Good questions! There must be something about our nature that is inherently good, and gets darker as we sin, but is always there, at least until at some point we love Satan more than God. I think if we never get to that point of no return, then the spirit of God can/does seek after us, trying to gain us back. Sometimes we feel that tugging and respond by reaching out. If the timing is right, as it must have been in my case, then a change of heart really can take place. I can’t explain it, as I must be one of the worst sinners around. I am an alcoholic and have been in adulterous relationships, and yet God has said “thy sins are forgiven thee.” Go figure. How can one turn their back on that kind of love?

You have probably notice that grace is something I never tire talking about. I am totally fascinated by it. I am not sure I understand just what it is or how it works, but it has become a very powerful motivating force in my life. That is why I think it would/could be interesting to try and understand just what is there about that kind of love that can/does change ones life.

I did read the comments over at BCC about the conditional love talk that Elder Nelson gave. I was on the FAIR list when that talk was given and they had an interesting time discussing it then. I think it was Kevin Barney that to me, said it best. Something like, “he must have meant not keeping the commandants can cause a loss of blessings, but not love.” Anyway, that is how I would understand things.

To say that God may not love us unconditionally, IMO, would lead one to think/believe, what is the use of repenting or trying to live a good life? I am just a jerk, will always be a jerk, if God does not love me now, he never will. I will just accept the way I am and let the chips fall where they may.

On the other hand, believing that God knew what a jerk I was going to be, and loved me anyway then and there, has a certain affect, an enabling power that is beyond description. I think to say otherwise, is deleterious to the spread of the gospel. I do not mean this to sound so harsh, but that is how I see it.

This topic is analogous to the discussion we had about the prodigal son and if he was really forgiven or not. I never did see anything that made me think he was not fully forgiven, and I have not seen anything that makes me think God does not love us unconditionally. There is my two-cents plus some change. :)

On the other hand, I have to admit I’ve been puzzling a bit ever since I saw this BCC post regarding God’s unconditional love. I only skimmed the comments, but the post simply references an article by Elder Nelson where he basically claims that saying God loves us unconditionally is not a true, scriptural teaching. This is perhaps best expressed in D&C 95:12:

If you keep not my commandments, the love of the Father shall not continue with you, therefore you shall walk in darkness.

I think there are similar teachings in the Bible, though not quite as explicit as this, esp. in the Gospel of John. Anyway, I think Elder Nelson’s way of stating this point is rather startling, but worth taking up esp. in the context of Paul. I’m planning on somehow taking up this issue more carefully at some point, but I’d welcome anyone’s thoughts on this (and don’t worry about threadjacking, discussion’s died down on this thread anyway).

I agree with Robert here. I did not get anything from Blake’s book that would undermine the evangelicals view of grace. But for a suggestion of some topic someone might want to tackle, would be the metaphysics of grace, which might involve love or agape. It may not get all that many comments, it could be hard to do. But I would find it very interesting.

I once read something Clark said, something about, he could not explain why he loved his wife. At first I thought that was a no-brainer, but after trying to articulate it to myself, (why I love my wife) I now agree with him. Anyway, just a thought and a suggestion, not trying to hijack this thread.

I’ve only skimmed Blake’s chapters on Paul so far, but I plan to look at them more carefully in the next few weeks (or months…). Since we’re coming up on Paul soon in Sunday school, I think it’d be a great time for you to move on to the Paul chapters in your review series of Blake’s book.

I’m not very clear on exactly how the NPP differs from traditional views when it comes to grace, though I think you’re right that the NPP at least views good works as a symptom of covenantal membership (and therefore not unnecessary). However, I know that there is disagreement about whether “works” generally refers to works-of-the-law, or good works, but I can’t remember who believes what on this point. Dunn I think reads works as works of the law and emphasizes the non-moral, covenantal-status laws like dietary restrictions because his reading of Paul emphasizes covenantal status and law is most importantly a status of being members of the covenant—so on his version of the NPP, I’m not sure there is big critical difference in how grace is viewed per se (i.e. it’s prevenient on both views), or the role of good works (i.e. for Dunn, it seems the covenantal works of the law are in fact not necessary…).

Also, you name David Horrell and gave page numbers but I didn’t see the book you were quoting. Did I miss something?

TT, yes, I think you’re right, thanks. (I was primarily interested in discussing differing views on “justification by faith” in this post, and tying this in to discussions of atonement we’ve had here previously—only subsequently did I decide to bring in some NPP discussion, which I think makes my post more of a glimpse of the NPP through the lens of justification rather than a balanced intro to the NPP.)

For example, James Dunn is one of the most prominent advocates of the NPP, but he believes that Paul did not believe that Christ was pre-mortally divine. I don’t really know Dunn’s position on this very well, so I hesitate to say more, esp. since I don’t understand very well how this relates to the rest of his theology, but needless to say, I’m inclined to disagree with this (though my understanding is that the common Mormon belief that Jehovah was Jesus is not on unquestionable ground, at least historically—that is, I think that before Talmage at least this was viewed as more of an open theological question than it is typically viewed today…).

Also, I think I’m more inclined than Jacob J. to interpret Alma 34 more in light of a substitutionary, traditional view, though I think Jacob has studied this more carefully than I have and has surely articulated his view better than I have (esp. in his Dialogue article, which he made available somewhere on the NCT blog, but you can also read comment #3 here).