God loves the sinner...

[Orionthehunter]

If you say so; however, that God’s love in unconditional is simply wishful thinking on the part of some sinners, no more, no less. Where does it say that God’s love is unconditional. If we have to repent before we are forgiven, that means His love is conditional upon repentance. His love cannot be conditional upon repentance and be unconditional at the same time – not from where I come from. I, too, wish His love were unconditional, but it cannot be because of our free will.uch:

You are confusing two issues- God’s love for us and forgiveness/salvation. God’s love is perfect and unconditional. Conditional love is imperfect and God is perfect.

If I fail to repent, God still loves me perfectly and is saddened because I have chosen Hell/Sin over His love and eternal presence with Him.

 

[Carmelo]

This is a very complex and important topic and, if I may suggest, we should first examen a more comprehensive introductory treatment of it. Thereafter, we should be better prepared to do more. For a 7000-word treatment of “God Loves the sinner…” and more so on “God’s unconditional love”, see the April-May 2007 issue of Catholic Family Live Messenger at %between%

 

[Orionthehunter]

This is a very complex and important topic and, if I may suggest, we should first examen a more comprehensive introductory treatment of it. Thereafter, we should be better prepared to do more. For a 7000-word treatment of “God Loves the sinner…” and more so on “God’s unconditional love”, see the April-May 2007 issue of Catholic Family Live Messenger at %between%
I read this blog and the author doesn’t even tell us who he is. His view is certainly of no more credence than mine.

God is perfect. Nothing about Him depends on us or our conduct. He was perfectly complete before He made us and He is perfectly complete after He made us. All He has given us is unconditional- Given to us because He loves us and this includes His offer for us to spend eternity with Him.

But, the choice is ours. He has told us that our sin is a denial of His offer. And because He loves us, He respects our decision to reject His offer.

Your esteemed self-appointed authority goes to great length to criticize and chastise others who actually speak w/ authority granted by the Church. But none of this will convince you so let me give you an authority with whom you should respect.

“The Son of God loved us first, while «we were yet sinners» (Rom 5:6), with an unconditional love which asks nothing in return.” MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II FOR LENT 2003

“We are the people of life because God, in his unconditional love, has given us the Gospel of life and by this same Gospel we have been transformed and saved. We have been ransomed by the “Author of life” (Acts 3:15) at the price of his precious blood (cf. 1 Cor 6:20; 7:23; 1 Pet 1:19)” POPE JPII IN HIS ENCYCLICAL “Evangelium vitae”

And finally from Pope Benedicts first encyclical “DEUS CARITAS EST” (God is Love):

“Since God has first loved us (cf. 1 Jn 4:10), love is now no longer a mere “command”; it is the response to the gift of love with which God draws near to us.”

"In a world where the name of God is sometimes associated with vengeance or even a duty of hatred and violence, this message is both timely and significant. For this reason, I wish in my first Encyclical to speak of the love which God lavishes upon us and which we in turn must share with others. That, in essence, is what the two main parts of this Letter are about, and they are profoundly interconnected . . . to clarify some essential facts concerning the love which God mysteriously and gratuitously offers to man, together with the intrinsic link between that Love and the reality of human love. "

“God does not demand of us a feeling which we ourselves are incapable of producing. He loves us, he makes us see and experience his love, and since he has “loved us first”, love can also blossom as a response within us.”

I would suggest that you read this encyclical. The essence of it is we are called to love ALL regardless of their individual merit but because God loves them.

 

[Carmelo]

With all do respect to Orionthehunter, it is extremely unlikely if not impossible that he read the April-May Issue post at CFLM.blogspot.com because the author’s name appears in several places. How can I be so sure? I had to read it a dozen times before publication.
Furthermore, you make no specific point regarding any erroneous statement therein. Instead, you take off on tangents, not really related, with your warm and fuzzy feelings.
Finally, you quote a Lenten address of John Paul II in 2003, that is not in its original language, or is it a verified translation, or an official document. As for the encyclical DEUS CARITAS EST by Benedict XVI, the passage you quote is a mistranslation from the Latin. Got to check with the originals on this sort of stuff; the loss of anyone’s soul is that important.
At any rate, even if God’s unconditional love existed, as you say, it will be of little use if we can still go to Hell with it. It is better to say that God’s love is undeserved vs. unconditional. The only unconditional love that exists should be our love for God. We are His servants; He owes us nothing for He is our creator. That is why the expression (“God’s unconditional love”) is not in the original of any official Church document. It is only wishful and convenient thinking by many good but uniformed people. So, what’s new?

 

[Orionthehunter]

With all do respect to Orionthehunter, it is extremely unlikely if not impossible that he read the April-May Issue post at CFLM.blogspot.com because the author’s name appears in several places. How can I be so sure? I had to read it a dozen times before publication.
Furthermore, **you make no specific point regarding any erroneous statement therein. ** Instead, you take off on tangents, not really related, with your warm and fuzzy feelings.
**Finally, you quote a Lenten address of John Paul II in 2003, that is not in its original language, or is it a verified translation, or an official document. As for the encyclical DEUS CARITAS EST by Benedict XVI, the passage you quote is a mistranslation from the Latin. ** Got to check with the originals on this sort of stuff; the loss of anyone’s soul is that important.
At any rate, even if God’s unconditional love existed, as you say, it will be of little use if we can still go to Hell with it. It is better to say that God’s love is undeserved vs. unconditional. The only unconditional love that exists should be our love for God. We are His servants; He owes us nothing for He is our creator. That is why the expression (“God’s unconditional love”) is not in the original of any official Church document. It is only wishful and convenient thinking by many good but uniformed people. So, what’s new?

I didn’t specifically address points made in the blog because its premise has been addressed in my previous posts. Most importantly, the concept that God’s love is “conditional” on us in any way means that His love isn’t perfect. God is perfect and unchanging. To attribute a trait to God that is changing belies an incorrect concept of the Holy One. The Encyclical of PBXVI is entitled “God is Love”. It is what God is, His very nature, the I AM. In PBXVI’s encyclical, the Pope talks about the different forms of love (“storge” (affection), “philia” (friendship), “eros” (sexual or romantic love) and “agape” (selfless love). God’s love in the context of “unconditional love” is perfection of agape (descending love as said by PBXVI) which flows from Him to us without condition.

In my mind, the confusion and focus of the blog is related to philia (friendship) love which is by definition conditional. This is where our sin and lack of humility breaks our bond/relationship with God. But it is important to keep in mind that while English has one word for Love, there are four concepts of love that are distinct as described by storge, philia, eros, and agape. See this quote specifically in PBXVI’s encyclical “As for the term philia, the love of friendship, it is used with added depth of meaning in Saint John’s Gospel in order to express the relationship between Jesus and his disciples.”

My source for the Lenten Address of Pope John Paul II and the Encyclical by Pope Benedict are the Vatican. I’m sorry but I will rely on the translation the Pope puts on his own website. It may not be in the original but it is in the approved translation upon which the faithful are to rely. Using this line of thinking, I could debunk the blog because it uses Scripture verses in English.

But I digress, the Pope’s encyclical talks specifically about how in the original Scripture different words are used for love in different settings. So, you are correct that we need to make sure we are interpreting in light of the original text and intended form of love. However, the blog author made no such distinction. He made the same mistake during his long listing of times God hates.

Lenten Address: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/lent/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_20030206_lent-2003_en.html

Pope Benedict Encyclical: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

With regard to your comment “what good is it (unconditional love) if you can still go to Hell with it”, I agree it is small consolation. But the fact remains, God will love us perfectly, unconditionally, and eternally even though we have chosen to deny Him and are in Hell. He will accept our decision to choose Hell because out of love He respects our free will.

Finally, there is nothing convenient and wishful in my line of thinking. God is perfect and His Love is perfect. Nothing I have said infers that it ensures our salvation. But this unconditional Love is critical. Nothing we can do can merit our salvation. It is the mediation of Christ to Divine Mercy which allows us a reasonable Hope in Salvation. We have Hope because the Deposit of Faith He left with the Apostles and their successors gives us the means to discern God’s will for us, God’s Love for us, and us to properly respond to this Love.

Unconditional Love is why God made creation, why He became Incarnate, and why He died for us. Praise be to God!!!

 

[Carmelo]

(This is page 2 of this reply, for page 1 and 3, see posts immediately above and below this.)

 But I digress, the Pope's encyclical talks specifically about how in the original Scripture different words are used for love in different settings.  [The blog does not disagree and neither do I.]  So, you are correct that we need to make sure we are interpreting in light of the original text and intended form of love.  [Thanks for the vote of confidence.  Even so, the meaning does not seem clear here because you do not quote anything from the original, and whatever you want to say is not fully expressed for those of us who cannot read minds]  However, the blog author made no such distinction.  [What happened to the vote of confidence?  Maybe the author did not think he had to do it the way you feel – whatever that is.  Nonetheless, assuming what you say is true, let he or she who can say all things all the time as others would like it said cast the first pebble.]  He made the same mistake during his long listing of times God hates.  [Again, what is the specific mistake – quote it -- if you want to have serious discussion you cannot fudge it in.  Perhaps, the author of the blog did not know you wanted “that” (whatever it is) distinction made in a certain way.  I hope you do not think it is a mistake for the blog to list when, what, and who God hates – as written in Scripture.]
 Lenten Address: [vatican.va/holy_father/jo...t-2003_en.html](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo...t-2003_en.html)

[This is not in the same category as an encyclical, and you should look at the original or one of the “daughter” languages; otherwise, I can say to you to read a similar address by our present Pope at the 11th annual World Day of Consecrated Life (2-2-2007) where he disagrees with you, in the above paragraph, when the Pope said that: “Consecrated life, therefore, is by its nature a total and definitive, UNCONDITIONAL AND PASSIONATE RESPONSE T O G O D” (emphasis added. cf. Vita Consecrata, 17, and Para 29, of the April-May post at CFLM.blogspot.com). Note, in your response above, you do not seem to mention this statement by the Pope, which happens to be in agreement with my view of the proper use of “unconditional love.”. Therefore, if the best we can hope for is an unconditional response to God by consecrated people, could it be less or more for those of us who are not consecrated to the same extent?]
Pope Benedict Encyclical: vatican.va/holy_father/be…as-est_en.html [Deus Caritas Est]

 [This IS an official Church document when in its original version. Technically, it becomes official and authoritative, as it were, only after it is entered in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS) record at the Vatican.  Nonetheless, let us assume for a moment that the English translation is exactly as the AAS copy.  As indicated elsewhere (see Para 28 of the April-May post at the CFLM.blogspot.com), the encyclical God Is Love has 274 ‘love’ entries, but not one of them refers to God’s unconditional love.  Did you miss this small fact in Para 28 when you read the post?

I must admit, however, that the English translation of another official Church document, the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, by JPII, does use the words unconditional love of God in Para 79. In addition, I must confess that I was a bit shocked and could not believe what my eyes were reading at the time. So being what I am, I decided to research the Vatican website a bit further. After I examined the French, German, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, and Spanish translations, the word ‘unconditional’ was not making itself visible. Instead, in its place, the other translations had words like these: free, gratuitous, unselfish, and undeserved. These words, as you know, do not have the same meaning as unconditional, and the other non-English translation could have used the equivalent of unconditional. What say you now, Orionthehunter?
Finally, a very convincing passage that helped me to know that “God’s unconditional love” is not a theologically correct statement was Para 33 of the Encyclical Sacramentum Caritatis (The Sacrament of Love) by Benedict XVI, 22-2-2007. It states in part: “Her [Mary’s] immaculate conception is revealed precisely in her UNCONDITIONAL DOCILITY TO GOD’S WORD. Obedient faith in response to God’s work shapes her life at every moment.” (Emphasis added.) That is the only place where the word unconditional appeared in the entire document. This is why I have stated that our love should be unconditional toward God – not the other way around as you say. The Pope could have said that God’s love is unconditional either in The Sacrament of Love or in God Is Love, or at any other time he wishes. Unfortunately, he has not stated in any of his writings that God’s love is unconditional, to my knowledge.
(Because of restrictions, page 3 of this reply will follow this post immediately. Hopefully it will work.)

 

[Carmelo]

Because my response to Orionthehunter (his Post # 65) is too long, it was rejected. I tried to convert to an acceptable format to attach it, but there is a problem with my converter. So, if you should like to read it, please go to CFLM.blogspot.com It is the first post beginning with:

FRIDAY, June 22, 2007
Hello Orionthehunter…

Hopefully, this will work.

In JMJ,

Carmelo

 

[rruais]

I didn’t specifically address points made in the blog because its premise has been addressed in my previous posts. Most importantly, the concept that God’s love is “conditional” on us in any way means that His love isn’t perfect. God is perfect and unchanging. To attribute a trait to God that is changing belies an incorrect concept of the Holy One. The Encyclical of PBXVI is entitled “God is Love”. It is what God is, His very nature, the I AM. In PBXVI’s encyclical, the Pope talks about the different forms of love (“storge” (affection), “philia” (friendship), “eros” (sexual or romantic love) and “agape” (selfless love). God’s love in the context of “unconditional love” is perfection of agape (descending love as said by PBXVI) which flows from Him to us without condition.

In my mind, the confusion and focus of the blog is related to philia (friendship) love which is by definition conditional. This is where our sin and lack of humility breaks our bond/relationship with God. But it is important to keep in mind that while English has one word for Love, there are four concepts of love that are distinct as described by storge, philia, eros, and agape. See this quote specifically in PBXVI’s encyclical “As for the term philia, the love of friendship, it is used with added depth of meaning in Saint John’s Gospel in order to express the relationship between Jesus and his disciples.”

My source for the Lenten Address of Pope John Paul II and the Encyclical by Pope Benedict are the Vatican. I’m sorry but I will rely on the translation the Pope puts on his own website. It may not be in the original but it is in the approved translation upon which the faithful are to rely. Using this line of thinking, I could debunk the blog because it uses Scripture verses in English.

But I digress, the Pope’s encyclical talks specifically about how in the original Scripture different words are used for love in different settings. So, you are correct that we need to make sure we are interpreting in light of the original text and intended form of love. However, the blog author made no such distinction. He made the same mistake during his long listing of times God hates.

Lenten Address: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/lent/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_20030206_lent-2003_en.html

Pope Benedict Encyclical: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

With regard to your comment “what good is it (unconditional love) if you can still go to Hell with it”, I agree it is small consolation. But the fact remains, God will love us perfectly, unconditionally, and eternally even though we have chosen to deny Him and are in Hell. He will accept our decision to choose Hell because out of love He respects our free will.

Finally, there is nothing convenient and wishful in my line of thinking. God is perfect and His Love is perfect. Nothing I have said infers that it ensures our salvation. But this unconditional Love is critical. Nothing we can do can merit our salvation. It is the mediation of Christ to Divine Mercy which allows us a reasonable Hope in Salvation. We have Hope because the Deposit of Faith He left with the Apostles and their successors gives us the means to discern God’s will for us, God’s Love for us, and us to properly respond to this Love.

Unconditional Love is why God made creation, why He became Incarnate, and why He died for us. Praise be to God!!!

 

[rruais]

From the website newoxfordreview.org/letters.jsp?did=0406-letters , we find the paragraph below. What follows are my comments on the topic.
“In our New Oxford Note (Oct. 2005), we gave four passages from Scripture that say that God or Jesus “hates” unrepentant sinners (Ps. 5:5; Sir. 12:6; Sir. 15:13; Rev. 2:6-7). … There are many more passages that say that God inflicts vengeance and wrath upon His enemies. We don’t know how you can argue with Scripture.”
No doubt about it, you can not argue with scripture! However, “In the past century the Catholic Church has developed more fully the proper fundamentals of interpretation for the modern exegete. Three documents: Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII; Divino Afflante Spiritu by Pope Pius XII; and especially Dei Verbum, a document of the Second Vatican Council, have all contributed greatly to the development of these principles” (see Eric Sammons). Essentially what the church is talking about here is that Catholics do not interpret the bible literally. We are to read the Bible from a context perspective. We are advised that context has multiple dimensions: author, his writing style, his audience. What is the context; is he teaching, preaching, admonishing, warning, cajoling or complementing. We also need to consider any literary devises that the author is using (I.e. hyperbole , personification, etc.). What were the politics at the time? What was the original language and did it have a complete vocabulary?
I am not an exegete. I am simply a person who has been educated Catholic (20 years, grammar school through college). It is somewhat disconcerting for me to see good Catholics try to make a point by extracting favorable phrases from the Bible. Seems to me that is how the ‘bible thumpers’ work. Let’s face it, we can all establish an argument one way or the other if we look for the right phrases in support. But that is not the Catholic way, is it? We need to establish our positions through thorough study and analysis. We analyze the Bible in light of tradition, the Magisterium and the above papal and Vatican statements.
Through the research for this response, I have come to discover the etymology for the word “hate” in the Bible. It does not mean what it literally appears to mean today. It surprised me when I saw “hate: Hebrew word #8130 sane (‘saw-nay’); a primitive root; to hate (personally): KJV - enemy, foe, (be) hate (-ful, -r), odious, utterly. The word “hate” ‘sane’], when used in the Bible, means to “love less.” ” biblestudysite.com/answers37.htm
Consider how the word “hate” has changed over a short period of time in the English language. Do we now interpret the word in the same manner? “For instance, in the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary we find that hate was described as:
HATE, v.t. [L. odi, for hodi.]

1. To dislike greatly; to have a great aversion to. It expresses less than abhor, detest, and abominate, unless pronounced with a peculiar emphasis.
2. In Scripture, it signifies to love less.
   HATE, n. Great dislike or aversion; hatred.
   ―Source: The “1828 Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language”.
   I wonder what its meaning was in 1582 or in 1611.
   Isn’t it interesting how a literal interpretation of the word “hate” yields some bizarre statements (hate your son, hate your parents). Now consider this: apologeticspress.org/articles/601
   “Numerous Greek scholars have added their combined years of study to the discussion to testify that the word “hate” (miseo) in Luke 14:26 does not mean “an active abhorrence,” but means “to love less.” E.W. Bullinger, in his monumental work, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, described the word “hate” in Luke 14:26 as hyperbole. He rendered the word as meaning “does not esteem them less than me” (1968, p. 426). W.E. Vine, the eminent Greek scholar, said the word miseo could carry the meaning of “a relative preference for one thing over another.” He listed Luke 14:26 under this particular definition (1940, p. 198). Lastly, A.B. Bruce, in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, stated that “the practical meaning” of the word “hate” in this verse is “love less” (n.d., p. 575).”
   See also F.F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Downers Grove: IVP, 1983, p.592.
   Consider the statements from ntrf.org/articles/article_detail.php?PRKey=26 “The translators of the KJV, NKJV, RSV, NASB, etc, have properly translated miseo as “hate.” The real understanding of “hate” comes from an understanding of the figures of speech that the rabbis of Jesus’ day and Jesus himself used, not from the translation of the word. We have to understand that a conscious exaggeration or overstatement in order to drive home a truth was commonly used then as it is now. Known as hyperbole, we use this in our everyday speech, advertisements, and writing. Jesus’ statement “It is easier for a camel to …” is a well-known saying. You and I know that a camel cannot go through the eye of a needle and that rich men have entered the kingdom of heaven. Jesus said, “If your right eye offends you, pluck it out.” Did he really mean to pull my eyeball from its socket or did he mean to take every measure I can to fight temptation? If we followed the literal meaning we would all be sightless and without hands. We cannot be sloppy in our attempts to understand Scripture.”
   The point of this is not to prove the “God hates” theory (it even sounds obnoxious) or to prove the “Unconditional love” theory. If the reader comes away from this reading with the impression that using literal interpretations of selective statement s from the Bible is not the way to establish sound Catholic theory, I will have accomplished my goal.