Both Camps Limit The...

Love is not a natural characteristic of humanity? Wow. Jesus even said the unrighteous, when their son asks for bread they do not offer them a rock, "they love the darkness rather than light...", etc. The unrighteous and righteous love the same. The object of that love is where they differ.

 

If my statement had been that love (in general) wasn't a natural characteristic of humanity, you might have a point.

But what I said was that "love of the truth doesn't originate in themselves. If they welcome it, then it is not intrinsic to them. It [and by that I'm referring back to love of the truth] is not one of their natural characteristics."

And your response makes my point perfectly. The unrighteous "love darkness rather than light." As it pertains to truth vs. falsehood or darkness vs. light as an object of our love, love of the truth or love of the light isn't a natural characteristic.

 

Maybe the idea that love originates in God comes from 1 John 4:7.

1 John 4:7 Dear friends, let us love one another, because love is from God, and everyone who loves has been born of God (A) and knows God.
(HCSB)

 

There is no ambiguity between 'active' or 'passive'. One is subject is the doer of an action and the other is the suject being the recipient of the action being done. It is not a fuzzy distinction in my opinion. Are you meaning 'welcome' as in an open door type invitation or that I choose whom I will 'welcome'?

Umm... Love is not a feeling, it is a choice of and in action form while simultaniously being setting it above all other like things. So to 'love the truth' is to chose that truth above all others and act upon it.


Thus 'God is Love', is not that God is a feeling (I'm sure you agree) but that God is the epitome of what Love (agape) IS.

 

Ok smart guy :laugh: j/k (for those who don't know I attend his church on Sun. and he is my Sun. Sch. Teach , and a good one too)
Yes, I assumed that is where it came from, I just was curious if it was obtained from somewhere else.

However, the next verse states "he that does not love, does not know God because God is love".
So does that mean that only the saved can love and the unsaved who do not know God can not love?

No. This love is speaking of our actions toward one another within the context of the surrounding passages. It is referencing how we relate toward one another and is something that is only ascribable to believers because of the manner in which we behave toward one another. It is being more about others and putting them first rather than self.

So what we have the passage of 2 Thes 2 is it stating they refused to love (put it ahead of all) the truth and so be saved, unlike us who have known (like they did) and believed the love of the truth (which is the Love that God has for us):

 

ANYWAY - that is another thread since it is taking on a life of its own (regarding 'love') - This one is about both groups limiting atonement, of which I stated the non-cals do not limit the Atonement but the limiting is placed on the redemption it procures which comes through faith.

And what I was stating is that unless atonement is made for the non-believer, the gospel could not save them even if they believed it. Thus it can not be stated honestly of the gospel truth that it can save them who rejected it. Yet that is what it states in every translation including every Greek Manuscript I can look at.

There is no other way of seeing the scripture If they are condemned for rejecting the truth, then LOGIC DEMANDS as does the scripture, the opposite is true. Thus to believe the truth one can be saved, and in order for the truth save them an atomement had to be made for them.

So again: if a person is condemned for 'rejecting' the truth as the rest of the passages clearly state, then it follows there was something about the truth could change that verdict. So if the verdict could be changed due to the truth they were given then that truth was for them. But that truth could not have been for them unless a Christ died on their behalf and been made a propitiation for them too. Otherwise it can not be called the truth since the truth is gospel message of salvation, and it could not have condemned them if it also could not have saved them.

 

No, I agree with you about 1 John 4:7, Allan. I was just saying that one could use this verse to make the argument. Talk to ya later...:wavey:

 

I figured, but the majority of the stuff I wrote was merely an elaboration to others. See later brother.:thumbs:

 

I meant the ambiguity in the English word receive. It can be either active or passive and you can't necessarily tell the difference. The word welcome makes it clearer that the verb there is active.

Love can be lots of things. Yes it includes actions and choices, but it also includes desires. To love God includes desiring him and treasuring him, and out of the desiring or treasuring come actions of worship and obedience. To love the truth includes treasuring or valuing or desiring the truth, and out of that love comes obedience to the truth. The actions and choices of love come out of the desires of love.

 

Ok, now I see what you are saying.

Not true at all, where did you get that from? We can have no loving desire until we have first chosen to love, and that is point even regarding love in scripture. 1 Cor 13 - Choice must first come before desire and afterward choice follows the desire due to the first cause.

I agree with the rest because I stated the same thing:

However, though love is connected at times with emotion, emotions are not love. Love is our actions in spite of our emotions at times.

I have gone to church not really desiring to be there because of lack of sleep, emotionally tired, et... but does that mean I stopped loving Him? No.

 

Allan, you just posted a response in the thread titled "Another Calvinistic Error", but it is about the atonement. Did you mean to post it here?

 

No, it is where it should be :wavey:

 

I assume there's something in this thread from 2007 that Allan wants us to take note of..... if so, why not go ahead and point it out? Give us an update or a synopsis.

 

Allan didn't bring it up, Winman thought (for some reason I am unaware of) that I was meaning to post in this thread. I advised Win that the post I made in another thread was exactly where I wanted it to put it and that this thread was not it.

 

10-4 Allan. Thanks for clarifying.