Scan barcode
schmidtellie's review
5.0
It was a longer, simpler version of the John Webster essay on the Holiness of God. In other words, it was very good.
josiahrichardson's review
3.0
This is tough to give a straightforward rating for because it is both good and poor, depending. The good is that Carson does a great job explicating the different sorts of love that we see in the Triune God. Most non-Christians completely misconstrue the love of God - understanding it to be something outside of what it actually is. The same can be said of Christians who too heavily weigh the love of God against his many other attributes. These reminders were good and helpful.
At the same time, I really struggle to rate highly any work that I believe strikes at the heart of Classical orthodoxy, which Carson (I would argue) gets dangerously close to doing in this work. Carson reads the Bible for a living, so I’m not going to pretend that he is not far more intelligent than I, yet I fail to see the coherence in his argument against divine impassibility. While Carson caveats his swipe against impassibility by saying things like “If by impassibility, we mean… then I affirm it,” but then goes forward in his diatribe against the very thing he states his affirmation in. If nothing else, he confuses the reader as to what impassibility is, and gives no argument in defense of the doctrine, instead choosing to spend his page count on why we should rethink the doctrine.
Secondly, while he relegates the discussion to the endnotes, Carson comes close to either affirming or allowing the Eternal Functional Subordination of the Son as a legitimate and Biblical belief. Again, He caveats his words by saying that we “shouldn’t mess with the Trinity,” but goes on to say that an article that repudiated EFS/ESS was ostensibly an awful paper full of eisegesis and other sophomoric errors and then hat tips an EFS/ESS author for being logical.
What is interesting to me is that these two subjects would be very high on my list of things to use as proofs for the love of God, not as things to deviate from classical orthodoxy in order to support my understanding of the love of God. In terms of Impassibility, as James Dolezal poignantly mentioned, "God does not move from emotive state A to emotive state B.” If God has a state of love towards us, His actions are in perfect unity with His attributes and that state cannot be manipulated in any way. There is something to be said here about how immutability and impassibility are inextricably connected. In terms of EFS/ESS, the disunity created in the trinity is certainly a problem in affirming the love of God. But we must affirm that the way in which we are loved is the way we have always been loved from all eternity (Eph. 1:4-6). The love we receive is a trinitarian love and flirting with the ESS debacle undercuts it harshly.
At the same time, I really struggle to rate highly any work that I believe strikes at the heart of Classical orthodoxy, which Carson (I would argue) gets dangerously close to doing in this work. Carson reads the Bible for a living, so I’m not going to pretend that he is not far more intelligent than I, yet I fail to see the coherence in his argument against divine impassibility. While Carson caveats his swipe against impassibility by saying things like “If by impassibility, we mean… then I affirm it,” but then goes forward in his diatribe against the very thing he states his affirmation in. If nothing else, he confuses the reader as to what impassibility is, and gives no argument in defense of the doctrine, instead choosing to spend his page count on why we should rethink the doctrine.
Secondly, while he relegates the discussion to the endnotes, Carson comes close to either affirming or allowing the Eternal Functional Subordination of the Son as a legitimate and Biblical belief. Again, He caveats his words by saying that we “shouldn’t mess with the Trinity,” but goes on to say that an article that repudiated EFS/ESS was ostensibly an awful paper full of eisegesis and other sophomoric errors and then hat tips an EFS/ESS author for being logical.
What is interesting to me is that these two subjects would be very high on my list of things to use as proofs for the love of God, not as things to deviate from classical orthodoxy in order to support my understanding of the love of God. In terms of Impassibility, as James Dolezal poignantly mentioned, "God does not move from emotive state A to emotive state B.” If God has a state of love towards us, His actions are in perfect unity with His attributes and that state cannot be manipulated in any way. There is something to be said here about how immutability and impassibility are inextricably connected. In terms of EFS/ESS, the disunity created in the trinity is certainly a problem in affirming the love of God. But we must affirm that the way in which we are loved is the way we have always been loved from all eternity (Eph. 1:4-6). The love we receive is a trinitarian love and flirting with the ESS debacle undercuts it harshly.
michaelesch's review
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
3.5
In this book DA Carson gives a logical argument for the complex nature of God's love. He creates 5 categories that help define God's love. He explains that if or when people become absolutist on these categories they end up running into issues with apparent contradictions in scripture, then use bad arguments for their position.
Carson makes really good argument and I particularly liked the chapter on intra-trinitarian love of God. It was insightful and helpful in gaining insight into the nature of God.
This book is very short, less than 100 pages. It felt more like an outline to a book, than a book. Each chapter is broken out into a header with sub headers with numbered points. Connecting the paragraphs between the sub headers were disjointed and had a difficult flow. I personally did not like that.
Carson makes really good argument and I particularly liked the chapter on intra-trinitarian love of God. It was insightful and helpful in gaining insight into the nature of God.
This book is very short, less than 100 pages. It felt more like an outline to a book, than a book. Each chapter is broken out into a header with sub headers with numbered points. Connecting the paragraphs between the sub headers were disjointed and had a difficult flow. I personally did not like that.
josh_flick's review
4.0
Non-fiction. This was very interesting. It presents a way of thinking about God's love that is non-reductionistic and complex, but that strikes me as right. I don't give it 5 stars only because there wasn't much to apply practically. But our understanding of God is paramount. 4 stars on a non-fiction scale.
hgbutchwalker's review
4.0
Short discussion of the different ways the Bible talks about God's love. Not too academic but certainly thought-provoking.
mmwreads's review
4.0
Theologically helpful but very dense. Took me a while to get through for such a short book.
megpsmit's review
4.0
This book was not something I would typically pick up. I thought it was interesting but much to academic for my tastes. I really liked a few of his points and have found myself thinking of them again.
ianmrowland's review against another edition
challenging
informative
medium-paced
4.0
Excellent small book that takes a more balanced view of the love of God, both theologically, pastorally and scripturally. Readable and detailed enough, despite being a taster, to encourage greater reflection and nuance when talking, thinking and preaching about God.