Evidence for God from Science

willieH wrote:willieH: Hi CSLL...

Hello Willie.

This is actually quite easy to address...

(1) CHRIST was SENT NOT to CONDEMN (and did NOT CONDEMN during His ministry), and

(2) ALWAYS did the WILL of YHVH (which sent Him NOT to CONDEMN)... and BOTH are UNCHANGING entites... so,

(3) if the WORD was SENT NOT to CONDEMN, by the One (YHVH) WILLING it (the WORD) NOT to CONDEMN... then

(4) HOW do you derive CONDEMNATION coming from EITHER?

I will be nterested in hearing your answer! (if you answer)

...willieH

I had already read your previous post, so this wasn't necessary. I simply disagree with your interpretation of scripture. There can be respectful disagreement, of not. If not, there could be some problems (I'm not referring to how you answered me).

There's an online book, here, if anyone is interested: http://books.google.com/books?id=WezXYY ... 9#PPA93,M1

It would be interesting to discuss the points made here, and in the whole chapter.

According to this article http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=57565, 95% if Christians believe there is a hell. I'm sure this is because it is the standard biblical interpretation of various verses, taken within their contexts, on the subject.

willieH: Hi jlay...

I'm sure you are ignoring me, and that is fine with me...

but thanks for correcting your reference...

jlay wrote:Just to clarify I stated Daniel 11, but it is actually Daniel 12 that says some will awaken to everlasting contempt.

"At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

This notes that many will become "spiritually" awake...

The notation -- "sleeping in the dust of the earth" -- is another vision of what CHRIST said of LIVING MEN: "Let the DEAD bury the DEAD..."

Those which CHRIST called "dead" were ASLEEP in the SPIRIT... MEN are DUST... and these are SLEEPING IN THE DUST (natural mind)... yet these were ALIVE in their NATURAL body which IS DUST... i.e. sleeping IN the DUST.

The SHAME to come is NOT "everlasting"... The terms AION, AIONIOS, and OWLAM as translated EVERLASTING are INVALID... WHY? Because MEN cannot VALIDLY use terminology which they CANNOT COMPREHEND... Only langual terms which we can KNOW and define and then COMPREHEND, can be validly used in our operation of communication.

No FINITE man is able to COMPREHEND an EXISTANCE which has NO BEGINNING, nor do they have the ability to COMPREHEND an EXISTENCE that has NO END either... BOTH of these define an "ETERNAL" EXISTENCE.

ETERNAL does NOT mean -- "from NOW --- on"... ...this is nothing but FINITE observation IMPOSING the BOUNDARY of BEGINNING, ...upon the INFINITE which has NO BEGINNING...

ETERNAL = ALWAYS IS... "Before Abraham was [non-eternal entity], ...I AM [eternal entity]..."

The word ETERNAL can only applied to the ONLY ONE who IS ETERNAL (GOD) --- by DEFINITION.. GOD is WITHOUT end OR beginning... Therefore the term EVERLASTING wherever it appears in SCRIPTURE is an INVALID terminology, except when applied to YHVH GOD, and/or His WORD.

And even then, we shall fall short of BEHOLDING the state of His existence (without beginning or end), even though we have determined it to be without those LIMITATIONS.

MEN have beginnings and endings (birth & death)... BOTH of these disqualify MEN from EVER being in an ETERNAL state... (There is MUCH more to say about this, and how and in what capacities MEN are involved in the ETERNAL, but there is no sense in expounding upon it, for you have already shown that you would not listen)

One cannot "AWAKE" to EVERLASTING life... for to "AWAKE" is a BEGINNING, and within this proposal states that the ONE AWAKENING, was NOT in this (everlasting) state while "ASLEEP"...

As well, no one can AWAKE to EVERLASTING SHAME or CONTEMPT, for it is also a BEGINNING, and notes that this state of SHAME was not present until one "AWAKES" to it...

These are the OT observation of the 1st and 2nd resurrections...

The 1st resurrection is to AWAKE while amidst NATURAL LIFE, to the CHRIST within. and is CLOTHED in CHRIST before entering the GRAVE...

CHRIST called to do this: Rev 3:18, ...as did PAUL: 1 Cor 15:34 -- Eph 5:14

The 2nd resurrection, is AWAKENING to the CHRIST within after NATURAL DEATH... which exposes the SHAME of the LIFE that entered the GRAVE, ...NAKED...

The only way the 2 groups in the above verse could be viewed VALIDLY from ETERNAL perspective, is that the ones in the "SHAME group" were, are and always will be IN SHAME (which is untrue, for until one SINS, one is NOT in SHAME=beginning)... and the ones in the "LIFE group" in the verse --- were, are and always will be ALIVE (which is also untrue -- for MEN are BORN=beginning, and are also, appointed to DIE=end --- for GOD's WORD says each shall DIE)...

DEATH is the absence of LIFE... and any entity that EVER enters into the state of DEATH, cannot be ETERNALLY "alive", for DEATH is an INTERRUPTION of the LIVING process...

And, it is obvious that the others were not ALWAYS (without interruption) in a state of SHAME either...

...willieH

willieH: Hi CSLL...

Thanks for your "answer"... which did not address the question...

cslewislover wrote:

willieH wrote:willieH: Hi CSLL...

Hello Willie.

This is actually quite easy to address...

(1) CHRIST was SENT NOT to CONDEMN (and did NOT CONDEMN during His ministry), and

(2) ALWAYS did the WILL of YHVH (which sent Him NOT to CONDEMN)... and BOTH are UNCHANGING entites... so,

(3) if the WORD was SENT NOT to CONDEMN, by the One (YHVH) WILLING it (the WORD) NOT to CONDEMN... then

(4) HOW do you derive CONDEMNATION coming from EITHER?

I will be nterested in hearing your answer! (if you answer)

...willieH

I had already read your previous post, so this wasn't necessary. I simply disagree with your interpretation of scripture. There can be respectful disagreement, of not. If not, there could be some problems (I'm not referring to how you answered me).

You are welcome to disagree which is your right, and as well, to not mention the basis for that disagreement, but what fruit is found in this?

I Logically, and plain and simply noted that CONDEMNATION is neither Scriptural, Logical or part of the PURPOSE of GOD, as noted in His WORD...

And then asked you a simple question (#4) which you have not answered other than to say you "disagree" with "my interpretation" of Scripture... yet you did not state in any way, what those disagreements are, or why you have them?

And in NOT doing so, you have not even slightly proposed VALID points which might point out, where my deduction above might be in error... Most likely because they are just too SOUND[/u and SOLID,] to refute...

If you cannot answer the question, simply, Scripturally, and logically,...then it appears to me that obviously, you just have no answer to the question.

...willieH

CSLewis fan,

I guess Paul didn't consult our buddy on the definition of eternal.

The gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.

But, or course it really isn't eternal since you have a beginning. Man, if he'd only been there to help Paul with his semantics.
Whoops, Jesus messed up too.

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”

They shall never perish. Yet, graveyards are full of dead Christians.

His explanations on "eternal" make Jesus and Paul out to be liars. But, i guess when you want to have your cake and eat it too, what can you expect.

willieH wrote:
Thanks for your "answer"... which did not address the question...

I Logically, and plain and simply noted that CONDEMNATION is neither Scriptural, Logical or part of the PURPOSE of GOD, as noted in His WORD...

If you cannot answer the question, simply, Scripturally, and logically,...then it appears to me that obviously, you just have no answer to the question.

...willieH

I find no need to answer you farther; this is a choice I made, which has no relevancy to your powers of observation. The scriptures I gave have "condemnation" in them. It's very simple and scriptural.

Since your ideas are in the minority (which I pointed out via the second article link), you could go to the chapter section I provided and give me arguments against what that author says, if you wish. If you want to know why I disagree with you, then simply go read any number of standard theological works; I don't find it necessary here to repeat all that they say. I've posted primarily for others who might read this thread, although there's not much to this particular post, I know.

jlay wrote:CSLewis fan,

I guess Paul didn't consult our buddy on the definition of eternal.

The gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.

But, or course it really isn't eternal since you have a beginning. Man, if he'd only been there to help Paul with his semantics.
Whoops, Jesus messed up too.

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”

They shall never perish. Yet, graveyards are full of dead Christians.

His explanations on "eternal" make Jesus and Paul out to be liars. But, i guess when you want to have your cake and eat it too, what can you expect.

Yeah right...

NEVER perish? -- eh Heb 9:27 [hmmm, the WORD says APPOINTED once to DIE, by why believe what IT says - eh? Instead, let's read what the "theologians" have to tell us that we'll NEVER PERISH! ]

1 Thess 5...

14... For if we believe JESUS died and rose again, even so them which also ...SLEEP IN JESUS... will God bring with Him... [hmmm, ...SLEEP in JESUS - eh?]

15... For this we say unto you by the WORD of the Lord, that we which ARE ALIVE and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent THEM which ARE ASLEEP... [hmmm, ...we which ARE ALIVE - eh? -- as in NOT DEAD?] [hmmm, not prevent ...THEM which, ARE ASLEEP - eh?]

16... For the Lord Himself shall descend from Heaven with a SHOUT, with the VOICE of the archangel, and with the TRUMP of God, and the DEAD IN CHRIST, shall RISE FIRST... [hmmm, DEAD in CHRIST eh?] [hmmm, ...RISE FIRST - eh?]

17... Then WE which ARE ARE ALIVE and remain, shall be caught up in together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air, and SO shall we ever be with the Lord... [hmmm, ...WE which ARE ALIVE - eh? -- as in NOT DEAD or something?]



...willieH

The context in which Paul is writing to the Thessalonians has nothing to do with what I was referrencing. But nice try. In fact Paul wrote 2nd Thess. to rebuke and correct the Thessalonians for misunderstanding the time of the 2nd coming He mentioned in 1st Thess.

It's obvious when someone is guilty of what they accuse others. When a verse does mention eternal or everlasting condemnation, one simply just redefines eternal. How convenient.

"CONDEMNATION is neither Scriptural......"

Some will awaken to everlasting contempt.

"Yeh, but everlasting, doesn't mean everlasting."

Futile.

Does it say, It is appointed once for a man to SLEEP, and then the judgment? No.

jlay wrote:The context in which Paul is writing to the Thessalonians has nothing to do with what I was referrencing. But nice try. In fact Paul wrote 2nd Thess. to rebuke and correct the Thessalonians for misunderstanding the time of the 2nd coming He mentioned in 1st Thess.

It's obvious when someone is guilty of what they accuse others. When a verse does mention eternal or everlasting condemnation, one simply just redefines eternal. How convenient.

Explain WITH COMPREHENSION, ...what the COMPLETE understanding of the word "ETERNAL" means, jlay... and if you cannot (and you cannot), then you are using a term which you do NOT understand... and your use or application of it, because of your lack of the COMPREHENSION of its paramaters, ...renders that use or application, INVALID.

Children are often found using terms they do not understand... so their usage and application of them, is therefore INVALID... If I endeavor to apply a word to you, and in doing so, ...do NOT KNOW what it means... how can that application be VALID? It cannot.

If I say you are a SMALUGNO... and there is no such term... can you still be considered a SMALUGNO? That men invent a word and then apply it to other men, is not basis for VALIDITY, especially when the COMPLETE meaning of that word is NOT understood, or within their COMPREHENSION...

The word definition of FOREVER (eternal/everlasting), as most observe it, is: "from now on"... HOWEVER, that is NOT what FOR EVER means... If something is "FOR EVER" or "EVER LASTING" or "ETERNAL", ...these mean this entity ALWAYS IS, in ALL directions [was/is/will be -perpetual] ... (not just forward in time - "from now --> on")

JESUS (as did YHVH in the OT) referred to, and depicted Himself ETERNAL -- in comparison to Abraham who was FINITE:

John 8:58 ...BEFORE Abraham was, [time being with a "beginning"] ...I AM [eternal being without a "beginning"]

He also noted Himself in More than ONE PLACE at the same moment:

While speaking and present before the Apostles, He said: "No man hath ascended (future) up to Heaven but He that came down from Heaven (past), even the Son of man which IS in heaven (present) -- John

This term can only be applied to GOD and HIS WORD... It cannot be rightly applied to any other thing.

And until YOU are able to explain that which has NO BEGINNING (not just "forward" as in -- "from now" --> "on")... Which terminology is only applicable to our INFINITE GOD, then application of it upon things or beings which HAVE BEGINNING, is INVALID... for they violate what the word FOR EVER, ETERNAL and EVERLASTING mean by having a BEGINNING...

You therefore (and neither does anyone else, including translators), have no right to impose that term upon anything other than HIM...

willieH wrote:"CONDEMNATION is neither Scriptural......"

jlay wrote:Some will awaken to everlasting contempt.

As previously noted, the word EVERLASTING is not a valid terminology which can be used or applied by FINITE human beings to anything other than GOD, for we cannot behold its meaning which is WITHOUT BEGINNING...

Even in applying it to GOD, we do not comprehend HOW or WHY is has ALWAYS BEEN... We just accept that He has ALWAYS BEEN and PRECEEDED everything in CREATION, upon the basis of FAITH... All things that HAVE BEGINNINGS cannot have the term ETERNAL (everlasting/forever) applied to them.

jlay wrote:"Yeh, but everlasting, doesn't mean everlasting."

Futile.

What is "futile" is people using terms they do not comprehend, yet are willing to use them anyway...

jlay wrote:Does it say, It is appointed once for a man to SLEEP, and then the judgment? No.

The DEAD are not ...they're DEAD...

The words "SLEEP" and "ASLEEP", as used by PAUL in 1 Thess 4:13,14,15 and 1 Cor 15:51 is the word KOIMAO [#G2837] which means DEAD...

This VERY SAME WORD, is used by JESUS in John 11:11 when referring to LAZERUS who was uhh, ...DEAD...

...willieH

Willie H:

I'm new to this forum and have been keeping an eye on most posts over the past few weeks. I realise that your method of textual communication is how you like to express yourself and I feel I could learn a lot from you. What I will say is that your method of communication, not the language but the implied emphasis and overall look of your posts, has left me largely unwilling to give them much attention or headspace. This may be a fault on my behalf but I would rather draw thoughts from great posts THAN HAVE WORDS IN CAPS, UNDERLINED AND IN BRIGHT RED imply to me what I should take from posts.

This term can only be applied to GOD and HIS WORD... It cannot be rightly applied to any other thing.

Take it up with Daniel. black words, white page.

Proinsias wrote:Willie H:

I'm new to this forum and have been keeping an eye on most posts over the past few weeks. I realise that your method of textual communication is how you like to express yourself and I feel I could learn a lot from you. What I will say is that your method of communication, not the language but the implied emphasis and overall look of your posts, has left me largely unwilling to give them much attention or headspace. This may be a fault on my behalf but I would rather draw thoughts from great posts THAN HAVE WORDS IN CAPS, UNDERLINED AND IN BRIGHT RED imply to me what I should take from posts.

sorry you do not like my "style"... I only mean these as emphasis, not shouting or condescensions... A lot of people don't like my style of clothing either... I am who I am... Love me for who I am... and forgive me if who I am, infringes upon your standards...

...willieH

Horse muffins.

The issue is not "style" or other's forgiveness. The issue is the tone and attitude you're taking and an unwillingness to conform to the discussion board guidelines as well as just plain manners and common courtesy.

The entire approach comes across as condescending, dismissive and indicates you're more concerned about arguing and making your points than you are listening and communicating in a respectful manner what you're thinking while respecting other's point of view.

This isn't a matter of "style." Your words and your approach are fully under your control and you've had clear messages given as to what the community standards are here and you've been given several opportunities to adjust and the response are self-justifying, and come across to me as manipulative playing upon other better natures to tolerate this type of nonsense as if you had no control over it.

Kindly listen to what others are communicating to you and adjust or if your "style" will not allow you to do so then you may consider just moving on to an area where your "style" is more in keeping with the community standards.

It's a shame however. You appear to me to be intelligent and capable of learning and communicating if you were to desire to do so.

regards,

bart

Willie,

Lesson one: Context

Let's examine John 3

John, 3:15-16, “…that everyone who believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 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.” ESV

Notice it clearly states "everyone who believes in Him." This expresses a condition as well as a choice. In verse 16 it states “that whoever believes in Him” will not perish. Question — what happens to those who do not believe?

John 3:17-18, “For God did not send His Son to the world that he may judge the world, but that the world may be saved through him 18 he who is believing in him is not judged, but he who is not believing hath been judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” YLT

John 3:17-18, “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” ESV

Notice the word used in verses 17 and 18 translated 'judge' in the YLT and as 'condemned' in other translations. This word means a judicial decision in which one is sent away, banished, put asunder. It expresses the Judgment that comes when the guilty person is summoned to trial, case examined, and judgment of condemnation passed upon that person.

What verse 17 is saying is that God did not send his Son to pass a final judgment of condemnation upon the earth so that God would immediately destroy all humanity just as Romans 3:10-12 states: "None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." none — no not one.”

All humanity deserves to be condemned - banished forever from the presence of the Lord but Jesus Christ came to call out those who believe in him from those who will not. In other words, Jesus came to seek and save those who believe. In verse 17 the phrase 'that the world might be saved through him' is defined in verse 18.

Verse 18 expresses a condition of those that believe verses those who do not believe. In other words, Christ temporally adverted God's wrath so that those who will believe — believe in him. Notice in verse 18 does not say everyone but only those that believe will be saved just as the next verses clearly tell. (Notice verse 18 again and how it connects to verses 19-21)

John 3:18, “…he who is believing in him is not judged, but he who is not believing hath been judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” YLT

Those that believe on Christ — judgment is passed over (note the time and hour Christ was crucified — correlates to Passover when the ancient Jews applied the blood to the door post). However those that will not believe — remain with the judgment of condemnation residing on them. Verses 19-21 clearly explain why the judgment of condemnation remains on them.

John 3:19-21, “And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness more than the light, because their works were evil. 20 For everyone that does evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God." ESV

There are two groups of people mentioned here: those that love darkness more than light and remain condemned and those that come to the truth who enters by the light not relying on their own works but God's for salvation. Jesus says in John 14:6 that is that he is that truth: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” ESV

The message is simple — believe in Christ and you'll be saved from God's wrath and judgment. Believe not, you'll remain condemned to experience God's judgment of wrath, and his judgment of separation/banishment from him forever and ever.

To avoid showing partiality and being a respecter of persons, God in his great profound wisdom and justice offers to all a choice — accept Christ or reject him. The Lord's integrity remains intact. His Character faultless proving he is perfect in all his ways.

Still have trouble with this? Then read:

John 3:36, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; and he who does not believe the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

I rest my case.

Universalism is an open assault on the character of God done in order to manipulate his good nature to get the condemned off the hook, and not judged as sinners/rebels. Why would God want such rebellious attitude that seeks to control, influence, and manipulate his very nature of mercy and love to remain as they are — rebels?

What would heaven become if he let you in Willie? You need to believe in Christ, become born from above, sealed by the Holy Spirit, becoming transformed into a new creation, learning to follow Christ, and not follow your ideas. You are like we all were at one time: manipulating God's goodness for one's own gain.

Act 17:30-31, “…The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." ESV

Universalism denies the commands of God as well as seeks to make God bow his knees to man.

Both Universalism and Annihilationism basically states and teaches this concept: The correct thing for God to do is based solely on what man thinks is right for man, so that God proves himself God by being true to what man wants.

However, Orthodox Christianity states and teaches this: The correct thing for God to do is based solely on who God is and what is right for him to do that proves God true to all his own ways, not ours.
-
-
-

willieH: Hi BW...

This will be a long answer, so i will begin by addressing the first part of "lesson one"...

B. W. wrote:Willie,

Lesson one: Context

Let's examine John 3

Okay, LET'S examine John 3... You have presented your 2Cents... now I will give you mine... only my 2Cents will take a bit of a CLOSER look at this text you base your 2Cents upon...

Lesson one: Context and WORD meanings (in the Greek)...

compared to the usages in other passages concerning the meanings within... I will be using the KJV translation which allows us to research particular words WITHIN the text by using Strong's Ex Concordance Lexicon...

If we just strictly accept the words of translators, we are accepting hearsay to a degree, for translators have more than shown their religious BIASES as they are seen translating words DIFFERENTLY, to fit their theologies, maybe even at times unawares they are doing this... To get an accurate picture of words in the text, we must observe how they appear tranlated elsewhere. And especially their base meanings or definitions... As well as examine the PURPOSES of the text in terms of LOGIC (making '"SENSE") and GOD's actual intent... Seeing that the GOSPEL is called PEACE -- Rom 10:15 ...and that GOD states that He MADE PEACE by the work of the Cross -- Col 1:20 -- then these elements must be found WITHIN the text as well in the final anaylysis of it...

There are several words which merit further scrutiny, for they DEFINE the passage quoted and thereby can and DOES expose BIASES of both Tranlators and observers... These are a few PIVITOL words which are found within John 15:-16 and which MUST be observed in order to garner the TRUTH from it...

Perish = Apollumi -- destroy/destruction.. LOST (as applied to the Lost [apollumi] SON, coin and sheep in Luke 15 which we all eventually FOUND)
Eternal = Aionios -- rooted in AION which means AGE and is TIME oriented, disqualifying its application to ETERNITY, which preceeded the CREATION of time.
Believe = Plateuo -- to have FAITH. Faith is an EXCLUSIVE work of CHRIST, for HE authors AND finishes it.
Whosoever = Pas -- which means ALL, and is used to describe the TOTAL of whatever it is applied to...
Loved = Agapao -- this is LOVE (root word for love) as described in 1 Cor 13 -- no negativity is found in its definition.
World = Kosmos -- this term means the Creation in its entirety... which is the stated OBJECT of God's LOVE...

B. W. wrote:John, 3:15-16, “…that everyone who believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 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.” ESV

Notice it clearly states "everyone who believes in Him." This expresses a condition as well as a choice. In verse 16 it states “that whoever believes in Him” will not perish. Question — what happens to those who do not believe?

Before I note this text from the KJV... let us take a moment to observe YOUR COMMENT... "everyone who BELIEVES in Him"... you say this "expresses a CONDITION"... and I agree.

But the CONDITION is one which becomes present upon GOD'S enabling and DECISION! ...for to "BELIEVE" requires the AUTHORING of FAITH by JESUS CHRIST -- Heb 12:2... and a man CANNOT COME to CHRIST except by the act of GOD to bring him there -- John 6:44 -- GOD is PERFECTLY IMPARTIAL (10 verses attest to this -- Rom 2:11 -- Gal 2:6 -- 2 Sam 14:14 -- Job 34:19, etc)... then WITHIN that PERFECT IMPARITALITY, must the AUTHORING of FAITH be done in EACH... For NOT ONE can "believe" (the CONDITION),... except CHRIST "AUTHOR" the "FAITH" to do so...

Also... The prophecy of the OT, concerning CHRIST included that ALL would kneel before Him and CONFESS His name... Is 45:23 -- Rom 14:11 -- Phil 2:11 -- CONFESSION is made unto Salvation Rom 10:10 & 13 The Power of this CONFESSION is done by the HOLY SPIRIT -- 1 Cor 12:3

John 3:15-16 [KJV] -- that whosoever [pas] believeth in Him, should not perish [apollumi] but have eternal [aionios] life... for GOD SO LOVED [agapao] the WORLD [kosmos], that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever [pas] believeth [plateuo] in Him, should not perish [apollumi] but have everlasting [aionios] life.

There are a few premises which Scripture notes that are applicable... AND by applying Scripture to other Scripture, is the manner in which OUR OPINIONS are removed and the WORD then becomes the teacher which tells us how it's principles are applied:

(1) Eph 2:8-9 states that OUR work is not in ANY WAY, involved in Salvation, SPECIFICALLY that no man can BOAST before another

(2) The FAITH to "believe" is AUTHORED by CHRIST, and does NOT emerge from us, of "our" decision -- Heb 12:2 & John 6:44

(3) GOD changes NOT, so His LOVE changes NOT -- Mal 3:6 -- Heb 13:8

Forgive me for stopping here, ...I'll continue later BW... this is a detailed study which requires DETAIL... and as were you recently, ...I'm a bit under the weather... (cold)

...willieH

willieH,

You left out the context out of John 3.

There are two groups of people - those that believe and those that will not.

What happens to those who do not is very extremely clear in John 3:36: "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him." ESV

The bible does not agree with your assessments:

Romans 1:18, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." ESV

Romans 2:6-8, "He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury..." ESV

As for using 1 Co 13 please note verse 6

1 Co 13:6, "It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but it rejoices with the truth." ALT

Your brand of love rejoices over unrighteousness and is happy with it as well as accepts it as proof that one indeed loves. God, according to his Love, is not happy with unrighteousness as it is written:

Psalms 7:11-16, "God is a righteous judge, and a God who feels indignation every day. 12 If a man does not repent, God will whet his sword; he has bent and readied his bow; 13 he has prepared for him his deadly weapons, making his arrows fiery shafts.14 Behold, the wicked man conceives evil and is pregnant with mischief and gives birth to lies. 15 He makes a pit, digging it out, and falls into the hole that he has made. 16 His mischief returns upon his own head, and on his own skull his violence descends." ESV

According to your idea of love is that love is gullible because it believes all things and therefore cannot and will not punish anyone. This is an error in interpretation of 1 Co 13:7, "Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

Love is not gullible because it believes. Love is faithful - the word translated believes in verse 7 should read - Love is Faithfullnessing. This captures the meaning very well. Love is faithful and will defend the weak protecting those loved as well as will be vengeful against transgressors because love is faithful. The bible teaches this concept very well about how God's nature is. How can love not rejoice with unrighteousness if love remains blind and all accepting of the unrighteousness?

Note - 1 Co 13 was written for us as a standard to work toward becoming. It is not a statement about God himself. If you try to bend it so, then verse 6 (It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but it rejoices with the truth) contradicts your very doctrine.

How ? By Your rejoicing and holding unrighteousness in high regard. According to your doctrine, the most evil will be saved because love dare not hold anyone accountable. Love rejoices with the truth and the truth is simple: there will be those that believe and those that will not as it is written...

Mat 12:31-33, “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. 33 "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit.” ESV

One other point

1 John declares — 'God is love' but that is an interpretation that is weak. It should read — “God as to (part of) his nature loves.”

This makes a big distinction. God is not limited to a sentimental bundle of love.

Deu 32:3-4, “For I will proclaim the name of the LORD; ascribe greatness to our God! 4 "The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he.”

God's love is not independent of his justice. If it was then it is not love. If love embraces iniquity — it is not love but foolishness. Love offers a choice to change and honors one choice not to change as well. It will punish and it will inflict wrath. Love stirred to anger is impossible to stand against.

God makes a distinct between those who are his people and who are not…

Deu 32:36, “For the LORD will vindicate his people and have compassion on his servants, when he sees that their power is gone and there is none remaining, bond or free.” ESV

Eph 2:3, “among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” ESV

1 Jn 3:10, "By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil..." ESV

There are two kinds of children. Not all will be saved though the offer is too all. All will not accept. Love will not force those that will not accept to accept either or it ceases to be love.

Willie, you will have to discount what the bible says God says about sin. In fact you will have to deny it. That is the truth. A truth you cannot rejoice in. You are demanding God to bow to your definition of what is love should be like. This is dangerous.

Love does not rejoice in such unrighteousness as you are showing. To prove this — what does Mat 12:31-33 mean to you?

What does Romans 1:18 mean to you?

Willie, you need to learn to balance scripture and context.
-
-
-