The love of God in Delighting in the Trinity

In Delighting in the Trinity, Michael Reeves discusses how God's triune-ness and God's love go hand in hand. God has been loving within the trinity since eternity. The Father loves the Son and the Spirit; the Son loves the Father and the Spirit; the Spirit loves the Father and the Son. God is love, and always has been love and loving.

With this in mind, Reeves brings up the idea of humanity's fall; part of that picture is the idea of Adam and Eve directing the love they had for God to something other than God: ourselves and anything but God. To this catastrophic event, God responded in love. Reeves writes,

Astonishingly, it was this very rejection of God that drew forth the extreme depths of his love. In his response to sin we see deeper than ever into the very being of God. “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that We loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 Jn 4:8-10). 

The God who is love definitively displays that love to the World by sending us his eternally beloved Son to atone for our sin. (68)

And so, it is in the cross-God's remedy for sin-that we see God's love poured out most profoundly and prolifically. Reeves continues:

Without the cross, we could never have imagined the depth and seriousness of What it means to say that God is love. “This is how we know What love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us” (1 Jn 3:16). On the cross we see the great holiness of God’s love, that the light of his pure love will destroy the darkness of sin and evil. On the cross we see the intensity and strength of his love, that it is not an insipid thing at all, but majestically strong as it faces death, battles evil and gives life. For Christ was not bound against his will and dragged to a crucifixion he did not choose. Nobody could take his life from him, he said. “I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father” (Jn 10:18). Jesus’ self-giving love is entirely unconstrained and free. It comes, not from any necessity, but entirely out of who he is, the glory of his Father. Through the cross we see a God who delights to give himself.

Thus, the triune God who has been love since before creation, demonstrates that He is love most gloriously in the cross of Christ. I highly recommend this book by Michael reeves!

Gospeltygoop

Is there too much gospel-talk these days? too much cross-talk? I have seen and read some discussion about current Christianity's use, or perhaps overuse, of terms that involve gospel and cross and the like.

My first thought when I read these articles, blog posts, and various other forms of communication is: what is the alternative? Should we not be talking about the cross and the gospel? Should these things not be the focus of our conversations and communications? Unlikely.

What I think concerned Christians are getting at is the idea that it seems easy these days to talk about the gospel, to fit gospel into a catchy title for a conference, or liberally season our writing with related phrases and vocabulary. And when it is easy and hip and cool to speak/write/think a certain way, it can often be done so in a less than genuine way.

And I think the more important issue in this case is the integrity with which we use the words as opposed to the frequency with which we use them.

J. C Ryle wrote on this many years ago in his classic book on sanctification called simply Holiness:

True sanctification then does not consist in talk about religion. This is a point which ought never to be forgotten. The vast increase of education and preaching in these latter days makes it absolutely necessary to raise a warning voice. People hear so much of Gospel truth that they contract an unholy familiarity with its words and phrases, and sometimes talk so fluently about its doctrines that you might think them true Christians. In fact it is sickening and disgusting to hear the cool and flippant language which many pour out about “conversion - the Saviour - the Gospel - finding peace - free grace,” and the like, while they are notoriously serving sin or living for the world. Can we doubt that such talk is abominable in God’s sight, and is little better than cursing, swearing, and taking God’s name in vain? The tongue is not the only member that Christ bids us give to His service. God does not want His people to be mere empty tubs, sounding brass and tinkling cymbals. We must be sanctified, not only “in word and in tongue, but in deed and truth.” (1 John iii. 18.)

As is evident, Ryle played hardball. But again, he is not condemning the accurate and honest use of the words. What he contends against is the "cool and flippant" employing of phraseology that sounds Christian when there is a lack of Christian sanctification evidenced in the life.

So, I say keep using the words. Let our speech be seasoned with talk of the cross and let our writing be permeated with gospel this and gospel that. But let our words, whether in our mouths or on our screens, be spoken with authenticity.