Featured .needs help

I think you are missing his point.
"The saving love of God," Who is it given to?
The obvious answer is, that it is given to everyone.

It was first given to you who believed and were justified.
How? DC Said the Holy Spirit gave it to you.
And Romans 5 teaches that "it is shed abroad in our hearts."

If it is shed abroad in our hearts it is not selective. Christ taught this throughout his ministry. To the lawyer, testing him, "And who is my neighbor," Jesus replied by giving the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Who is your neighbor? Did Jesus teach that just the elect is your neighbor, and just the elect you should love, and just the elect you should help.
A priest passed by on the other side, and likewise a Levite, but that despised Samaritan stopped and helped the Jewish man who had been robbed and left for dead. Out of his own time and money he nursed his wounds and brought him to an inn, provided room and board and then offered to pay any other expenses that the man would incur. He loved him as himself, though he, a Samaritan was no doubt despised in this Jew's eyes.

Jesus is God. He is deity. He is teaching us to love our neighbor whoever he is. He doesn't teach there are some you love and some you don't. He never suggests that there are two kinds of love. He always taught to love all equally. I don't believe God is hypocritical in His teaching--that He himself has two types of loves: one for his elect and another for his non-elect. That is not What Christ the Creator taught on earth. Why would he teach or believe something different any different from eternity past. He is God who changes not!!

 

DC asked: Who does God love.
The obvious answer is "God loves everyone," and his will is:
that all would come to repentance.
that none should perish.
that all men be saved.
that he is the propitiation for all the sins of the world.

His will is that all men be saved--so great is his love.

 

I see, run away from the thread where you have already been shown to be sloppy in posting and theology.

Let me help you out, since you want to rehash:


This is the post this was taken from:

And this is me showing your sloppiness:


What foolish statement? This post is so sliced and diced, edited, manufactured...it is simply astounding.

And you do not even post the first part.

Here it is again, let's see another example why the statement...


Quote:
Not one word you said was cut out. Not one word. And every word received a response.

...is true when I say it, lol, but falsehood when you say it (even if it inadvertent because you are too lazy to even properly quote someone).


So don't blame your sloppiness on me. lol


God bless.

 

The topic has been identified several times for those having a hard time understanding it, the first person informed being the OP herself.

You don't change the OPs question by throwing in "saving" before God's love.

I would think that...

...would kind of clue you in to this fact.


God bless.

 

Response: thanks for giving the perfect example of your slice and dicery, as well as proving you cannot even put the effort into properly titling a thread.

How's that going for you so far?

Could you show me where we find this in the post you supposedly quote?

Here is everything I said:

Nope. That's not in the post you started. And seeing that you do not bother to put the links in, makes it hard for anyone to verify what's being said.

But you count on that, don't you? lol

Not even addressed to you. Ha this poster responded?

And why is it that you have such an aversion to posting the quotes in the posts?

Yeah, I am rather fond of that one.

Except you identify it as a call to help. It's just some basic truths.

Not going to happen. But I will import the responses in the other thread since you have ran off from that one, refusing to address the points.


God bless.

 

The topic is the same one.

Which you still have not responded to.


God bless.

 

That is not to say that you also feel that one is Arminian because they recognize the fact that Scripture testifies that God's love for the world is the very reason Christ came is it?

And it's okay with me if anyone wants to jump in.

The fact is that this issue is not exclusive to an Arminian and Calvinist confusion. It is a simple and basic principle that is seen from beginning to end in Scripture.

What gets confused is when the antagonists who failed to respond to the posts, points and questions, in the other thread try to qualify their doctrine by modifying the subject.

Here it is:

This has been the issue in the other thread. And this fellow's idea of responding is exactly what you see in this thread: more sloppy quoting of an antagonist so that the fact he is incapable of responding to the issue is forgotten.

So feel free to clarify if you think God extending as well as manifesting His love to all men, and every man...is in error as the OP teaches.

I would be very curious to hear your take on the issue.


God bless.

 

Hey Darrell....maybe you should strap your self in :LAUGH:

 

And where is it taken from?

Nobody knows, and you are dependent on that, because if anyone actually reads the responses to your posts it is embarrassing...only for you.

First, the discussion, as repeatedly clarified, is seen clearly:

Then you say...

Here is a clue:

Do you really not see how ridiculous your assertions are?

Really?

And you wonder why someone might point out the ridiculousness? lol

Now let's look at your proof-text again and see how it is pointed out that your proof-text is post-salvific, and again...irrelevant to the discussion:

Anyone wishing to see the Actual post this is taken from, see here.

At least as best as I can tell that is the post. Due to the sloppiness of the quoting procedure one has to search the entire thread to find out.

I know Iconoclast won't look at it, it is clear he didn't bother reading it the first time. Much less actually quote then respond to the Scripture and points made.

He has me saying...

Did I?

Again, not relevant to the issue being discussed:

Who is speaking here?

Who knows?

Continued...

 

What verse?

This one...

...well, who really knows the way this post is so sliced and diced.

Let's suppose it is, has this been addressed in the other thread?

Here it is:

Again...your context is post-salvific.

Off topic.

No-one is arguing that.

Read the OP again. Then perhaps you might start using your own marker in relevant passages.

Or did you black out the relevant passages with your marker?

The word elect does not appear in every verse of the bible....but every saved person is elect...


And everyone that jumps into the ocean is wet.

Relevance to the OP?

Not relevant.

The question is who does the love of God extend to.

Scripture says the world and all men. Your Theology System says only the Elect.

We see who's understanding you prefer.

Which is irrelevant to the OP:


1 Timothy 2:3-5

King James Version (KJV)

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;


If you read this and weep you might consider leaving the country club.

Do you really think that emphasizing the text will make what you say true? lol

Understand: the Elect, prior to regeneration...do not have the Holy Spirit...

...either.

Simple math, amigo.

No, not really, I am a little too far south to see D.C.



See my commentary and see if you can deny that I am seeing things clearly. If you can address what has been said without slicing and dicing my statements and can show how the passages which show God's love for the world are not in fact clear statements of God's love we will take it from there.

No kidding.

Shame you exclude the world. The Word does not.

Again, post-salvific.

Again, post-salvific. Even as Peter's Epistle has a focus on genuine versus disingenuous, this is absolutely irrelevant to the question of the OP.

God bless.


And this...is just part of one responses to his response, lol. Just a portion of the response.

Do you see that here in this post?

Again...irrelevant to the OP.

No, I am pointing out that the love of God is manifested to all men.

How many passages were posted in the first thread?

And how many do you quote?

Much less answer.

But because you refuse to address the issue and it is more important for you to try to cover the fact that your theology lacks a Scriptural Basis...you run from that thread and do the same thing you were said to be doing in the last one...

...slicing and dicing.

Now quit being lazy and properly quote, then respond to what has been said.


God bless.

 

Straps are for roller coasters. This is a merry-go-round.

A slow merry-go-round.


God bless.

 

No this is an Italian from N.Y. when you hit the ground, roll...I'm going to bed...3am comes too early these days.

 

Feel free. Though I'm not sure why you cannot just go back and address the posts you've already butchered.

But I will help you with importing (and since Dr. Bob has seemed to give his blessing I guess we are excused from Spam).

No you won't.

You couldn't properly quote someone if your life depended on it.

I've shown you twice and you still present this kindergarten garbage.

Here it is again:

Copy and paste the code that looks like this...

(QUOTE=Iconoclast;2223711)

...in front of each quote.

Then copy and paste the code that looks like this...


(/QUOTE)


...after each quote. Then you will have the link and properly identify who said what.

But you won't do that, for the same reason you hightailed it out of the other thread. Your lack of response was too clear.

What you did was set yourself up to be made to seem even more foolish than you jade yourself look in the last thread.

Line by line? Give me a break. Nothing you have quoted so far is even close.

If you want an example of line by line response, go back to the other thread and view my response to your posts. That's what it looks like. And you will notice the multitude of Scripture presented to support my view.

Well it's true.

Are you not in another thread, slicing and dicing your way to a rationalization of your failure in the last thread?

Honestly. some people's kids...

What Scripture? lol

Am I?

Funny But I have responded to your quotation of Romans 5:

It was irrelevant then in that thread, and it is still irrelevant in this thread.

Now here is a relevant passage from Romans 5:



Consider:


Romans 5:18

King James Version (KJV)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.


All men means all men.

You won't change the fact that the Gift of God is given unto all men, though only those who believe will be saved.

Everything is in order.

I can't respond to irrelevancy without stating it for what it is.

And you will not show anything out of order in the other thread, only in slicing and dicing as you have already given example in the OP can you show it.

I'll likely have fallen asleep by then. But who knows.

I have a serious responder in the "Other Denominations" board who actually responded to that which you evaded.

And here I am wasting time with you.


God bless.

 

Won't be any hitting the ground. The best he can do is wear me out with the incessant whopper chopper action.

I like Italians, really. The world is in debt to them for Pizza.


God bless.