And when that Logos became flesh and walked among us, he was before then, and is now, ‘The Light of the World’.
“Jesus said, This is MY commandment. I kept my Father's commandments, you keep mine. He made a distinction between the two. If you cannot see the distinction, you have not seen the kingdom of heaven. Keep looking.”
I like this. Although I’m more of a ‘God as Community’, than ‘Governmental Trinity’ kind of guy. There may be a functional kenotic distinction between the persons of the Trinity for our sake, but no distinction in their eternal Truth. The Kingdom of God is definitely here and now in our hearts & minds and in the Parousia to come. – Blessings!
I wonder.... how much is our theology changed by our experiences? People are often so comfortable with their viewpoint but it has not been put to the test. Their life has been pretty easy. For others, life can be traumatic and require ongoing struggle. Yes, hope through God who can do anything is an easy way to hold to hope when all is hopeless.... but at what point should one change their views about this and realize that God does not grant miracles... ?? I think psychology would tell us they are better off believing in miracles... It sure challenges the notion of something being the smart or foolish thing to do... What seems foolish to some, may be the thing that can keep a person alive! Hmm...
Usually when you use words that I have no idea what they mean, I have to stop reading. When you spoke of ontology in this post, I almost stopped, but reading the next sentence explained what you meant, and it helped me to progress into your world of terms that are beyond me. Thank you for inviting me into your world.
Thank you for this. For me, a good question to ask is "How are love and hope connected?" I have been interested in Process Theology for a while and how that relates to eschatological hope. PT's central point is taken from Plato's Timaeus where the contrast between coercive power and persuasive love are highlighted. This would imply that the future is open. Nothing is certain because nothing is forced unilaterally - because God isn't like that.
A Calvinist would argue for greater eschatological certainty with their position but I reckon there is a twist here ... Love, divine love particularly, has a unique relational power of its own where, being of a different nature, it has more certainty in its uncertainty, than that of raw controlling power.
So for me, because love always hopes, I concentrate more on relationality than on what I'm hoping for knowing that love will provide the hope needed for every situation. Furthermore the space provided is open where "the possibility of the impossible" is implied.
So to live in Christ is to live in hope always expecting God through him to do "far more than we could ever ask or think"!
Love always hopes - I like it, and I would like to expand on it if I may.
Faith, hope, and love are all related, and their relationship is not necessarily intuitive. Their relationships are embodied in the New Commandment: As I have loved you, love one another.
The non-contextual definition of grace is God's divine love: it is the love that originates with the Father and comes to us through Jesus Christ. (Words inherit their meaning from the things they represent, not from the context of how they are used in scripture. A story for another day.)
Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith. He authorizes our faith by grace when he loves us, and he finalizes our faith by grace when he loves another through us.
When he loves us, he does so with the hope that we will continue in his love by loving another in the same way, in the strength of the Spirit, not the weakness of the flesh.
When I receive his love, I receive it from him in hope: his hope that I will continue in that love: it is the substance of things hoped for. When I love another in the power of the Spirit, I do so with the hope that the recipient of his love through me will continue in that love: this is the evidence of things not seen from my perspective, but from his perspective it is the substance of things hoped for: two sides of the same transaction.
All transactions are recorded in the tables of my heart, in my account. My heart is hidden to man, but visible in the sight of God. In the brief moment of the grace transaction, however, the love becomes visible; the Bible says it is manifested. It becomes visible briefly only to disappear again into the darkness, back into the realm of the invisible, in the tables of my heart. My heart is dark, not because it is evil, but because it is not visible to anyone but God.
The finalization of my faith is the evidence of things not seen: it is the fulfillment of the law of love written on my heart, making a brief appearance. Seeing God's love at work in me is evidence that I had previously received his love, the law written upon my heart. That is the thing not seen.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for (grace received), and the evidence of things not seen (grace delivered). Grace received without grace delivered is incomplete faith; or as James would put it, it is dead.
"(Words inherit their meaning from the things they represent, not from the context of how they are used in scripture. A story for another day.)"
That's an fascinating idea Ken, but I wonder if it's true in all cases, especially when considering the conceptual semantics involved in the etymology of the word - "Light" for example as its found in scripture? Could not the representation of a word and how its used, evolve and change over time contextually?
Thank you for your response. I had to look up what etymology means.
The point is that the meaning of Biblical words should not evolve. Our language evolves, and our system for constructing definitions from the contexts of how words are used works well for evolving languages.
However, I would expect Biblical text to have a meaning that does not evolve over time. In the case of Biblical terms, their etymology is interesting to the point of what the words meant when they were first used. Light, when used in the Bible, has a consistent meaning which should be inherited from the thing it represents apart from its contextual usages. Using contextual definitions, I can make the Bible say anything I want it to say, I'll just start using a word in a new context that will suit my needs. If I use it enough in that context, a new definition will be constructed, and a new theology is born.
To speak to the meaning of light, I first need to explain truth. The Greek word for truth is aletheia. It begins with an alpha, a negative particle, negating the remainder of the word, lanthano, meaning hidden. Truth unhides that which has been unhidden, revealing what has been concealed. Light makes things visible. Jesus was the light because he revealed the mysteries that had been hidden for ages and generations. We are the light of the world because, when the Spirit works in us, his work becomes visible, revealing God to the world as they see him doing what only he can do.
The key to discovering the things that words represent is to visualize the kingdom of heaven, because all these words only exist there. It is hard to identify entities that words represent when you have never seen the entities.
Seek ye first the kingdom of God. Jesus explained the government of the kingdom of heaven in John 15. That is where you begin. Government has to do with laws of governance. Jesus said, This is MY commandment. I kept my Father's commandments, you keep mine. He made a distinction between the two. If you cannot see the distinction, you have not seen the kingdom of heaven. Keep looking.
I think the transparent beauty of biblical hermeneutics is often found in the flexibility of both the [exegesis & eisegesis] of interpretation. Astronomy, Psychology, Archeology, Physics, etc…can inform, reveal and expand on the ‘Truths’ presented in scripture by revealing the beauty and power of ‘The Kingdom of Heaven’, which is inclusive of these things. When Heraclitus used the word ‘Logos’ in the c. 5th Century BC, did he mean the exact same thing that the Apostle John did when he wrote his Gospel in Koine Greek, 600 years later? Probably not, but the essential gist of the evolving definition was definitely there as it went through Proto-Greek, Aeolic, Ionic, and Doric, Archaic and Classical phases. And when that Logos became flesh and walked among us, he was before then, and is now, ‘The Light of the World’.
“Jesus said, This is MY commandment. I kept my Father's commandments, you keep mine. He made a distinction between the two. If you cannot see the distinction, you have not seen the kingdom of heaven. Keep looking.”
I like this. Although I’m more of a ‘God as Community’, than ‘Governmental Trinity’ kind of guy. There may be a functional kenotic distinction between the persons of the Trinity for our sake, but no distinction in their eternal Truth. The Kingdom of God is definitely here and now in our hearts & minds and in the Parousia to come. – Blessings!
I wonder.... how much is our theology changed by our experiences? People are often so comfortable with their viewpoint but it has not been put to the test. Their life has been pretty easy. For others, life can be traumatic and require ongoing struggle. Yes, hope through God who can do anything is an easy way to hold to hope when all is hopeless.... but at what point should one change their views about this and realize that God does not grant miracles... ?? I think psychology would tell us they are better off believing in miracles... It sure challenges the notion of something being the smart or foolish thing to do... What seems foolish to some, may be the thing that can keep a person alive! Hmm...
Your posts on hope and the comments caused me to think of this line from a Bruce Cockburn song:
"I've seen the flame of hope among the hopeless
And that was truly the biggest heartbreak of all
That was the straw that broke me open"
Usually when you use words that I have no idea what they mean, I have to stop reading. When you spoke of ontology in this post, I almost stopped, but reading the next sentence explained what you meant, and it helped me to progress into your world of terms that are beyond me. Thank you for inviting me into your world.