Living By Law Or By Love?
Dec.10, 2011 in
Podcast Episodes
In this episode, Steve and Ray discuss the difference between a motivation of law and a motivation of love. Should our relationships be contractually based, or based on unconditional love? You probably know the answer, but have a listen anyway!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:51:21 — 101.9MB) | Embed
December 14th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Really thought provoking.
The only thing I can’t quite fit in is 2 Tim 3:16… I don’t buy into the inerrancy stand but still, if the Old Testament is “God Breathed”, how does it fit with what is essentially progressive revelation. Of course if that revelation is based upon what the people can handle at the time, maybe. But then how could it be used for teaching, reproof, etc. And, on top of that, the scripture being talked about is from Genesis to Malachi, not Matthew to Revelation
I do, however, agree that what Moses got and what God originally wanted to provide is quite different. Three times, it’s recorded that the people rejected a personal relationship in lieu of Moses telling them what to do (sound familiar — hmm many churches today?).
I’ve loved listening to you guys banter.. It just opens so many questions.
December 15th, 2011 at 11:37 am
Thanks for playing my intro on the podcast! Sorry the sound quality was so bad. 😛
Steve, on the issue of tough love, I just wanted to push back a little. I’m sure there are self-serving manipulations invalidly called “tough love”, but I simply cannot adopt the concept of complete mush love, either. Discipline itself is tough love, and Scripture is fairly consistent in saying that the Lord chastens those He loves (which is all of us, I believe). Besides the fact that I think this is a possible theodicy (what loving Father would stand by and allow meaningless suffering when He could prevent it, unless He intended good to come of it?), I think that even you would pursue a form of tough love if it came to either shoving her hastily and locking her in her room or risk getting shot by an armed intruder. Protecting is tough love; teaching can be tough love, and often must be tough indeed.
This reminds me of something I’ve often though when listening to your show. I think you guys are perhaps a bit off the mark when it comes to using “non-violent” to mean “loving”, and implying that anything that smacks of violence (no pun intended) is not pure love. Even passive discipline in helping to shape their character is “violent” in that violates the subject’s disposition, expectations, etc. Any violation is violence. Even the act of expressing your dissenting opinion, loving and carefully as can be, is undertaken specifically to do violence to what you perceive to be a harmful or otherwise inaccurate opinion. I want the doctor to do violence to me when he gives me a shot to numb me and takes up a knife to slice me up so that he can fix me. We simply must remember that the Lord does violence not to us personally but to the tumors that are eating away at us, even if it means cutting us in the process. (By the way, penal substitution is not at all this kind of love: Jesus did not benefit from this at all. Punitive tough love is oxymoronic.)
I understand that there is a danger in fooling ourselves into giving tough love for the person’s benefit when we’re actually being selfish in some way, but I think this is best resolved by examining our motives and developing wisdom rather than by swearing off discipline.
I hope I’m not coming off as too “violent” 😀 in my critique, and I don’t want to misrepresent you. Please clarify where I’m wrong, either about my position or my understanding of your position. Thanks for your wonderful show.
December 15th, 2011 at 11:40 am
Sorry, bad editing where it says:
it should say:
December 20th, 2011 at 11:47 am
Listened to your podcast just after the (sad?) news that the world lost an oppressive dictator, and I was filled with love – I loved the idea that this guy was history. (Goes to show you that you can’t take your nukes with you when you die.) This news in combo with your podcast brought to mind the old question on how do you weigh the rights of potential future victims with respect to the forgiveness of the perpetrator of violent crimes? Perhaps a combo might work – i.e. say “look I know you’ve had a rough life and I forgive you” and then execute the perpetrator. I guess it might depend a bit on your take on post mortem judgement (i.e. let God deal with the bast**d sooner rather than risk another potential victim). Don’t know the answer, just asking a question in light of Mimetic Theory.
On a second note, it seems that humans have been created with a certain level of in-built love, like that of a parent for their children (generally applicable only until they become teenagers). I am speculating however that we can’t attain the I Cor 13 level (i.e. God level) by our own effort. Thus, the idea that we have received God’s love so we should pass it on just isn’t in us. I’m guessing that the I Cor 13 love is only attainable by the work of the Holy Spirit in a person.
Some may argue that Jesus stopped the progression of violence by forgiving those who killed Him (and that’s true) and so we should emulate Him. But He is God and IS love. I am not totally convinced that we can consciously emulate anything close this level of love by our own choice. In my opinion, only the Holy Spirit in us can guide us to both will it and do it.
Apologize for being the “sphincter recti” at the Christmas Party.