(June 22, 2018 at 3:12 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:(June 22, 2018 at 1:08 pm)SteveII Wrote: For reference: The essence of agape love is goodwill, benevolence, and willful delight in the object of love.
All 3 points I made above are examples of actions/attitudes of God prior to any decision by any person. I also think that your characterization of God cannot love since he is "metaphysically unable to approach" is wrong on two fronts:
1. John 16:7-11 tells one of the Holy Spirit's purpose as one of conviction the world of their sinful condition and driving them to seek God. That alone defeats the "metaphysically unable to approach" idea.
2. Further, I don't think the barrier between God and unrepentant man applies to the question of God's love for the same person. I think it is sufficient to see that God desires, has planned for, physically provided for, prompts (via Holy Spirit) and continually waits for the repair to be made to qualify as love.
Jesus most certainly died--in every sense of the word. A couple of points of clarification:
1. It is impossible for man to atone for his own sin.
2. So God decided to do so.
3. But in order to atone for man's sin, God had to become a man in order to stand in for us. So, the sacrifice was not simply "symbolic" as you put it.
4. That means that Jesus was truly human. He was still God, so he was not just merely human. He had a unique dual nature.
5. His human nature endured life, suffering and death. There is another thing that comes up--God turned away from him at the time of his death because he represented the sins of the world. This was apparently a heavy thing to go through.
You can say 'big deal', he knew in the end he would be fine. Sure, but that point really does not undercut that he loved us enough to provide this way back.
One last point on this. You mention that you "forgive, and it's done". That is not the same thing as what is happening with the Christ's atonement. Christ's atonement does not forgive, it wipes the slate clean--as if it never happened. This is an important distinction in systematic theology that few ever take note of.
I don't think that your "disbelief" characterization is correct either. Our natural state is one that needs fixing. Being in that state is the failing--not the disbelief itself. If you reject what has been revealed to you about God, that is a moral failing, but it is your natural state that has and will always separate you.
I defended my premise. God's actions shows conclusively that he has and does love all humanity and it is his will that they respond to him prior to or in spite of, a lack of response. Your attempts to undercut the premise are well thought out, but don't prevail once we fill in the systematic theology behind the beliefs.
Before I respond, I'd like to know your beliefs regarding the nature of Christ, so I don't misrepresent you. The traditional doctrine is that Christ was fully human and fully divine, which makes sense to those who, for whatever reason, do not understand the meaning of the word 'fully'. Or was it some split, that, say, Jesus was 60% divine and 40% human? Or were there two Jesuses, one human and one divine? What exactly are your beliefs here?
Jesus had all the essential attributes of a human nature and all the essential attributes of a divine nature. There were some aspects of the divine nature that were set aside:
Philippians 2:5-8 Paul says "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross."
Two natures in one person. Not a divided person.