I have been told a few times that “love without condition” is flawed. And the reasons keep changing. It seems the bible offers many alternatives as to why love without condition isn’t really “love without condition” at all.
One such argument was “universalism”.
A biblically flawed doctrine because it means everyone is going to heaven (instead of just the saved). And (apart from the obvious “flaw” in that) if everyone is going to heaven – then no one is going to hell. And if no one is going to hell … why should I bother to get saved? Because if we all get to heaven – there is no consequence for sin. And if sin irrelevant – there was no reason for the cross. And if there is no reason (of forgiveness from original sin) – then why the cross AND all the “biblically correct teaching”?
And anyway – we all agree that Jesus died to save our sins – even He said that – so the cross can only have one meaning. And sin is real. And all the stuff that is approved as “biblically correct” is “correct” – and that makes universalism wrong.
A consequence of which also makes love without condition wrong as well.
And a consequence of that of that is to validate and make “biblically correct” the exclusion of those we don’t like enough to include.
There is likely to be some very detailed academic biblically correct approved theology to debunk what I have just written. There will many “verses” that refute what I have just written. All of which reinforces the need for approved and qualified theology in seminaries and theological colleges.
Universalism isn’t talked of much nowadays around the blogs I follow. But sin is. Sin and the need for forgiveness from sin. How we are “born flawed” (which is “original sin” in a different packaging).
It seems to me that we Christians have always loved sin more than we love love.
We love sin because we are saved and others are not … because having been saved we are now on course for the best and most eternal reward ever … and because the unsaved are not … so the unsaved are getting their just desserts – their infinite eternity of pain and suffering (we have just avoided).
Because I have been saved it is now my responsibility to save these unsaved sinners from themselves. Which means convincing them they are flawed and always were (or else what have they to be saved from?)
It also means convincing them they are heading for an eternity in hell unless they agree to be saved (which might be called “transaction”).
It also means they have to buy-in to a qualified theology that I say is biblically correct – the “why” of church attendance and tithing and volunteering and service – the whole institution of “temple”.
Without sin NONE of that is necessary.
“And for me that has become the biggest discriminator – the biggest hypocrisy. “Love – the final frontier” (yesterday)
Because if we are really being “biblically correct” …
* We would all be taught that love without condition is not only possible in this lifetime but is who we are born to be always.
* We would all be taught that love without condition is stronger than steel (and any-all “laws”).
* We would be all taught that love without condition always sees, hears and connects not with our outer “visible” physical intellectual emotional dressings … but with our inner space – the space we keep from this market-place of transaction – from those who seek our souls for themselves.
* We would all be taught that love without condition CANNOT exclude anyone.
* We would all be taught love NOT sin.
I have been writing in this blog-world for several years. And what has always intrigued me is the ease of connecting with that inner space of those who inhabit this blog world too. A world devoid of the houses in which we each live, of the jobs and prestige we all seek, of the income and spending we all must, of the “who I am“ we nurture in the “physical face-to-face world”.
It is a learning I have carried into my face-to-face world. It is a learning Jesus gives in the bible – the “biblically correct” one.
Jesus who loved without condition. Whose love was stronger than steel. Jesus who taught the “universalism” of love without condition – a love which frees rather than binds – which empowers rather than enslaves – which seeds my inner space and which invites me to “bear fruit” in every fibre of my whole inclusive being – even my outer face-to-face being.
So I look around both my face-to-face AND blogging world and wonder this …
Labelling this “universalism” … placing a barrier between me and love without condition … obstructing my relationship with the God you would have me know … demanding that I exclude those you label biblically “unclean” (and therefore to be avoided) … requiring that I avoid “false teachers” (and listen only to your teaching) …
I see that in the bible as well.
And I see Jesus’ response to those who taught this “scripturally correct” doctrine.
He trashed it.
Because “love without condition” means just that. Which is why love without condition is now the only “biblically correct” teaching I can teach.
Somewhere you said “Conditional Unconditional Love?”
Hi Andrew – cannot find that exact phrase. Help please … ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
If I remember correctly it was among a conversaton we were all having via the Comments = a search on llove perhaps
Of course cannot find it now but I think it was during our discussions about Original Sin. I will keep looking because it was a circular conversation beginning with unconditional love and ending with conditional Unconditional love – conditional on our salvation????
That makes senses, thank you. And something I can quite accept commenting. Only because the “unconditional” -> “conditional unconditional” makes less and less sense to me.
And the less it makes sense the less original sin (or being born “flawed” as it has now been packaged) also makes sense.
The whole “system” needs sin to run. And the more I look at that, the less I see “God” and the more I see “religion”. Take away “religiously defined sin” and much that is demanded and needed becomes needless. And “love” is “needless”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is it