"For love is not only one of the affections, but it is the first and chief of the affections, and the fountain of all the affections. From love arises hatred of those things which are contrary to what we love, or which oppose and thwart us in those things that we delight in: and from the various exercises of love and hatred, according to the circumstances of the objects of these affections, as present or absent, certain or uncertain, probable or improbable, arise all those other affections of desire, hope, fear, joy, grief, gratitude, anger, etc. From a vigorous, affectionate, and fervent love to God, will necessarily arise other religious affections; hence will arise an intense hatred and abhorrence of sin, fear of sin, and a dread of God's displeasure, gratitude to God for his goodness, complacence and joy in God, when God is graciously and sensibly present, and grief when he is absent, and a joyful hope when a future enjoyment of God is expected, and fervent zeal for the glory of God. And in like manner, from a fervent love to men, will arise all other virtuous affections towards men."
- Jonathan Edwards
This quote got me thinking. It touches a little on something I posted last week concerning the wrath of God and his absolute hatred for sin. Can our love for God and righteousness be measured by how much we hate sin?? If so, that's a hard pill to swallow. I guess this post is more of a big question mark because I don't have an answer. If I don't absolutely hate all sin (note: not the sinner) does that mean I don't really love God? There are certain sins that I think are easier to get worked up about, but what about the sins that are viewed by most to be "not that big of a deal?"
These are just some of the thoughts that struck me when I came across this, I'm sure the more I think about it, the more I'll be bombarded with questions. Thanks a lot Edwards!
I'd like to challenge the concept of 'hate the sin and not the sinner', because so much of sin is inflicted upon others, and the rest inflicted against the God we love. Can we truly in our human nature seperate the sin and the sinner? Is this proposal as fraught with false idealism as the idea of being unbiased?
ReplyDeleteJust a jumping off point for discussion that was triggered from reading this post.
Abe,
ReplyDeleteI think in this situation, as in many others, we should have the ideal as our goal or aiming point. Though we cannot do it perfectly, nevertheless, we should attempt to.
I do not think our inability to experience the ideal should hinder us from attempting it.
In this example, what is suggested is that we should love people. I would argue that the hating of the sin is encompassed in the loving of the person.
So, even though I cannot love ideally (perfectly, exhaustively, etc), I should still try to love in that way by the grace of God.
Can we ever be entirely unbiased? I don't think so. Are there situations where we should try and be as unbiased as we possibly can? I think so.
You said it: "There are certain sins that I think are easier to get worked up about"
ReplyDeleteOne person might get really fired up about abortion and hate it with a "holy hatred" (slightly serious, slightly poking fun with that phrase), someone else it may be the ravaging of God's creation and the environment of the earth, others it may be that the church hasn't properly walked with the homeless as Christ demonstrated... and perhaps others its taking the Lord's name in vain, gambling or drunkenness.
This whole discussion really highlights the flaws in my own beliefs because certainly I hate some of those sins more than others.
Thanks Jude, I really liked your reply about aiming for the ideal.
ReplyDelete