Is the God of the Bible loving? --- OnceConvinced vs Drs

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8969
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 66 times
Contact:

Is the God of the Bible loving? --- OnceConvinced vs Drs

Post #1

Post by OnceConvinced »

Thanks to Drs for taking up my challenge to a head to head debate on whether God is the God of love the bible claims him to be. This is certainly my first time doing a Head to head debate, although Drs and I have already been sort of doing that in another thread. Of course this one will be more carefully moderated.

I expect one of the moderators will start a thread where other members can comment on the debate as it goes, so please do comment.

Drs and I have both agreed that the bible should be used as an accurate source of information to gain examples to support our arguments. Therefore we take the position that the Bible God exists and the acts he has done in the bible did happen.

We have not limited out posts, but we will try to keep focussed on a few points at a time.

We will be looking at the following attributes that the bible/God tells us are “love�. We will then debate whether God displays these attributes himself. The list I have is as follows: (Drs may wish to add other attributes to this list if I have missed any).

Meet the needs of those without (feeding, protection and clothing, etc)
(Matt 25:31-46 Romans 12:9-21 1 John 3: 17- 18 and many others)

Being willing to lay down your life (John 15:13)

There is no fear in love –(1 John 4:18)

1 Cor 13:4-8
It does not envy
It does not boast/ not proud
It is not rude
It is not self-seeking.
It is not easily angered
It keeps no record of wrongs.
It always trusts
It always perseveres/ long suffering – bears all things

Of course I will be taking the stance that God is not loving based on these attributes, while Drs will take the stance that he is.

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8969
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 66 times
Contact:

Post #11

Post by OnceConvinced »

Drs wrote:

You are bound by time, example someone wrongs you, and you either forgive them or do not hold it against them right away. This would be considered not keeping a record of wrong, imputing evil towards this person or holding a grudge.

(you are failing to see that you can forgive someone before they ask you for forgiveness)


You can not look at this from a human perspective concerning forgivness of GOD.

At the bottom of my last post I wrote this
An account of wrongs is based on a time factor.

To claim that God exists outside of time and is omniscient is a whole new debate. To claim it as such, we would first have to agree that is true. I personally believe that God is not omnisicient based on what the bible says and that he is bound by time.

If God loves everyone as you now seem to be stating in the other thread, Does the Christian God love everyone then that record is held against unbelievers, God's enemies. You can't have love both ways. It's either love, defined by the bible itself, or it's not love.

I think Confused does raise a point and we are not going to get very far very fast if you are continually going to take an accepted meaning of a phrase or word in the bible and attempt to change it's meaning to suit your own chosen doctrines. Perhaps with the next lot of attributes we may have to define certain terms before we start on them.

drs wrote:
drs wrote: The word translated "thinketh" (Gk. logizomai) is an accountant's word which literally means "to keep a mathematical calculation." It is a word that is used to refer to the writing of something in a bookkeeper's ledger. Now the reason a bookkeeper writes things in a ledger is so that he won't forget them, right? So, what Paul is saying here is, "Love never keeps books on the evil done to it. Love never keeps a running record of everybody's offense. Love never holds others accountable for some wrong, evil, or injury that they have done. Love just forgives and forgets."
But God does exactly that even for those he loves.

Do you not see? God does not forgive, he does not forget until such time as a person repents. This record is held until such a time as that happens.
As we have seen above (it keeps no records of wrongs) is not the best translation.
It is your opinion it is not the best translation, based on the doctrines you believe. I see no reason not to take the words at face value. Many translations translate it to be a "record of wrongs" and that goes along with the concept that there is a slate that needs to be wiped clean. I think it's a bit late to now decide which version of the bible we are going to use as the translation for this debate.

The translation I have used here is the NIV:

1Cr 13:5 It is not rude, it is not self‑seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

The NASB also seems to interpret it this way.

I guess if we cannot agree on what Paul is saying here, then we will have to leave it at that and move onto the next issue.

...........................................

Ok, so let’s take a look at the remaining list of attributes that we have not discussed, just to keep things fresh:

Doing your best to meet needs (feeding, protecting and clothing, etc)
Being willing to lay down your life
There is no fear in love - 1 John 4:18
It does not envy
It is not rude
It is not self-seeking.
It is not easily angered

I would like to strike another four from the list now that we are debating from the perspective that God only loves the elect.

Being willing to lay down your life.
Jesus died on the cross for only those he loved. Therefore there is nothing to debate that I can see on this attribute. Do you agree that we can tick that one off as God having passed the test?

Is not easily angered
From the perspective that God loves everyone, I would have argued here that many times in the bible he has shown great wrath against those who he supposedly loved. This is definitely an example of God not following what he preaches when it comes to loving your enemy. I would have used the example of how he ordered the stoning of the man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath and how he struck a man dead simply for trying to prevent the ark from falling, or how he turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt, just for disobeying him and looking back. Obvious acts of a God who was quick to anger and does not show love towards his enemies.

However seeing as are discussing from the point of view that God only loves the elect, then we can strike this one off the list as it seems God will not hold anything against those he loves. And even if he does, he is normally forgiving to those he loves and gives many chances. In fact he will allow all manner of atrocities from his loved ones because they are his elect.

Love is not rude:
This is again a trait that God fails on if we take the perspective that God loves everyone. There are many times throughout the bible where he has called people rude names, eg fools, brood of vipers etc etc. One again, not loving especially when God says we should love our enemies. However seeing as we are taking the perspective that God only loves the elect, then none of those distasteful ad-hominem attacks seem to apply. Therefore there appears to be no reason I can see to believe that God is rude to the ones he loves, apart from perhaps ignoring them when they cry out to him for help (we will come to that issue later on when it comes to the final attribute).

No fear in love:
Most of my arguments around this one relate to threats and scare tactics used to pull people into line. Looking at it from the point of view that God loves only the elect I doubt there is very few Christians who would ever admit they became a Christian out of fear of hell. I would have trouble debating this without resorting to a lot of personal opinion and conjecture. I think we’d also find that while I see it as scare tactics, you would not. Unless you really want to put forward a case that God’s elect do not repent due to fear of Hell, I am willing to let this one go.
…………………
I’ll allow you to make any comments on the above if you wish. Then we can move on to the final three topics:
“Love is not self seeking�, “Love is not envious� and then finally the big one; “Love is meeting the needs of others�.

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World

drs
Sage
Posts: 661
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 5:30 pm

Post #12

Post by drs »

OnceConvinced wrote:
Drs wrote:

You are bound by time, example someone wrongs you, and you either forgive them or do not hold it against them right away. This would be considered not keeping a record of wrong, imputing evil towards this person or holding a grudge.

(you are failing to see that you can forgive someone before they ask you for forgiveness)


You can not look at this from a human perspective concerning forgivness of GOD.

At the bottom of my last post I wrote this
An account of wrongs is based on a time factor.

To claim that God exists outside of time and is omniscient is a whole new debate. To claim it as such, we would first have to agree that is true. I personally believe that God is not omnisicient based on what the bible says and that he is bound by time.

LOL in your oppening post#2 you said,


OnceConvinced
2) It always trusts

Trust would be something an omniscient being would not have. He knows exactly what we are going to do before we do it. Trust to me would be an attribute someone would need to have if they did not know what the outcome would be. Therefore it is not applicable when it comes to God.

Would you agree that we can strike these two from the debate?

So you decided to strike out trust because because GOD is omniscient and it would not be applicable to Him and I agreed.

And now you say you do not believe GOD is omniscient according to the bible.



If God loves everyone as you now seem to be stating in the other thread, Does the Christian God love everyone then that record is held against unbelievers, God's enemies. You can't have love both ways. It's either love, defined by the bible itself, or it's not love.

There are many definitions and meanings of love defined in the Bible.

Here are 4 different greek words for love each with multiple meanings.

Further more every time one of these words is used we must look at the context it is being presented in to get a proper understanding.

I am sorry but it is not a simple word with a singular meaning.



http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... =G26&t=KJV


agapē - charity - love 1 corinthians 13


1) affection, good will, love, benevolence, brotherly love

2) love feasts





http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... =G25&t=KJV


agapa� - love Matthew 5:48


1) of persons

a) to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly

2) of things

a) to be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing






http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 5368&t=KJV

phile� - love Matthew 6:5


1) to love

a) to approve of

b) to like

c) sanction

d) to treat affectionately or kindly, to welcome, befriend

2) to show signs of love

a) to kiss

3) to be fond of doing

a) be wont, use to do





http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 2309&t=KJV


thel� - love Mark 12:38


1) to will, have in mind, intend

a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose

b) to desire, to wish

c) to love

1) to like to do a thing, be fond of doing

d) to take delight in, have pleasure



I think Confused does raise a point and we are not going to get very far very fast if you are continually going to take an accepted meaning of a phrase or word in the bible and attempt to change it's meaning to suit your own chosen doctrines. Perhaps with the next lot of attributes we may have to define certain terms before we start on them.

I have attempted to change nothing.

Why would you think the NIV is the accepted meaning or the correct wording?

What I quoted you last post was from Stongs Concordence KJV into Greek

Thinketh no evil
(does not impute sins or hold one accountable)


Also we have to examine the context in which it is being used.



drs wrote:
drs wrote: The word translated "thinketh" (Gk. logizomai) is an accountant's word which literally means "to keep a mathematical calculation." It is a word that is used to refer to the writing of something in a bookkeeper's ledger. Now the reason a bookkeeper writes things in a ledger is so that he won't forget them, right? So, what Paul is saying here is, "Love never keeps books on the evil done to it. Love never keeps a running record of everybody's offense. Love never holds others accountable for some wrong, evil, or injury that they have done. Love just forgives and forgets."
But God does exactly that even for those he loves.

Do you not see? God does not forgive, he does not forget until such time as a person repents. This record is held until such a time as that happens.
As we have seen above (it keeps no records of wrongs) is not the best translation.
It is your opinion it is not the best translation, based on the doctrines you believe. I see no reason not to take the words at face value. Many translations translate it to be a "record of wrongs" and that goes along with the concept that there is a slate that needs to be wiped clean. I think it's a bit late to now decide which version of the bible we are going to use as the translation for this debate.

The translation I have used here is the NIV:

1Cr 13:5 It is not rude, it is not self‑seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

The NASB also seems to interpret it this way.

I am sorry, but I never agreed to take at face value what the NIV says.

And why would it matter what the NASB says? I think it would matter more what the Greek says.


Example, all these have possible different meanings.

When something is in dispute we must look at the original language and the context the words are being used in, then translate it in the correct or best possible way.


it keeps no record of wrongs - NIV

does not take into account a wrong suffered - NASB

thinketh no evil - KJV

is not irritable or resentful - ESV

does not impute evil - DT

Love holds no wrong feelings in the heart - WENT



OnceConviced
God does not hold a written record of sins of those who are saved
In post #4 you agreed that GOD does not hold a written record of sins which was fine because you used the phrase(it does not keep a record of wrongs) in the proper context(does not hold accountable, impute evil,sins)

drs
Ofcourse I agree that child bearning pain will affect believers, but no where in scripture does it say reborn believers are exempt from pain and suffering untill they die and go to Heaven.(Rev 7:14-17,Rev 21:1-4)

And for keeping records of wrong, pain of child birth will not be used against women in the day of judgment nor do reborn women believers have to repent for this
Also this is only a temporal curse which will no longer apply after death so there will be no slate that needs to be wiped clean for this.
OnceConvinced
It may be temporary, but then keeping of records is not necessarily a permanent thing. As we know, when a person accepts Christ as their savior and is saved, the record will be wiped. But the fact is the record was held, even if only temporarily. The fact that the record was even there in the first place shows that God keeps records of wrong doings, thus violating his own rules of what love is.

Then we come to post#6 and somehow you decided to take the curse and turn it into keeping temporary records of wrong which completly changed the meaning of scripture and overturned your previous agreement in post#4




So finaly after 3 more posts each we have the same conclusion, GOD does not hold accountable the sins of those who repent and believe in Him and GOD forknew all from the foundation of the world who would repent past present and future because He is omniscient.




I will comment on the other 4 attributes later.

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8969
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 66 times
Contact:

Post #13

Post by OnceConvinced »

drs wrote:
OnceConvinced wrote:
Drs wrote:

You are bound by time, example someone wrongs you, and you either forgive them or do not hold it against them right away. This would be considered not keeping a record of wrong, imputing evil towards this person or holding a grudge.

(you are failing to see that you can forgive someone before they ask you for forgiveness)


You can not look at this from a human perspective concerning forgivness of GOD.

At the bottom of my last post I wrote this
An account of wrongs is based on a time factor.

To claim that God exists outside of time and is omniscient is a whole new debate. To claim it as such, we would first have to agree that is true. I personally believe that God is not omnisicient based on what the bible says and that he is bound by time.

LOL in your oppening post#2 you said,


OnceConvinced
2) It always trusts

Trust would be something an omniscient being would not have. He knows exactly what we are going to do before we do it. Trust to me would be an attribute someone would need to have if they did not know what the outcome would be. Therefore it is not applicable when it comes to God.

Would you agree that we can strike these two from the debate?

So you decided to strike out trust because because GOD is omniscient and it would not be applicable to Him and I agreed.

And now you say you do not believe GOD is omniscient according to the bible.
I actually thought about this after I posted my latest reply to you and thought, oh, oh that will be seen as an inconsistency. That's the problem when one goes from one point of view to the next.

No, I definitely don't believe God to be omniscient, however with the issue of trust, if God was not omniscient, then I could still see no problem with God trusting humans. In fact his trust I believe would be very gullible. In fact it makes more sense to say that God is not omniscient when it comes to trust. He trusted Adam and Eve not knowing what would happen. He trusts priests not realising they will turn out to be paedophiles. He will trust parents not knowing they will turn out to be child abuses. So see how even if God is not omniscient, he trusts.

But instead of going through all that, I decided to save time by acknowledging your belief of God's omnisicience, take that stance and wipe the issue of trust from the debate, because no matter which way I looked at it, God either does not need to show trust or he does indeed trust. No matter what stance you take he passes when it comes to that attribute.

In hindsight it was a mistake to take the point of view that God is omniscient, I should have remained true to myself on that issue. I should have realised that the issue of God's ominscience would come up later and given the argument I was originally going to give about God's gullible trust in mankind and even Satan (when he assigned him responsibilities in Heaven)

drs wrote: There are many definitions and meanings of love defined in the Bible.
Well now we have to get into personal interpretation and opinion.
drs wrote:
Further more every time one of these words is used we must look at the context it is being presented in to get a proper understanding.

I am sorry but it is not a simple word with a singular meaning.
And who gets to make the call on what the actual meanings of each one is? What one persons sees in context and what another person sees in context is completely different.
drs wrote:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... =G26&t=KJV


agapē - charity - love 1 corinthians 13


1) affection, good will, love, benevolence, brotherly love

2) love feasts





http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... =G25&t=KJV


agapa� - love Matthew 5:48


1) of persons

a) to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly

2) of things

a) to be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing






http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 5368&t=KJV

phile� - love Matthew 6:5


1) to love

a) to approve of

b) to like

c) sanction

d) to treat affectionately or kindly, to welcome, befriend

2) to show signs of love

a) to kiss

3) to be fond of doing

a) be wont, use to do





http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 2309&t=KJV


thel� - love Mark 12:38


1) to will, have in mind, intend

a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose

b) to desire, to wish

c) to love

1) to like to do a thing, be fond of doing

d) to take delight in, have pleasure
None of these definitions are radically different from the other. All four of them talk about "to love". What we have agreed on is the attributes listed in the OP as being attributes of love. These are God's attributes on what love to fellow man should include. None of the scriptures say that they do not apply to your enemies.

If God claims to love his enemies, I see no reason to change the attributes or meaning of "love" to mean something else. The list of attributes still apply, after all those are the attributes we agreed upon when it comes to debating whether God is loving.

Therefore if God loves his enemies, all the points I raised now become valid again. God is easily angered towards those he loves, he envies the love some have for other Gods, he uses fear tactics to gain converts, he is rude to those he loves, he keeps those records of wrongs and judges based on them and his love does not persevere come Judgement Day.

So you can't have it both ways Drs. If God loves his enemies then he loves everyone. Let's keep things consistent. I see no need to alter meanings of the word "love". That seems like a tactic to avoid having to face the fact that God does not practise the love that he preaches.

I think Confused does raise a point and we are not going to get very far very fast if you are continually going to take an accepted meaning of a phrase or word in the bible and attempt to change it's meaning to suit your own chosen doctrines. Perhaps with the next lot of attributes we may have to define certain terms before we start on them.
drs wrote: I have attempted to change nothing.

Why would you think the NIV is the accepted meaning or the correct wording?

What I quoted you last post was from Stongs Concordence KJV into Greek

Thinketh no evil
(does not impute sins or hold one accountable)


Also we have to examine the context in which it is being used.
If God does indeed love his enemies as you now claim, then it's obvious that he does keep a record and holds his enemies accountable. Therefore your argument is refuted.

By the way we did not agree that the Strongs Concordence as to be an authority in this debate.

drs wrote:
drs wrote:
drs wrote: The word translated "thinketh" (Gk. logizomai) is an accountant's word which literally means "to keep a mathematical calculation." It is a word that is used to refer to the writing of something in a bookkeeper's ledger. Now the reason a bookkeeper writes things in a ledger is so that he won't forget them, right? So, what Paul is saying here is, "Love never keeps books on the evil done to it. Love never keeps a running record of everybody's offense. Love never holds others accountable for some wrong, evil, or injury that they have done. Love just forgives and forgets."
But God does exactly that even for those he loves.

Do you not see? God does not forgive, he does not forget until such time as a person repents. This record is held until such a time as that happens.
As we have seen above (it keeps no records of wrongs) is not the best translation.
It is your opinion it is not the best translation, based on the doctrines you believe. I see no reason not to take the words at face value. Many translations translate it to be a "record of wrongs" and that goes along with the concept that there is a slate that needs to be wiped clean. I think it's a bit late to now decide which version of the bible we are going to use as the translation for this debate.

The translation I have used here is the NIV:

1Cr 13:5 It is not rude, it is not self‑seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

The NASB also seems to interpret it this way.

I am sorry, but I never agreed to take at face value what the NIV says.

And why would it matter what the NASB says? I think it would matter more what the Greek says.
I do not know Greek and I doubt you are a Greek scholar either. All we have are English interpretations we can go by. I am not willing to accept your interpretations of Greek words.
drs wrote: Example, all these have possible different meanings.

When something is in dispute we must look at the original language and the context the words are being used in, then translate it in the correct or best possible way.


it keeps no record of wrongs - NIV

does not take into account a wrong suffered - NASB

thinketh no evil - KJV

is not irritable or resentful - ESV

does not impute evil - DT

Love holds no wrong feelings in the heart - WENT
And what we have here is a disagreement on which way to take it. Looking at the overall picture I see it as keeping a record of wrongs. Even you say that the slate must be wiped clean. The slate is a record of wrongs. And now that we have agreed that God loves his enemies, the whole argument about the slate not being wiped clean now applies. All God's enemies will be judged according to the works they have done from a book.


drs
Ofcourse I agree that child bearning pain will affect believers, but no where in scripture does it say reborn believers are exempt from pain and suffering untill they die and go to Heaven.(Rev 7:14-17,Rev 21:1-4)

And for keeping records of wrong, pain of child birth will not be used against women in the day of judgment nor do reborn women believers have to repent for this
Also this is only a temporal curse which will no longer apply after death so there will be no slate that needs to be wiped clean for this.
OnceConvinced
It may be temporary, but then keeping of records is not necessarily a permanent thing. As we know, when a person accepts Christ as their savior and is saved, the record will be wiped. But the fact is the record was held, even if only temporarily. The fact that the record was even there in the first place shows that God keeps records of wrong doings, thus violating his own rules of what love is.

Then we come to post#6 and somehow you decided to take the curse and turn it into keeping temporary records of wrong which completly changed the meaning of scripture and overturned your previous agreement in post#4[/quote]
What? I cannot see where I have overturned anything. I have remained consistent in my claim that curses are a record of wrongs, which is why I brought it up in the first place.
drs wrote:
So finaly after 3 more posts each we have the same conclusion, GOD does not hold accountable the sins of those who repent and believe in Him and GOD forknew all from the foundation of the world who would repent past present and future because He is omniscient.
I have been saying all along that God keeps a record of wrongs. Even you agree that repentence is what clears that record. A record of wrongs is something defined by a time period.

Now that you are claiming God loves his enemies then the attributes we agree on in the opening thread now all come back into play again. God now obviously keeps a record of the wrongs for the enemies he claims to love.

I think we have now come to an issue that we need to resolve here. We agreed that the attributes of love were the ones in the opening post. You have now agreed that God loves his enemies. Therefore the attributes of love apply to everyone in the world, sinners as well as believers. So if you no longer agree that love encompasses those traits, then we can't really debate. Nowhere in the bible does it say those attributes do not apply to love for your enemies. In fact the bible says to bless your enemies.

But, I am once again willing to compromise to avoid this debate dying. I will put aside the issue of God loving his enemies and focus only on God's love for the elect. But I think we will need to agree to disagree on the issue of "records of wrongs" and move on. I think we have both presented our cases and it can be left up to anyone reading to determine who is right and who is wrong. I don't really want to get into a big debate on the meanings of words.

Do you agree that we should move on and examine the next lot of attributes? If so perhaps you will be able to give your definition what what "self-seeking" and "envious" is in biblical terms.

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World

drs
Sage
Posts: 661
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 5:30 pm

Post #14

Post by drs »

drs wrote: There are many definitions and meanings of love defined in the Bible.
Well now we have to get into personal interpretation and opinion.
drs wrote:
Further more every time one of these words is used we must look at the context it is being presented in to get a proper understanding.

I am sorry but it is not a simple word with a singular meaning.
And who gets to make the call on what the actual meanings of each one is? What one persons sees in context and what another person sees in context is completely different.

1) Strongs online concordence to get original hebrew/greek word meaning
2) We look at the words in context with the phrase, verse, paragraph and chapter if needed
3) We use the scripture to understand scripture to help give us proper meaning and understanding.

Then if we still can not agree we move on.



drs wrote:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... =G26&t=KJV


agapē - charity - love 1 corinthians 13


1) affection, good will, love, benevolence, brotherly love

2) love feasts





http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... =G25&t=KJV


agapa� - love Matthew 5:48


1) of persons

a) to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly

2) of things

a) to be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing






http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 5368&t=KJV

phile� - love Matthew 6:5


1) to love

a) to approve of

b) to like

c) sanction

d) to treat affectionately or kindly, to welcome, befriend

2) to show signs of love

a) to kiss

3) to be fond of doing

a) be wont, use to do





http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 2309&t=KJV


thel� - love Mark 12:38


1) to will, have in mind, intend

a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose

b) to desire, to wish

c) to love

1) to like to do a thing, be fond of doing

d) to take delight in, have pleasure
None of these definitions are radically different from the other. All four of them talk about "to love". What we have agreed on is the attributes listed in the OP as being attributes of love. These are God's attributes on what love to fellow man should include. None of the scriptures say that they do not apply to your enemies.
There are 20 different lines with definitions in the 4 words above.

And there 35+ definitions on those 20 lines

By using the defined words I can make many meanings.

But more importantly when the above words are used in scripture in context with other words we get a more precise meaning.


If God claims to love his enemies, I see no reason to change the attributes or meaning of "love" to mean something else. The list of attributes still apply, after all those are the attributes we agreed upon when it comes to debating whether God is loving.
Thats fine we can debate them but you can not use then out of context.


There is clear difference between the love believers are to have for one another compared to the love a believer has for people of the world, and the love a believer has for GOD and the love GOD has for a believer compared to someone who will never repent and continues in evil.


And here we have it, CHRIST gives a new commandment to believers to love one another as HE loves them


John 13 (New King James Version)
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.�


Here we see GOD'S special love for His own


Jeremiah 31:3 (New King James Version)
3 The LORD has appeared of old to me, saying:

“ Yes, I have loved you with an everlasting love;
Therefore with lovingkindness I have drawn you.


And here we see the love GOD commands us to have for Him

Deuteronomy 6:5 (New King James Version)
5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’[d] 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’[e] 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.�


And take note that verse 39(the second is like it)

So CHRIST makes a distinction between the first and greatest commandment love for GOD and the second love your neighber.

Love your GOD with all your heart,mind,stength and soul, these 4 words added to Love enhance its meaning into supreme Love for CHRIST

vs

Love your neighber as yourself, and now we get into loving ones neighbers and enemies by praying for them, giving to those ask, doing good for those who hate you etc.








Therefore if God loves his enemies, all the points I raised now become valid again. God is easily angered towards those he loves, he envies the love some have for other Gods, he uses fear tactics to gain converts, he is rude to those he loves, he keeps those records of wrongs and judges based on them and his love does not persevere come Judgement Day.

You can not use record of wrongs out of context to say that GOD'S love does not persevere(preserve,endure) those who do not repent and continue in evil.



So you can't have it both ways Drs. If God loves his enemies then he loves everyone. Let's keep things consistent. I see no need to alter meanings of the word "love". That seems like a tactic to avoid having to face the fact that God does not practise the love that he preaches.
Alter it? you have yet to define it.

I am sorry, there are clearly diffferent types of love.


Are you going to say when someone uses the word love it means everything listed below?

No you can not and nor can you do that for all the meanigs and definitions of love listed in the Bible.

I stress again that every word and phrase must be taken in proper context always, and we must use the scripture to understand the scripture.




http://www.thefreedictionary.com/love

love (lv)
n.
1. A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
2. A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
3.
a. Sexual passion.
b. Sexual intercourse.
c. A love affair.
4. An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object.
5. A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment.
6. An expression of one's affection: Send him my love.
7.
a. A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language.
b. The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love.
8. Love Mythology Eros or Cupid.
9. often Love Christianity Charity.
10. Sports A zero score in tennis.
v. loved, lov·ing, loves
v.tr.
1. To have a deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward (a person): We love our parents. I love my friends.
2. To have a feeling of intense desire and attraction toward (a person).
3. To have an intense emotional attachment to: loves his house.
4.
a. To embrace or caress.
b. To have sexual intercourse with.
5. To like or desire enthusiastically: loves swimming.
6. Theology To have charity for.
7. To thrive on; need: The cactus loves hot, dry air.
v.intr.
To experience deep affection or intense desire for another.
Idioms:
for love
Out of compassion; with no thought for a reward: She volunteers at the hospital for love.
for love or money
Under any circumstances. Usually used in negative sentences: I would not do that for love or money.
for the love of
For the sake of; in consideration for: did it all for the love of praise.
in love
1. Deeply or passionately enamored: a young couple in love.
2. Highly or immoderately fond: in love with Japanese painting; in love with the sound of her own voice.
no love lost
No affection; animosity: There's no love lost between them.




drs wrote: I have attempted to change nothing.

Why would you think the NIV is the accepted meaning or the correct wording?

What I quoted you last post was from Stongs Concordence KJV into Greek

Thinketh no evil
(does not impute sins or hold one accountable)


Also we have to examine the context in which it is being used.
If God does indeed love his enemies as you now claim, then it's obvious that he does keep a record and holds his enemies accountable. Therefore your argument is refuted.

By the way we did not agree that the Strongs Concordence as to be an authority in this debate


It is fair and impartial to both the KJ and the NIV so I do not see a problem.


The word translated "thinketh" (Gk. logizomai) is an accountant's word which literally means "to keep a mathematical calculation." It is a word that is used to refer to the writing of something in a bookkeeper's ledger. Now the reason a bookkeeper writes things in a ledger is so that he won't forget them, right? So, what Paul is saying here is, "Love never keeps books on the evil done to it. Love never keeps a running record of everybody's offense. Love never holds others accountable for some wrong, evil, or injury that they have done. Love just forgives and forgets."
But God does exactly that even for those he loves.

Do you not see? God does not forgive, he does not forget until such time as a person repents. This record is held until such a time as that happens.

As we have seen above (it keeps no records of wrongs) is not the best translation.
It is your opinion it is not the best translation, based on the doctrines you believe. I see no reason not to take the words at face value. Many translations translate it to be a "record of wrongs" and that goes along with the concept that there is a slate that needs to be wiped clean. I think it's a bit late to now decide which version of the bible we are going to use as the translation for this debate.

The translation I have used here is the NIV:

1Cr 13:5 It is not rude, it is not self‑seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

The NASB also seems to interpret it this way.


I am sorry, but I never agreed to take at face value what the NIV says.

And why would it matter what the NASB says? I think it would matter more what the Greek says
I do not know Greek and I doubt you are a Greek scholar either. All we have are English interpretations we can go by. I am not willing to accept your interpretations of Greek words.

They are Strongs not mine



drs wrote: Example, all these have possible different meanings.

When something is in dispute we must look at the original language and the context the words are being used in, then translate it in the correct or best possible way.


it keeps no record of wrongs - NIV

does not take into account a wrong suffered - NASB

thinketh no evil - KJV

is not irritable or resentful - ESV

does not impute evil - DT

Love holds no wrong feelings in the heart - WENT
And what we have here is a disagreement on which way to take it. Looking at the overall picture I see it as keeping a record of wrongs. Even you say that the slate must be wiped clean. The slate is a record of wrongs. And now that we have agreed that God loves his enemies, the whole argument about the slate not being wiped clean now applies. All God's enemies will be judged according to the works they have done from a book.

GOD'S eternal perserving(enduring,preserving) love for those who repent and believe does not apply to unrepentant sinners which are held accountable for their wrongs.




I think we have now come to an issue that we need to resolve here. We agreed that the attributes of love were the ones in the opening post. You have now agreed that God loves his enemies. Therefore the attributes of love apply to everyone in the world, sinners as well as believers. So if you no longer agree that love encompasses those traits, then we can't really debate. Nowhere in the bible does it say those attributes do not apply to love for your enemies. In fact the bible says to bless your enemies.

As I have shown above GOD'S eternal preserving(persevere) love for His own has nothing to do with love your enemies.

You can not take 1 Corinthians 13 love perseveres(preserves) then just apply it however you wish without examning the context it is being used in.

I do not see how this attribute can apply to the entire world.

First you have to remember that these attributes Paul is speaking of concerns believers(not all people)

Paul is saying believers are to remain,abide in GOD and hold fast to their faith through trials and misfortunes, to endure.

The only possible way to use this in context for GOD'S love is to apply it to those who He will preserve (reborn believers) in CHRIST.




http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 5278&t=KJV

hypomen� - endureth all things KJV - always perserves NIV

1) to remain

a) to tarry behind

2) to remain i.e. abide, not recede or flee

a) to preserve: under misfortunes and trials to hold fast to one's faith in Christ

b) to endure, bear bravely and calmly: ill treatments




And like wise with keeping a record of wrongs(imputing sin,holding accountabe)

And GOD not imputing sin or holding one accountable(keeping record of wrong) does not apply to love your enemies(unrepentant sinners who continue in evil)

Paul is saying here that believers are not to take into account a wrong suffered, not to meditate on think, feel or act in a wrong or wicked way.

And the only way to use this in context for GOD'S love is to say that GOD will not hold accountable or impute sin on those who repent and believe in Him



logizomai Thinketh no evil KJV - it keeps no records of wrongs NIV


1) to reckon, count, compute, calculate, count over

a) to take into account, to make an account of

1) metaph. to pass to one's account, to impute

2) a thing is reckoned as or to be something, i.e. as availing for or equivalent to something, as having the like force and weight

b) to number among, reckon with

c) to reckon or account

2) to reckon inward, count up or weigh the reasons, to deliberate

3) by reckoning up all the reasons, to gather or infer

a) to consider, take into account, weigh, meditate on

b) to suppose, deem, judge

c) to determine, purpose, decide



1) of a bad nature

a) not such as it ought to be

2) of a mode of thinking, feeling, acting

a) base, wrong, wicked

3) troublesome, injurious, pernicious, destructive, baneful




But, I am once again willing to compromise to avoid this debate dying. I will put aside the issue of God loving his enemies and focus only on God's love for the elect. But I think we will need to agree to disagree on the issue of "records of wrongs" and move on. I think we have both presented our cases and it can be left up to anyone reading to determine who is right and who is wrong. I don't really want to get into a big debate on the meanings of words.

Are you serious?

The meaning of words and the context they are being used in is of paramount importance if we our to understand scripture.




Do you agree that we should move on and examine the next lot of attributes?

If you are unwilling to meticulously search to understand the meaning and context of scripture then I do not see much point in continuing the debate.

Why debate the scripture if you are unwilling to seek the true meaning and understanding of what is written?

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8969
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 66 times
Contact:

Post #15

Post by OnceConvinced »

drs wrote:

1) Strongs online concordence to get original hebrew/greek word meaning
2) We look at the words in context with the phrase, verse, paragraph and chapter if needed
3) We use the scripture to understand scripture to help give us proper meaning and understanding.

Then if we still can not agree we move on.
I don't trust the Strongs online concordence when it comes to the English meanings of Hebrew/greek words. Strongs appears to me to alter meanings of English words based on church doctrine.

As for 2 & 3, what you see and I see will be entirely different. The bible is way too open to interpretation and even two holy spirit filled Christians would not agree.
I don't see it as being a practical way to determine meanings.
drs wrote: There are 20 different lines with definitions in the 4 words above.

And there 35+ definitions on those 20 lines

By using the defined words I can make many meanings.

But more importantly when the above words are used in scripture in context with other words we get a more precise meaning.
I so far have not taken anything out of context. However I won't take a word and try to redefine it to suit a particular doctrine.

The rest of your post here shows nothing obvious to differentiate love for believers from unbelievers. You compare love for God vs love for man, but this is not what this debate is about. This debate is about what God defines as love, which we agreed were the attributes in the opening post. Did you not agree to that definition of love?

There is nothing that you have presented that shows that love for believers should be any different to love for unbelievers. Therefore God loves everyone and there fore he cannot be showing to hold the attributes we agreed upon.

drs wrote:
Therefore if God loves his enemies, all the points I raised now become valid again. God is easily angered towards those he loves, he envies the love some have for other Gods, he uses fear tactics to gain converts, he is rude to those he loves, he keeps those records of wrongs and judges based on them and his love does not persevere come Judgement Day.
You can not use record of wrongs out of context to say that GOD'S love does not persevere(preserve,endure) those who do not repent and continue in evil.
I have not taken record of wrongs out of context. A record of wrongs is a list of sins that have been committed over a period of time. Is there any reason why I should reject the NASB or NIV's translations?

Rev 20:12
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Do you deny the above scripture? Am I taking it out of context? There are books/records. God will judge from these according to works.

Rev 20:13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.
Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.[fn4]
Rev 20:15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

It is quite clear that records have been kept and God's enemies will be cast into the lake of fire. God's love for his enemies surely ceases when he no longer shows mercy. It definitely does not perservere.
drs wrote:
So you can't have it both ways Drs. If God loves his enemies then he loves everyone. Let's keep things consistent. I see no need to alter meanings of the word "love". That seems like a tactic to avoid having to face the fact that God does not practise the love that he preaches.
Alter it? you have yet to define it.

I am sorry, there are clearly diffferent types of love.

Are you going to say when someone uses the word love it means everything listed below?
Love was clearly defined in the OP and by accepting the challenge, you agreed that those attributes represented love. Those are the attributes we are discussing here when it comes to God's love. Those are God's definitions himself. Do you now claim they are not? I am not willing to debate on what you believe "love" is but what the bible quite clearly states is what "love" is. The bible has given us quite clear definitions. You agreed to debate on these attributes. To suddenly change the meaning of the word "love" to suit your interpretation of the bible seems to me to be a dishonorable tactic.
Drs wrote:
OC wrote: I do not know Greek and I doubt you are a Greek scholar either. All we have are English interpretations we can go by. I am not willing to accept your interpretations of Greek words.

They are Strongs not mine
But you have chosen selected parts of the strongs definitions to try to show different meanings to the word "love". Each meaning you listed had "to love" or something similar as one of it's meanings. From there we now have to go back to what God defines as love, which is what we have in the OP, which you yourself agreed when you agreed to this debate was the attributes of love.

Drs wrote:
GOD'S eternal perserving(enduring,preserving) love for those who repent and believe does not apply to unrepentant sinners which are held accountable for their wrongs.
In your opinion, based on your interpretations of the bible.

I'll point out again that we agreed in the OP what the attributes of love are. If God loves his enemies, then his love must incorporate those attributes, just as it must when it comes to other human beings.
Drs wrote:
But, I am once again willing to compromise to avoid this debate dying. I will put aside the issue of God loving his enemies and focus only on God's love for the elect. But I think we will need to agree to disagree on the issue of "records of wrongs" and move on. I think we have both presented our cases and it can be left up to anyone reading to determine who is right and who is wrong. I don't really want to get into a big debate on the meanings of words.

Are you serious?

The meaning of words and the context they are being used in is of paramount importance if we our to understand scripture.
I have found trying to debate on the meaning of words is a fruitless exercise and it all comes down to perspective. You have not presented any evidence that shows that love for enemies should be any different to love for your brothers. You just haven't. in fact many of the scripture you quote back up what I am saying, especially things like "love your neighbour as yourself."

Your Strongs definitions definitely do not show any obvious differences and the fact remains that the bible quite clearly states attributes of what love is and those are what we agreed to debate on. God did not claim there was any different between one or the other.

Like I said, I'm willing to compromise. From here, I am willing to adopt the perspective that God is omniscient (even though I don't believe he is). I am also willing to adopt the perspective that God's love for his enemies is different than for his elect (even though I doubt this based on the evidence you have provided). Thus I can then agree that God does not take a record because he is not defined by time (even though his word is aimed at man and therefore you would expect that anything he said would be based on our perspective, not his - I think this is a huge issue, but not something to discuss here). Now that I am willing to adjust my viewpoint we should be able to move on to the next attribute.

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World

drs
Sage
Posts: 661
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 5:30 pm

Post #16

Post by drs »

OnceConvinced wrote:
drs wrote:

1) Strongs online concordence to get original hebrew/greek word meaning
2) We look at the words in context with the phrase, verse, paragraph and chapter if needed
3) We use the scripture to understand scripture to help give us proper meaning and understanding.

Then if we still can not agree we move on.
I don't trust the Strongs online concordence when it comes to the English meanings of Hebrew/greek words. Strongs appears to me to alter meanings of English words based on church doctrine.

As for 2 & 3, what you see and I see will be entirely different. The bible is way too open to interpretation and even two holy spirit filled Christians would not agree.
I don't see it as being a practical way to determine meanings.
drs wrote: There are 20 different lines with definitions in the 4 words above.

And there 35+ definitions on those 20 lines

By using the defined words I can make many meanings.

But more importantly when the above words are used in scripture in context with other words we get a more precise meaning
I so far have not taken anything out of context. However I won't take a word and try to redefine it to suit a particular doctrine.

The rest of your post here shows nothing obvious to differentiate love for believers from unbelievers. You compare love for God vs love for man, but this is not what this debate is about. This debate is about what God defines as love, which we agreed were the attributes in the opening post. Did you not agree to that definition of love?

There is nothing that you have presented that shows that love for believers should be any different to love for unbelievers. Therefore God loves everyone and there fore he cannot be showing to hold the attributes we agreed upon.

Realy? There is no difference betwwen GOD'S love for His chosen elect from the foundation of the world compared to the wicked that will never repent and forsake evil?

You have quoted enough scripture in your other thread Does God love everyone? http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=10011

To show that GOD hates the wicked who will never repent and forsake evil.

And from my last post I showed the clear difference wether you want to acknowledge it or not.

GOD'S love for His own(reborn believers) is different and above that of love for your enemies(do good to those who hate you, pray for those who spitefully use and persecute you, etc)


drs
And here we have it, CHRIST gives a new commandment to believers to love one another as HE loves them


John 13 (New King James Version)
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.�


Here we see GOD'S special love for His own


Jeremiah 31:3 (New King James Version)
3 The LORD has appeared of old to me, saying:

“ Yes, I have loved you with an everlasting love;
Therefore with lovingkindness I have drawn you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GOD'S love for those who will believe

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

verse 10 if you keep my commandments you will abide(preserving love for His own) in my love

verse 14 You are My friends if you do whatever I command you(reborn obedeiant children of CHRIST)

John 15

Love and Joy Perfected

9 “As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. 10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.
11 “These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be full. 12 This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. 14 You are My friends if you do whatever I command you. 15 No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you. 17 These things I command you, that you love one another.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This could not be any more clear,

Those who love CHRIST and keep His commandments GOD will love and manifest Himself in(reborn believers)

John 14 (New King James Version)

21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.�
22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, “Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?�
23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.





-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will now challenge you to prove that GOD'S everlasting love for His elect(reborn believers) will be manifested(verse 23 make Our home,the residing of GOD'S SPIRIT) in those who hate GOD and continue in unrepentant sin refusing to keep CHRIST'S commandments.


If you acknowledge that GOD'S love is different and above(preserving eternal love) for His own(reborn believers, His elect) then that of His enemies then we can move on.





Rev 20:12
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Do you deny the above scripture? Am I taking it out of context? There are books/records. God will judge from these according to works.

Rev 20:13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.
Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.[fn4]
Rev 20:15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
It is quite clear that records have been kept and God's enemies will be cast into the lake of fire. God's love for his enemies surely ceases when he no longer shows mercy. It definitely does not perservere.

verse 15 anyone not found in the book of life from the foundation of the world(all who will repent past present and future) GOD'S omniscient clearly shown here.

GOD'S eternal preserving(perservere) love does not apply to those not found in the book of life from the foundation of the world.



Revelation 13:8 (New King James Version)
8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.





Alter it? you have yet to define it.

I am sorry, there are clearly diffferent types of love.

below
Love was clearly defined in the OP and by accepting the challenge, you agreed that those attributes represented love. Those are the attributes we are discussing here when it comes to God's love. Those are God's definitions himself. Do you now claim they are not? I am not willing to debate on what you believe "love" is but what the bible quite clearly states is what "love" is. The bible has given us quite clear definitions. You agreed to debate on these attributes. To suddenly change the meaning of the word "love" to suit your interpretation of the bible seems to me to be a dishonorable tactic.
They are Strongs not mine
But you have chosen selected parts of the strongs definitions to try to show different meanings to the word "love". Each meaning you listed had "to love" or something similar as one of it's meanings. From there we now have to go back to what God defines as love, which is what we have in the OP, which you yourself agreed when you agreed to this debate was the attributes of love.
Drs wrote:
GOD'S eternal perserving(enduring,preserving) love for those who repent and believe does not apply to unrepentant sinners which are held accountable for their wrongs.
In your opinion, based on your interpretations of the bible.

I'll point out again that we agreed in the OP what the attributes of love are. If God loves his enemies, then his love must incorporate those attributes, just as it must when it comes to other human beings.
Drs wrote:
But, I am once again willing to compromise to avoid this debate dying. I will put aside the issue of God loving his enemies and focus only on God's love for the elect. But I think we will need to agree to disagree on the issue of "records of wrongs" and move on. I think we have both presented our cases and it can be left up to anyone reading to determine who is right and who is wrong. I don't really want to get into a big debate on the meanings of words.

Are you serious?

The meaning of words and the context they are being used in is of paramount importance if we our to understand scripture.
I have found trying to debate on the meaning of words is a fruitless exercise and it all comes down to perspective. You have not presented any evidence that shows that love for enemies should be any different to love for your brothers. You just haven't. in fact many of the scripture you quote back up what I am saying, especially things like "love your neighbour as yourself."

Your Strongs definitions definitely do not show any obvious differences and the fact remains that the bible quite clearly states attributes of what love is and those are what we agreed to debate on. God did not claim there was any different between one or the other.
I am sorry you did not realize this when you picked the attributes from 1 Corinthians 13


The attributes Paul is speaking of apply to himself and other reborn believers in CHRIST.

My last post should have made this clear.


drs
As I have shown above GOD'S eternal preserving(persevere) love for His own has nothing to do with love your enemies.

You can not take 1 Corinthians 13 love perseveres(preserves) then just apply it however you wish without examning the context it is being used in.

I do not see how this attribute can apply to the entire world.

First you have to remember that these attributes Paul is speaking of concerns believers(not all people)

Paul is saying believers are to remain,abide in GOD and hold fast to their faith through trials and misfortunes, to endure.

The only possible way to use this in context for GOD'S love is to apply it to those who He will preserve (reborn believers) in CHRIST.




http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 5278&t=KJV

hypomen� - endureth all things KJV - always perserves NIV

1) to remain

a) to tarry behind

2) to remain i.e. abide, not recede or flee

a) to preserve: under misfortunes and trials to hold fast to one's faith in Christ

b) to endure, bear bravely and calmly: ill treatments

I will challenge you to show that, Always perseves(enduring abiding love and faith in CHRIST) is found in unbelievers(enemies of GOD, the wicked and evil)

If you can not show that this love(persevering,abiding, faith in CHRIST) is found in unbelievers(enemies of GOD) then you can not take it out of context and apply it to GOD'S love preserving His enemies in the day of judgment.


Likewise goes for the rest of the attributes(they apply to believers) so you can not take them and transfer them on to the rest of the word(unbelievers,enemies of GOD, the wicked and evil)



The entire chapter 1 Corinthians 13 is speaking to believers

oppening verse gift of tougnes, which is a continuation of chapter 12, Spiritual gifts.



1 Corinthians 13 (New International Version)
1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.


And here we end chapter 13 with this faith(in CHRIST), hope(in CHRIST) and love(in CHRIST)

NIV
13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.


There is no possible way that these attributes apply to unbelievers,the wicked and those who hate GOD.

Paul is clearly speaking about how the love in the heart/mind of a disciple of CHRIST should be.

If you acknowlege that these attributes do not apply to anyone else but reborn believers in CHRIST we can move on.

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8969
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 66 times
Contact:

Post #17

Post by OnceConvinced »

drs wrote:
Realy? There is no difference betwwen GOD'S love for His chosen elect from the foundation of the world compared to the wicked that will never repent and forsake evil?

You have quoted enough scripture in your other thread Does God love everyone? http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=10011

To show that GOD hates the wicked who will never repent and forsake evil.

And from my last post I showed the clear difference wether you want to acknowledge it or not.

GOD'S love for His own(reborn believers) is different and above that of love for your enemies(do good to those who hate you, pray for those who spitefully use and persecute you, etc)
Aren't bible contradictions wonderful? God loves his enemies... God hates his enemies. I'll go with whatever perspective you want me to go with. Which one is it, love or hate? You decide which one it is and we'll go from there.
drs wrote:
I will now challenge you to prove that GOD'S everlasting love for His elect(reborn believers) will be manifested(verse 23 make Our home,the residing of GOD'S SPIRIT) in those who hate GOD and continue in unrepentant sin refusing to keep CHRIST'S commandments.
But it's what I've been saying all along. God's love does not perservere for his enemies. Therefore he fails on that attribute when it comes to his enemies. It seems you are admitting that here. Perhaps now we can move to another attribute.
drs wrote: If you acknowledge that GOD'S love is different and above(preserving eternal love) for His own(reborn believers, His elect) then that of His enemies then we can move on.
I acknowledge that God's does not show love to his enemies, only to those he considers his elect. God clearly does not love his enemies. I cannot and will not acknowledge that God loves his enemies if he does not show the attributes in the OP. He most definitely cannot claim to love his enemies if he is going to have them all burning for all eternity in Hell.
drs wrote:
Rev 20:12
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Do you deny the above scripture? Am I taking it out of context? There are books/records. God will judge from these according to works.

Rev 20:13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.
Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.[fn4]
Rev 20:15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
It is quite clear that records have been kept and God's enemies will be cast into the lake of fire. God's love for his enemies surely ceases when he no longer shows mercy. It definitely does not perservere.

verse 15 anyone not found in the book of life from the foundation of the world(all who will repent past present and future) GOD'S omniscient clearly shown here.
You're adding words to scripture there. It says nothing about "from the foundation of the world". And what you have here is a threat, not a prophesy. Threats/Unlfilled prophecies do not show God is omniscient.
drs wrote: GOD'S eternal preserving(perservere) love does not apply to those not found in the book of life from the foundation of the world.
Then God cannot claim to love his enemies based on the attributes we agreed as the benchmark for love.
drs wrote: I am sorry you did not realize this when you picked the attributes from 1 Corinthians 13

The attributes Paul is speaking of apply to himself and other reborn believers in CHRIST.
Of course they do. Christians would be expected to show this kind of love, because this is Godly love, the kind God promotes. They also makes sense for unbelievers too and because the world sees them as attributes of love to. If these are what God expects, then if God does not show them himself, he cannot be considered loving by his own definition of what love is.
drs wrote:
I will challenge you to show that, Always perseves(enduring abiding love and faith in CHRIST) is found in unbelievers(enemies of GOD, the wicked and evil)

If you can not show that this love(persevering,abiding, faith in CHRIST) is found in unbelievers(enemies of GOD) then you can not take it out of context and apply it to GOD'S love preserving His enemies in the day of judgment.
Hold on what's with the stuff in the brackets? We are not debating people's love for God. We are talking about love for one another. Do you not believe that perserverence is an important trait when it comes to believers? They too believe that love perserveres through difficulties and that it covers a multitude of sins. You don't just give up on someone you claim to love unless that love dies.

Perserverence is definitely a factor of love from a non-Christian perspective as well. If you love someone, you continue to love them, despite their faults.
drs wrote: Likewise goes for the rest of the attributes(they apply to believers) so you can not take them and transfer them on to the rest of the word(unbelievers,enemies of GOD, the wicked and evil)
But the world acknowledges these attributes, don't they? They are true even in the non-christian world. They are attributes of what love should be.
drs wrote:
The entire chapter 1 Corinthians 13 is speaking to believers

oppening verse gift of tougnes, which is a continuation of chapter 12, Spiritual gifts.



1 Corinthians 13 (New International Version)
1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.


And here we end chapter 13 with this faith(in CHRIST), hope(in CHRIST) and love(in CHRIST)

NIV
13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.


There is no possible way that these attributes apply to unbelievers,the wicked and those who hate GOD.

Paul is clearly speaking about how the love in the heart/mind of a disciple of CHRIST should be.

If you acknowlege that these attributes do not apply to anyone else but reborn believers in CHRIST we can move on.
Whether the scripture applies to unbelievers or not is irrelevent. The fact is they have been adopted by unbelievers as attributes of love.

Come on now Drs, you agreed with the terms of the OP when you started this debate. Let's not take it off on a tangent. You agreed that the attributes listed were what is considered love. If God does not show these attributes, he is not a God of love. If he does not show them to his enemies, then he cannot say he loves his enemies, it's as simple as that.

You have quoted a lot of scriptures to try to claim that God's love for his enemies is a different kind of love for his elect. You claim that I refuse to see that. I have tried to see it, but I can't. What you are doing is injecting your own perspective into the scriptures, your own understanding. I see nothing in your arguments that show that God's love for his enemies should be different to his love for his elect.

Can we please move or we might as end this as this is getting us nowhere. I have said that I will agree to take the perspective that God is omniscient and that God loves only the elect (based on those attributes). You are trying to convince me that your perspective is right, but I disagree with it. I thought you said you were not in this to win debates. So let's leave it at that, let others be the judge on who made the best argument and move on to the next attribute.

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World

drs
Sage
Posts: 661
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 5:30 pm

Post #18

Post by drs »

OnceConvinced wrote:
drs wrote:
Realy? There is no difference betwwen GOD'S love for His chosen elect from the foundation of the world compared to the wicked that will never repent and forsake evil?

You have quoted enough scripture in your other thread Does God love everyone? http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=10011

To show that GOD hates the wicked who will never repent and forsake evil.

And from my last post I showed the clear difference wether you want to acknowledge it or not.

GOD'S love for His own(reborn believers) is different and above that of love for your enemies(do good to those who hate you, pray for those who spitefully use and persecute you, etc)
Aren't bible contradictions wonderful? God loves his enemies... God hates his enemies. I'll go with whatever perspective you want me to go with. Which one is it, love or hate? You decide which one it is and we'll go from there.

There is no contradiction, only lack of understanding.

It is both in the proper context and meaning, that is what scripture says.

please read the entire post before you respond as this will be my last.
drs wrote:
I will now challenge you to prove that GOD'S everlasting love for His elect(reborn believers) will be manifested(verse 23 make Our home,the residing of GOD'S SPIRIT) in those who hate GOD and continue in unrepentant sin refusing to keep CHRIST'S commandments.
But it's what I've been saying all along. God's love does not perservere for his enemies. Therefore he fails on that attribute when it comes to his enemies. It seems you are admitting that here. Perhaps now we can move to another attribute.


GOD does not fail because the attribute of perservere in 1 Corinthians 13 applys to reborn believers in CHRIST.

See below, I do not want to rewrite the same thing.


drs wrote: If you acknowledge that GOD'S love is different and above(preserving eternal love) for His own(reborn believers, His elect) then that of His enemies then we can move on.
I acknowledge that God's does not show love to his enemies, only to those he considers his elect. God clearly does not love his enemies. I cannot and will not acknowledge that God loves his enemies if he does not show the attributes in the OP. He most definitely cannot claim to love his enemies if he is going to have them all burning for all eternity in Hell.

The attributes in the oppening post from 1 Corinthians 13 are how Paul loves CHRIST because GOD put that love in Pauls heart , so the attribute persevere can only be used for GOD towards believers.

See below



drs wrote:
Rev 20:12
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Do you deny the above scripture? Am I taking it out of context? There are books/records. God will judge from these according to works.

Rev 20:13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.
Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.[fn4]
Rev 20:15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
It is quite clear that records have been kept and God's enemies will be cast into the lake of fire. God's love for his enemies surely ceases when he no longer shows mercy. It definitely does not perservere.

verse 15 anyone not found in the book of life from the foundation of the world(all who will repent past present and future) GOD'S omniscient clearly shown here.
You're adding words to scripture there. It says nothing about "from the foundation of the world". This here is a prophecy of a future event. (Yet unfulfilled prophecies do not show God is omniscience)

I gave the scripture refference that shows names are written in the book of life from the foundation of the world,REV 13:8

That makes this statment true anyone's name not found in the book of life from the foundation of the world will be cast into the lake of fire.

This is clearly omniscience, GOD knowing all who will have salvation in CHRIST and writting their names in the book of life from the begining of the world.


The book of life in REV 20:15 is the same book of life in REV 13:8

drs
Revelation 13:8 (New King James Version)
8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


drs wrote: GOD'S eternal preserving(perservere) love does not apply to those not found in the book of life from the foundation of the world.
Then God cannot claim to love his enemies based on the attributes we agreed as the benchmark for love.


These 2 attributes in 1 corinthians 13 do not apply to unbelievers in the context of that scripture and you can not change the meaning as you see fit.


See below




drs wrote: I am sorry you did not realize this when you picked the attributes from 1 Corinthians 13

The attributes Paul is speaking of apply to himself and other reborn believers in CHRIST.
Of course they do. Christians would be expected to show this kind of love, because this is Godly love, the kind God promotes. They also makes sense for unbelievers too and because the world sees them as attributes of love to. If these are what God expects, then if God does not show them himself, he cannot be considered loving by his own definition of what love is.

It does not matter if they make sense for unbelievers.

We our debating GOD'S love according to scripture in the Bible correct?

And you agree here that Paul is speaking about Himself and writing to believers correct?

1 Corinthians 1
2To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:




Remember you took attributes out of 1 Corinthians 13 that specifacly in context speak about Pauls love in CHRIST to the believers in Corinth.

The olny way you can use them for GOD is in context to those reborn in CHRIST.

CHRIST put love in Pauls heart/mind and Paul expresses this love.

CHRIST does not put His SPIRIT and everlasting love in the hearts of those who hate Him, who will never repent and refuse to obey and continue in evil, and evil unrepentant sinners who hate GOD do not love CHRIST.

So concerning persevere(eternal preserving love) and record of wrongs(imputing sin and holding one accountable) these do not apply to evil unrepentant sinners, those who hate GOD, His enemies.



drs wrote:
I will challenge you to show that, Always perseves(enduring abiding love and faith in CHRIST) is found in unbelievers(enemies of GOD, the wicked and evil)

If you can not show that this love(persevering,abiding, faith in CHRIST) is found in unbelievers(enemies of GOD) then you can not take it out of context and apply it to GOD'S love preserving His enemies in the day of judgment.
Hold on what's with the stuff in the brackets? We are not debating people's love for God. We are talking about love for one another. Do you not believe that perserverence is an important trait when it comes to believers? They too believe that love perserveres through difficulties and that it covers a multitude of sins. You don't just give up on someone you claim to love unless that love dies.

Paul is talking about persevering love(abiding love in CHRIST)

You used persevere to say GOD is not loving in the day of judgment to unrepentant sinners.

That does not apply here unless unrepentant evil sinners are reborn in CHRIST which is what I challenged you to show last post.

You can not take Pauls love for CHRIST and transfer it into GOD'S love for unrepentant sinners who are not reborn. IT DOES NOT FIT IN CONTEXT AT ALL.

You can only take Pauls love for CHRIST and transfer it into GOD'S love for reborn believers.



drs wrote: Likewise goes for the rest of the attributes(they apply to believers) so you can not take them and transfer them on to the rest of the word(unbelievers,enemies of GOD, the wicked and evil)
But the world acknowledges these attributes, don't they? They are true even in the non-christian world. They are attributes of what love should be.

Again same as above we are not debating what love should be in the non-Christian world

So far We are debating Pauls love for GOD in the attributes in 1 Corinthians 13 to see if GOD holds these attributes.

And the answer is ofcourse GOD holds these attributes for His own(reborn believers in CHRIST)

This should be obvious that GOD holds these attributes for believers because He is the one that put them in Pauls Heart/mind.

You picked attributes from the wrong place in scripture if you wanted to use them for GOD'S love for the entire world.

These 2 are non transferable from 1 Corinthians 13.

Persevere(eternal abiding love) reborn believers only

Record of wrongs(impute sin) repentant believers only


drs wrote:
The entire chapter 1 Corinthians 13 is speaking to believers

oppening verse gift of tougnes, which is a continuation of chapter 12, Spiritual gifts.



1 Corinthians 13 (New International Version)
1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.


And here we end chapter 13 with this faith(in CHRIST), hope(in CHRIST) and love(in CHRIST)

NIV
13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.


There is no possible way that these attributes apply to unbelievers,the wicked and those who hate GOD.

Paul is clearly speaking about how the love in the heart/mind of a disciple of CHRIST should be.

If you acknowlege that these attributes do not apply to anyone else but reborn believers in CHRIST we can move on.
Whether the scripture applies to unbelievers or not is irrelevent. The fact is they have been adopted by unbelievers as attributes of love.


I don't care about what unbelievers adopt as love.

Are we debating the meaning of love that unbelievers have?



Come on now Drs, you agreed with the terms of the OP when you started this debate. Let's not take it off on a tangent. You agreed that the attributes listed were what is considered love. If God does not show these attributes, he is not a God of love. If he does not show them to his enemies, then he cannot say he loves his enemies, it's as simple as that.

Pauls love for CHRIST in these 2 attributes in Corinthians 13 can only be used to show GOD'S love for those reborn in CHRIST.


You have quoted a lot of scriptures to try to claim that God's love for his enemies is a different kind of love for his elect. You claim that I refuse to see that. I have tried to see it, but I can't. What you are doing is injecting your own perspective into the scriptures, your own understanding. I see nothing in your arguments that show that God's love for his enemies should be different to his love for his elect.
You must see it other wise you would have answered this challenge.

But instead you answered with The perseving love Paul (believers) have for CHRIST which GOD put in Pauls(believers) hearts/minds.

Sorry wrong answer, this attribute does not apply to enemies of GOD, wicked sinners who refuse to forsake evil.

Please give me scriptural evidence(in proper context) for my challenge below.

drs wrote:


I will now challenge you to prove that GOD'S everlasting love for His elect(reborn believers) will be manifested(verse 23 make Our home,the residing of GOD'S SPIRIT) in those who hate GOD and continue in unrepentant sin refusing to keep CHRIST'S commandments.
OnceConvinced
But it's what I've been saying all along. God's love does not perservere for his enemies. Therefore he fails on that attribute when it comes to his enemies. It seems you are admitting that here. Perhaps now we can move to another attribute.


Can we please move or we might as end this as this is getting us nowhere. I have said that I will agree to take the perspective that God is omniscient and that God loves only the elect (based on those attributes). You are trying to convince me that your perspective is right, but I disagree with it. I thought you said you were not in this to win debates. So let's leave it at that, let others be the judge on who made the best argument and move on to the next attribute.
If you said you will agree to this in your post#15 please note difference(post#15 you say GOD'S love for enemies is different then His elect)

Then why Here in this post do you argure that GOD is not omniscient and that His love for enemies is the same as for His elect?


OnceConvinced post 15
Like I said, I'm willing to compromise. From here, I am willing to adopt the perspective that God is omniscient (even though I don't believe he is). I am also willing to adopt the perspective that God's love for his enemies is different than for his elect (even though I doubt this based on the evidence you have provided). Thus I can then agree that God does not take a record because he is not defined by time (even though his word is aimed at man and therefore you would expect that anything he said would be based on our perspective, not his - I think this is a huge issue, but not something to discuss here). Now that I am willing to adjust my viewpoint we should be able to move on to the next attribute.
Did you edit this in after?

But either way you say here you will agree that GOD is omniscient and GOD'S love for His enemies is different then that of His elect.

If you were going to take the perspective above why have you in this entire post been arguing that GOD'S love is no different for His elect then His enemies and that GOD is not omniscient?

OnceConvinced post 13
In hindsight it was a mistake to take the point of view that God is omniscient, I should have remained true to myself on that issue.
Then in this post you have said this, so why would you want to be untrue to yourself now?


Post 13, 15 and 17 are all contradictary.




This is too important just to leave unresolved and move on.


Sometimes a debate can go no further untill one side or both comprimise because of evidence or a change of heart/mind.


But I think you are missing the point of this debate.

I have come to debate GOD'S love according to the truth in scripture.

Why have you challenged me to this debate?

What are you looking for?

If you are just going to comprimise for the sake of continuing the debate, what is the point?

To debate from a scriptural perspective you do not believe serves no purpose.

And I would ask you not to comprimise your beliefs for a continued arrgument and not to debate this under a scriptural perspective that you don't hold to be true.

I would ask that you only comprimise and change your viewpoint if there is enough scriptural evidence to change your opinion.



This is where I stand

I will not comprimise the meaning of GOD'S omniscient, His love, and say that GOD loves His ememies and those who hate Him with equal everlasting love that He has for His elect,all who will believe, the ones He shed is Blood for on the cross.


That would be blasphemey and a gross perversion of scripture.


Wining the debate is not important, but standing firm in the truth is.


Are you realy going to come on here and say that for all those 30 years you served GOD, that you believed CHRIST'S love and your relationship with GOD was the same love and relationship that evil unrepentant sinners who hate GOD have with CHRIST?


I honestly think we should leave the debate here untill the time comes that you truly believe in GOD'S omniscient and His everlasting love for His own is far above that of the wicked, the unrepentant who love evil and hate CHRIST.


This will be my final post on this subject for now, please give your final post with what you truly believe in your heart according to scripture.



Thank you for the debate,

David

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8969
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 66 times
Contact:

Post #19

Post by OnceConvinced »

drs wrote:
OnceConvinced wrote:
drs wrote:
Realy? There is no difference betwwen GOD'S love for His chosen elect from the foundation of the world compared to the wicked that will never repent and forsake evil?

You have quoted enough scripture in your other thread Does God love everyone? http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=10011

To show that GOD hates the wicked who will never repent and forsake evil.

And from my last post I showed the clear difference wether you want to acknowledge it or not.

GOD'S love for His own(reborn believers) is different and above that of love for your enemies(do good to those who hate you, pray for those who spitefully use and persecute you, etc)
Aren't bible contradictions wonderful? God loves his enemies... God hates his enemies. I'll go with whatever perspective you want me to go with. Which one is it, love or hate? You decide which one it is and we'll go from there.

There is no contradiction, only lack of understanding.

It is both in the proper context and meaning, that is what scripture says.

please read the entire post before you respond as this will be my last.
It has nothing to do with understanding, but the perspective you look at scripture. If your mindset is that the bible is the infallible, inerrant word of God of course you must insist that there are no condradictions. You have to try to justify them all, so you do a lot of mental gymnastics to try to corroborate them. I have found that one favoured tactics of apologists is to try to redefine the meanings of words. And so you work at it until you have something that seems good to you. That is not understanding, just justification.

I have been around long enough to know that any one can support any argument they like using the bible. It's one of the things that made me realise how futile it was to try to justify it. It all comes down to a person's perspective and what they believe, nothing more. It's taking the answer 42 and then searching for the question as to why it's 42.

The contradictions here are obvious to anyone who is not biased in favour of the bible.

Your arguments on this thread using scripture seemed to be to be tainted by your own perspective. You see things in them because you have a particular mindset. I look at them with an open mind, but I do not see what you see.

Neither of this escapes the fact that when we agreed to start this debate we took the attributes listed as those that define what love is. You cannot try to change that now to suit your own doctrines.
drs wrote: The book of life in REV 20:15 is the same book of life in REV 13:8

drs
Revelation 13:8 (New King James Version)
8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Ok, then you are right there. However that does not prove God's omniscience because it is just a claim, nothing more. Until it can be proven there is such a book and that Judgement Day really is going to come, then it's no proof of his omniscience. If the bible had said that your sins were recorded on a computer or video or holographic device or something like that, that would more likely show omniscience.
drs wrote:
drs wrote: GOD'S eternal preserving(perservere) love does not apply to those not found in the book of life from the foundation of the world.
Then God cannot claim to love his enemies based on the attributes we agreed as the benchmark for love.


These 2 attributes in 1 corinthians 13 do not apply to unbelievers in the context of that scripture and you can not change the meaning as you see fit.
It is you doing that not me. We agreed on these attributes from the beginning. I am not the one trying to redefine words here part way through the debate.
drs wrote:
drs wrote: I am sorry you did not realize this when you picked the attributes from 1 Corinthians 13

The attributes Paul is speaking of apply to himself and other reborn believers in CHRIST.
Of course they do. Christians would be expected to show this kind of love, because this is Godly love, the kind God promotes. They also makes sense for unbelievers too and because the world sees them as attributes of love to. If these are what God expects, then if God does not show them himself, he cannot be considered loving by his own definition of what love is.

It does not matter if they make sense for unbelievers.

We our debating GOD'S love according to scripture in the Bible correct?

And you agree here that Paul is speaking about Himself and writing to believers correct?

1 Corinthians 1
2To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
I've never disagreed. Paul is describing what true Godly love is meant to be. So if that is Godly love then God must surely show those aspects in his love to anyone he claims to love.
drs wrote: Remember you took attributes out of 1 Corinthians 13 that specifacly in context speak about Pauls love in CHRIST to the believers in Corinth.

The olny way you can use them for GOD is in context to those reborn in CHRIST.

CHRIST put love in Pauls heart/mind and Paul expresses this love.

CHRIST does not put His SPIRIT and everlasting love in the hearts of those who hate Him, who will never repent and refuse to obey and continue in evil, and evil unrepentant sinners who hate GOD do not love CHRIST.
All completely irrelevent to this debate. We are talking about God's love here and what he declares is love. If god cannot be shown to have these attributes for those he loves, then he cannot be declared loving.
drs wrote: So concerning persevere(eternal preserving love) and record of wrongs(imputing sin and holding one accountable) these do not apply to evil unrepentant sinners, those who hate GOD, His enemies.
So you keep claiming but you have offered nothing obvious to support this, only opinion, conjecture and your own interpretations of scripture based on the mindset that it can't possibly be contradictory and that God must be a God of love.

drs wrote:
drs wrote:
I will challenge you to show that, Always perseves(enduring abiding love and faith in CHRIST) is found in unbelievers(enemies of GOD, the wicked and evil)

If you can not show that this love(persevering,abiding, faith in CHRIST) is found in unbelievers(enemies of GOD) then you can not take it out of context and apply it to GOD'S love preserving His enemies in the day of judgment.
Hold on what's with the stuff in the brackets? We are not debating people's love for God. We are talking about love for one another. Do you not believe that perserverence is an important trait when it comes to believers? They too believe that love perserveres through difficulties and that it covers a multitude of sins. You don't just give up on someone you claim to love unless that love dies.

Paul is talking about persevering love(abiding love in CHRIST)

You used persevere to say GOD is not loving in the day of judgment to unrepentant sinners.

That does not apply here unless unrepentant evil sinners are reborn in CHRIST which is what I challenged you to show last post.

You can not take Pauls love for CHRIST and transfer it into GOD'S love for unrepentant sinners who are not reborn. IT DOES NOT FIT IN CONTEXT AT ALL.

You can only take Pauls love for CHRIST and transfer it into GOD'S love for reborn believers.
Perserverence is quite clearly stated as an attribute of Godly love. What is perserverence? It is about sticking with the one you love, forgiving the one you love, overlooking their faults.
drs wrote:
drs wrote: Likewise goes for the rest of the attributes(they apply to believers) so you can not take them and transfer them on to the rest of the word(unbelievers,enemies of GOD, the wicked and evil)
But the world acknowledges these attributes, don't they? They are true even in the non-christian world. They are attributes of what love should be.

Again same as above we are not debating what love should be in the non-Christian world

So far We are debating Pauls love for GOD in the attributes in 1 Corinthians 13 to see if GOD holds these attributes.
No, we are not debating Paul's love for God. We are debating God's love for mankind and whether he holds the attributes that he claims make up love. This is what we agreed from the word go.
drs wrote: NIV
13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

There is no possible way that these attributes apply to unbelievers,the wicked and those who hate GOD.

Paul is clearly speaking about how the love in the heart/mind of a disciple of CHRIST should be.
In your opinion. You're definitely reading a lot into these scriptures. Proof again that your view is tainted by your own preconceived beliefs.

drs wrote:
You have quoted a lot of scriptures to try to claim that God's love for his enemies is a different kind of love for his elect. You claim that I refuse to see that. I have tried to see it, but I can't. What you are doing is injecting your own perspective into the scriptures, your own understanding. I see nothing in your arguments that show that God's love for his enemies should be different to his love for his elect.
You must see it other wise you would have answered this challenge.

But instead you answered with The perseving love Paul (believers) have for CHRIST which GOD put in Pauls(believers) hearts/minds.

Sorry wrong answer, this attribute does not apply to enemies of GOD, wicked sinners who refuse to forsake evil.
Sorry in a debate you do not get to define what is right and wrong. You do not get to declare what the correct meaning of scripture is just because you believe you are right. All you can do is argue your point. You do not get to dictate what the bible is saying on a particular topic. I disagree with your interpretations on the bible. It seems you are unable to handle disagreement and must have everyone agree with you. Sorry, that's not gonna happen unless you can produce convincing arguments that aren't based on your own preconcieved beliefs and doctrine.
drs wrote: Please give me scriptural evidence(in proper context) for my challenge below.

drs wrote:


I will now challenge you to prove that GOD'S everlasting love for His elect(reborn believers) will be manifested(verse 23 make Our home,the residing of GOD'S SPIRIT) in those who hate GOD and continue in unrepentant sin refusing to keep CHRIST'S commandments.
As far as I'm concerned I have given you scriptural backing. We agreed from the beginning on the attributes that God defines as love to mankind. You have not shown that God's love for his elect should be any different to his love for his enemies. Until you do that, there is no need for me to provide any further scripture. But like I keep saying I am happy to change my perspective for you if you wish. So what's the problem?
drs wrote:
If you said you will agree to this in your post#15 please note difference(post#15 you say GOD'S love for enemies is different then His elect)

Then why Here in this post do you argure that GOD is not omniscient and that His love for enemies is the same as for His elect?
I'm failing to see what the problem is here. I do not agree that God's love for his enemies is different to his love for the elect. The meaning of the word Love is, is the same and your Strongs references do not refute that. I am however willing to debate from the perspective that that love is different. However I am waiting for you to say "Yes, let's do that and move on". But you still seem to be trying your darndest to convince me that you are right with your beliefs. Therefore I am continuing to argue against you based on the perspective that God loves his enemies in the same way as he loves the elect.
drs wrote:
OnceConvinced post 15
Like I said, I'm willing to compromise. From here, I am willing to adopt the perspective that God is omniscient (even though I don't believe he is). I am also willing to adopt the perspective that God's love for his enemies is different than for his elect (even though I doubt this based on the evidence you have provided). Thus I can then agree that God does not take a record because he is not defined by time (even though his word is aimed at man and therefore you would expect that anything he said would be based on our perspective, not his - I think this is a huge issue, but not something to discuss here). Now that I am willing to adjust my viewpoint we should be able to move on to the next attribute.
Did you edit this in after?

But either way you say here you will agree that GOD is omniscient and GOD'S love for His enemies is different then that of His elect.

If you were going to take the perspective above why have you in this entire post been arguing that GOD'S love is no different for His elect then His enemies and that GOD is not omniscient?
Because you have not yet agreed to continue to move on. You still seem to be trying to convince me that your perspective is right.

Perhaps we have a misunderstanding here? Say "yes" and I will move on looking at it from that perspective. My arguments on the next attributes will not be rendered null and void by taking that perspective.

drs wrote: Sometimes a debate can go no further untill one side or both comprimise because of evidence or a change of heart/mind.
And that is what I am trying to do. Compromise. Until I get the all clear from you on that, I am continuing to debate without the compromise. I thought I had been clear in my earlier posts about that. I am not being contradictory, simply waiting for you to agree.

drs wrote: But I think you are missing the point of this debate.

I have come to debate GOD'S love according to the truth in scripture.
That is what I am wanting to do too.

drs wrote: If you are just going to comprimise for the sake of continuing the debate, what is the point?
You were just saying that compromise was necessary for a debate to continue. Now who's contradicting themselves?

drs wrote: To debate from a scriptural perspective you do not believe serves no purpose.
Really? I do it all the time. Of course it serves a purpose. For one thing it allows the exposure of faulty logic and arguments. Secondly it is useful to show others ,who are reading, various different arguments. Some of these may be helpful to others. I wish to show you that God is not loving and to do that I need to argue from the point of view that you have. Otherwise it will accomplish nothing.

drs wrote: And I would ask you not to comprimise your beliefs for a continued arrgument and not to debate this under a scriptural perspective that you don't hold to be true.
I have already compromised my belief by accepting the bible to be an authoritive source of truth. i do not believe that, but I know you do, so to expose the God of the bible as not being a God of love, I must compromise. I understand that compromise is a dirty word for Christians when it comes to the bible, so that is why I am trying so hard to see things from your point of view and to argue based on your doctrines. For me to adopt a particular stance, I need to see obvious proof of an argument, but I don't believe you have offered me that. It may be convincing to you, but not to anyone else.

drs wrote: I would ask that you only comprimise and change your viewpoint if there is enough scriptural evidence to change your opinion.
I am not completely writing off your scriptural evidence, even though it may seem that way. But I have learnt that trying to agree on many things in the bible is a futile effort, due to the fact it is so open to interpretation and everyone sees it differently. But if my arguments can show others certain truths or if I can even get you to see a few points I am making, then it's not completely futile.

drs wrote:
This is where I stand

I will not comprimise the meaning of GOD'S omniscient, His love, and say that GOD loves His ememies and those who hate Him with equal everlasting love that He has for His elect,all who will believe, the ones He shed is Blood for on the cross.
I have never asked you to, which is why I am the one trying to do the compromising.

drs wrote: Are you realy going to come on here and say that for all those 30 years you served GOD, that you believed CHRIST'S love and your relationship with GOD was the same love and relationship that evil unrepentant sinners who hate GOD have with CHRIST?
I believed God's love was the same for everyone, but that his grace was on believers due to his death on the cross. I saw myself as no more loved than an evil sinner, except for the fact that I had God's blessing on my life and that I had rewards to look forward to later for serving him.

I mean if you have kids, if you are a loving parent, you love them all equally. One may be a rebellious little shite, but do you love him any less? Of course you don't. Even if he disowns you, do you cease to love him? No. And it would seem that many continue to do whatever they can for their child, even though that child hates them. That's what true love is all about. It's not meant to be conditional, like God's love obviously is. And God's love is supposedly far superior to humans. Do humans have a greater capacity to love than God? Looking at it from your perspective it would seem so!

drs wrote: I honestly think we should leave the debate here untill the time comes that you truly believe in GOD'S omniscient and His everlasting love for His own is far above that of the wicked, the unrepentant who love evil and hate CHRIST.
I used to believe in God's ominscience, but not any more. To me it's ludicrous to claim God as omniscient. It would show a cruel, neglectful, apathetic and incompetent God. To believe he is omniscient has huge ramifications on the truth of the bible.

I see no reason why I should have to believe he is omniscient to debate from the point of view that he is, especially when I once defended that view myself. I understand that for many people it is impossible to look at things from other people's perspective. But we are all different. I for one have that ability. I know that many Christians find that difficult to fathom, but it's true.

drs wrote: This will be my final post on this subject for now, please give your final post with what you truly believe in your heart according to scripture.
It's a pity that you would not acknowledge that I wish to compromise here and that you somehow see it as me being contradictory. I am happy to move on to the next lot of attributes taking the stance that the attributes in the OP only apply to the elect, that God is omniscient and that is love for unbelievers is a different kind of love. But first I need you to agree to move on before I will do that. Otherwise we are still arguing the same stuff from differing perspectives.

I am willing to agree that we have reached a stalemate on the topic of "Records of wrongs" and "Perserverence" if you are and move on to the next lot of attributes, from the above perspectives. If you wish to do that, I'd refer you back to the post that asks for your definitions of "self-seeking" and "envy".

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World

User avatar
Confused
Site Supporter
Posts: 7308
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Alaska

Post #20

Post by Confused »

MODERATOR NOTE:

It would appear there is still the conflict in accepted definitions and interpretations and I would have to err on the side of the stalemate as the other participant has decided to back down. I commend you both on despite the wide variance of beliefs, this thread didn't make that major downward trend into the abyss of ad hominems (Only a slight trickle).
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.

-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.

-Harvey Fierstein

Post Reply