The Love of God Which Passeth Knowledge

[InSlaveryToChrist]

The following consideration is the highlight of my whole Christian understanding. I understand many of you know what I'm about to share with you.

If I gave you a flower, would it demonstrate all of my love for you. Would my love be limited to that flower?

When Christ gave you His life on the Cross and suffered for you in a most terrible way possible, as exceedingly loving as it was, did it still demonstrate the love of God in all its height and depth?

I don't believe it did for two reasons,

1. It would mean that when my eyes of understanding are perfected in holiness and I will see all of my sin and the sins of others in a clear light, and, consequently, will see how much Christ suffered on the Cross for the sins of the elect, I would know the love of God perfectly.

2. If it were necessary, what Christ suffered once for us, He would have done it twice, ten times, a hundred times-- Yes, He would have done it for eternity! Those three hours of eternal suffering would eventually have become an eternity of eternal suffering. Think about that!

This is why I hate the common rendering of John 3:16 SO much! If you say "God loved the world SO much", it gives you the idea of depth and height of that love, and will limit the love to what that term "SO" is referring to, namely, the Atonement of Christ. On the other hand, if we use the literal greek rendering, "in this way", it won't limit God's love to the Atonement of Christ, but still carries the sense of awe and gratitude that is due to that demonstration of love.

"That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God." (Ephesians 3:17-19)

When we are completely conformed to the image of Christ, we will possess the love of Christ perfectly according to His human nature and, thus, will be able to also comprehend this love. On the other hand, the love of Christ according to His divine nature we cannot be said to ever be able to comprehend. That which is divine and holy is incomprehensible to that which is not (however close union we may enjoy with God).

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

I have the feeling that I might have made a fundamental error here, but cannot see why or where. I'd appreciate any comments from the more learned in the faith.

 

[Free Christian]

Im no expert on anything much in general Samuel but I do believe that Jesus dying on the cross was the ultimate act of love from a loving God.
For the Creator of all that is and ever will be, the maker of the pot so to speak, to give of Himself to save the mere pot, something so small as we are, to save us by giving of Himself is the ultimate act and show of pure love we will ever see.
I take myself, a sinner, and knowing what I am and have done in life, I once was a great mocker of Jesus and quite pathetic, and Jesus died for me. My God gave of Himself to save me!? Going by my own standards from years ago I would have left a person like me to rot and applauded the demise.
But God gave of Himself, lowered Himself to human level, suffered in the flesh as human, was treated like rubbish and then killed in the most horrid way whilst being mocked all the way to the end. There is no greater love than for a man to lay down his life for another, the Bible says, John 15 v 13. Then how much greater that love is when God does it? The ultimate in love, in all the heights and depths imaginable. My view here anyway. All the best Samuel.

 

[MW]

When Christ gave you His life on the Cross and suffered for you in a most terrible way possible, as exceedingly loving as it was, did it still demonstrate the love of God in all its height and depth?

God's love is certainly as infinite as Himself, but as recipients we have limited creaturely capacities which the love of God can certainly overflow.

If we look past the cross to the Person Who is given, the only begotten Son, the love-gift must excel anything which human experience can demonstrate.

To know what passes knowledge is simply to recognise that there is a point at which something inexhaustible touches us and exhausts our ability of comprehension.

"So" might be understood as "in this way" without importing the idea of "so much" into it. At the same time, I would not like to see "so" changed into "in this way" because I am not convinced the idea of "so much" is not at least a connotation, even if it is not the denotation.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

I've given this topic a serious effort of thought, and I've finally come into some conclusions.

My key thought and train of thought goes as follows.

1. In declaring that there is and can be only one God, the Bible confirms God's incapability of creating anything greater or equal to Himself. God's capability of creating anything less, however, is completely warranted by Scripture.

2. Since the Bible teaches creation can and does possess attributes similar to God's (including the knowledge of God), thinking logically, this has to mean God is properly both that which separates His creation from Himself and that which does not (all the way to the lowest point of conformity to Himself).

3. In my understanding of Scripture, that which ultimately separates God from His creation is that of His holy nature, and that which does not is His divine nature (and can be conformed to by creation).

4. For the moment, angels seem to be the closest creatures to God in regards to power. However, man, created in the image of God, has ultimately the privelege of greatest possible conformity to God in every respect. (This already explains "the love of Christ which passeth knowledge"; we can know that which is divine, but that which is holy we cannot, because we are not God nor can be).

5. When we have been perfected in Christ and will live in eternity in union with God, we won't and we cannot learn any more of God. God is who He is; He is not like us. This does not negate the fact that we will have eternal joy and happiness according to that capability of knowledge of God that we have as creatures.

6. The Bible makes a distinction between that which is sinful, that which is earthly and that which is divine. God did not create sin (the Devil, the fallen Angels and man did). God did not create earthly things out of Himself (but out of nothing). However, He did create the soul of man by His own breath. Now, since God made man in His own image, that means man was a partaker of God's divine nature. This, however, does not mean what Pantheism would want us to believe; that we are part of God's divine nature. Being a partaker and part of God is not the same thing. Being a partaker of God means our souls were created out of His divine nature (not that which is holy). On the other hand, being part of God would mean we share the same essence (divine or holy, doesn't matter) with God like the three persons of the Trinity do. So, instead of replicating His divine nature, God sucks us into Himself. This is the heresy of Pantheism and would lead us to think that whenever we suffer or sin, God suffers and sins with us, or when the reprobate are cast into hell, part of God is cast into hell.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

I was also able to answer the question of whether Christ's Atonement was the greatest possible demonstration of God's love (revealing all of the divine side of God's love to us). Simply, to think otherwise would mean God is either not willing to reveal Himself to us in the greatest possible way or that God wants to reveal Himself to us in greater depth in some other way than the Atonement of Christ.

In addition to that, I realized something very humbling: I will never be able to see my sinfulness completely because the party offended is not only divine, He is holy. If I can't comprehend God's holy nature, I can never understand my offence against Him completely. This made me realize we won't cease to repent of our sins even in eternity. Actually, regardless of whether we can grasp the holy or not, repentance of our sins is still necessary.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

Quoting myself, "God is properly both that which ultimately separates His creation from Himself and that which does not (all the way to the lowest point of conformity to Himself)."

I should fix the bolded part to "that divine which does not", since "that which does not" would include sin and earthly things that were made out of nothing.

An interesting thought came to my mind concerning the Fall. Would it be against the Bible or reason to think the fall of Lucifer, some of the angels and man was ultimately caused by their unconformity to God's holy nature? This would also mean that not only did God give them a freewill to sin, this freewill to sin was the result of their unconformity to God's holy nature.

I do understand that where the Word of God is silent, man should be also. I'm asking because I'm unsure this is the case here.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

Quoting myself again,

I was also able to answer the question of whether Christ's Atonement was the greatest possible demonstration of God's love (revealing all of the divine side of God's love to us). Simply, to think otherwise would mean God is either not willing to reveal Himself to us in the greatest possible way or that God wants to reveal Himself to us in greater depth in some other way than the Atonement of Christ.

I realized this view will have some implications on God's judgment of sin. If we hold that Christ's Atonement was the greatest possible demonstration of God's love, it has to mean it would not have been any greater if the sins of one more person was added to Christ's sufferings. This means that God's judgment of sin is a lake of fire of degrees. In other words, it doesn't matter how many sins a person has, as it concerns his punishment. What matters is what was the greatest sin committed by that person. That sin will determine the degree of hell he has to endure. For Christ as our Saviour this means that the vilest sin committed among us determined the bitterness of the cup of God's wrath for Him. And since the Atonement of Christ was the greatest possible demonstration of God's love, He had to suffer the proper punishment of the greatest possible sin (and some, if not all of us, committed or will commit it).

If someone has better suggestions, please tell me.

 

[Free Christian]

Hi Samuel. Do you have any good commentaries on the Bible? You can get some for free from ESword.com if you do not and I am sure others here will be able to tell you of others. I found a book, "An exposition of the Confession of Faith" by Robert Shaw helpful with understanding some things too.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

Hi Samuel. Do you have any good commentaries on the Bible? You can get some for free from ESword.com if you do not and I am sure others here will be able to tell you of others. I found a book, "An exposition of the Confession of Faith" by Robert Shaw helpful with understanding some things too.

Brett, thanks for the advice! I do not own a lot of commentaries (the ones I own are D.A. Carson on Matthew, Mark and John; Ryken on Luke, Peterson on Acts and Murray on Romans), but I can get my hands on a lot of old works for free in the internet. Btw, I've been using esword on my computer for a long time. Concerning the Reformed Confessions, I have Morecraft's life work, Authentic Christianity (An Exposition of the Theology and Ethics of the WLC) and some simple and practical commentaries on both the Larger and Shorter Catechism and the Confession of Faith, and Zacharias Ursinus' long classic commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. In addition to all of this, I have theological books covering almost every aspect of the Christian faith from a Reformed perspective.

So, I think I'm in pretty good hands.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

The only thing left in this thread I'd like to have answered and commented on is post #8, if anyone would be so kind.

 

[stephen2]

Hi, Samuel. The best I can do (in answer to post 8) is point you to R.L. Dabney's systematic. He has a section on the atonement that deals with that very thing. He would see things differently than you are seeing them at this point. Try to get that systematic. If you have kindle it is quite inexpensive.

 

[au5t1n]

Quoting myself again,

I was also able to answer the question of whether Christ's Atonement was the greatest possible demonstration of God's love (revealing all of the divine side of God's love to us). Simply, to think otherwise would mean God is either not willing to reveal Himself to us in the greatest possible way or that God wants to reveal Himself to us in greater depth in some other way than the Atonement of Christ.
I realized this view will have some implications on God's judgment of sin. If we hold that Christ's Atonement was the greatest possible demonstration of God's love, it has to mean it would not have been any greater if the sins of one more person was added to Christ's sufferings. This means that God's judgment of sin is a lake of fire of degrees. In other words, it doesn't matter how many sins a person has, as it concerns his punishment. What matters is what was the greatest sin committed by that person. That sin will determine the degree of hell he has to endure. For Christ as our Saviour this means that the vilest sin committed among us determined the bitterness of the cup of God's wrath for Him. And since the Atonement of Christ was the greatest possible demonstration of God's love, He had to suffer the proper punishment of the greatest possible sin (and some, if not all of us, committed or will commit it).

If someone has better suggestions, please tell me.

I think you're over-complicating it. Death is the wages of sin. Christ died to pay the penalty for His people. LC 38 helpfully points out that the Mediator had to be God in order to "give worth and efficacy to His sufferings." All of this talk of Christ's sufferings on the cross being mathematically exactly enough (no more, no less) to account for the greatest possible sin - or that each elect person's greatest sin is what Christ was paying for in a mathematical sense - is, in my opinion, putting an unwarranted quantitative spin on the atonement. It is possible that I have misunderstood you, in which case please clarify your question.

I do believe in degrees of punishment in hell, but I'm not following on what basis you have concluded that only the person's greatest sin is relevant.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

Hi, Samuel. The best I can do (in answer to post 8) is point you to R.L. Dabney's systematic. He has a section on the atonement that deals with that very thing. He would see things differently than you are seeing them at this point. Try to get that systematic. If you have kindle it is quite inexpensive.

A modern work? Does he direct his readers to some old Reformed theologians for further reading?

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

Quoting myself again,

I was also able to answer the question of whether Christ's Atonement was the greatest possible demonstration of God's love (revealing all of the divine side of God's love to us). Simply, to think otherwise would mean God is either not willing to reveal Himself to us in the greatest possible way or that God wants to reveal Himself to us in greater depth in some other way than the Atonement of Christ.
I realized this view will have some implications on God's judgment of sin. If we hold that Christ's Atonement was the greatest possible demonstration of God's love, it has to mean it would not have been any greater if the sins of one more person was added to Christ's sufferings. This means that God's judgment of sin is a lake of fire of degrees. In other words, it doesn't matter how many sins a person has, as it concerns his punishment. What matters is what was the greatest sin committed by that person. That sin will determine the degree of hell he has to endure. For Christ as our Saviour this means that the vilest sin committed among us determined the bitterness of the cup of God's wrath for Him. And since the Atonement of Christ was the greatest possible demonstration of God's love, He had to suffer the proper punishment of the greatest possible sin (and some, if not all of us, committed or will commit it).

If someone has better suggestions, please tell me.

I think you're over-complicating it. Death is the wages of sin. Christ died to pay the penalty for His people. LC 38 helpfully points out that the Mediator had to be God in order to "give worth and efficacy to His sufferings." All of this talk of Christ's sufferings on the cross being mathematically exactly enough (no more, no less) to account for the greatest possible sin - or that each elect person's greatest sin is what Christ was paying for in a mathematical sense - is, in my opinion, putting an unwarranted quantitative spin on the atonement. It is possible that I have misunderstood you, in which case please clarify your question.

I do believe in degrees of punishment in hell, but I'm not following on what basis you have concluded that only the person's greatest sin is relevant.

Because, quoting myself, "If we hold that Christ's Atonement was the greatest possible demonstration of God's love, it has to mean it would not have been any greater if the sins of one more person was added to Christ's sufferings." In other words, the number of sins would not matter, but the greatness of sin.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

Am I wrong in thinking Christ had to endure the exact punishment that was the exact sum of all the elects' punishments? Did not the Father comprise all of it in the three hours of darkness? Or did Christ's worth lessen His punishment?

 

[MW]

Am I wrong in thinking Christ had to endure the exact punishment that was the exact sum of all the elects' punishments? Did not the Father comprise all of it in the three hours of darkness? Or did Christ's worth lessen His punishment?

As human sin is against an infinitely holy God the punishment due to it is infinite. Men are punished in hell for eternity because they can never satisfy the offended justice of God. As the sacrifice of Christ was offered on the altar of His divine nature, and as the the worth of the gift accords with the value of the altar, the sacrifice of Christ is of infinite value.

As Hebrews 10 teaches, the moment Christ assumed human nature He stood as the sacrifice with which God is well pleased. This culminated in His death but it was not limited to this.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

Am I wrong in thinking Christ had to endure the exact punishment that was the exact sum of all the elects' punishments? Did not the Father comprise all of it in the three hours of darkness? Or did Christ's worth lessen His punishment?

As human sin is against an infinitely holy God the punishment due to it is infinite. Men are punished in hell for eternity because they can never satisfy the offended justice of God. As the sacrifice of Christ was offered on the altar of His divine nature, and as the the worth of the gift accords with the value of the altar, the sacrifice of Christ is of infinite value.

As Hebrews 10 teaches, the moment Christ assumed human nature He stood as the sacrifice with which God is well pleased. This culminated in His death but it was not limited to this.

Wow! I'm finally starting to understand this language of the Atonement! Can we say, then, that the punishment that should have lasted for an eternity for us, was shortened to three hours for Christ?

Wait a second! If Christ is of infinite value, then why did He have to be slaughtered in the first place, let alone suffer God's wrath?

 

[MW]

Wow! I'm finally starting to understand this language of the Atonement! Can we say, then, that the punishment that should have lasted for an eternity for us, was shortened to three hours for Christ?

One might see an intensification in that three hours but Christ's sacrifice commenced the moment He assumed human nature.

Wait a second! If Christ is of infinite value, then why did He have to be slaughtered in the first place, let alone suffer God's wrath?

The wages of sin is death.