Jesus is a God of conditional Love, not unconditional love. (2)

[tackattack]

I haven't read the entire thread, especially with all of the multiple posts, but I do have a few things to say about unconditional and agape love. Agape does not have any ancient references to conditions. Speaking strictly from a language standpoint, agape would be a perfect and complete love. It was used primarily by Christianity at the time to denote a self-sacrificing love. It was use by greeks at the time to reference a consuming and pure love. Linguistically agape does not translate to unconditional and I agree that it's a misleading statement.

I think the disconnect happens when people try to envisions what the most idealistin and perfect, complete love would be. On the surface it sounds great that a perfect all loving God would love everyone all the time. I think what ozell is trying to point out is that a mindset like that is what started universalism. We're all not the same. Some believe and live their life accordingly and some don't. The Lord clearly states he will seperate the wheat from the chaff. He doesn't say we're all wheat and he only wants the best wheat. There can be lots of weeds or fruits of the flesh hiding in a garden of fruits of the spirit. Discernment is what we're called to do and that means strictly by definition, there are conditions to agape love.

Like the gift of salvation is already given and still needs to be accepted, so does Love. God's love is freely given to all who cry out for him (not just all), but they must then accept it.

Just some thoughts on the matter.
-God Bless
Dave T

 

[razzelflabben]

God's love is conditional

lets read where Jesus was going to kill Moses for not circumcusing his son.

Exodus 4
24: And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.
25: Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.

Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

all thru out the bible the Lord speaks of a person being cut off from among the people

do this really sound like a God who loves everyone and everything because man has labeled his a GOD of unconditional love?

everyone yes, God is just, therefore, it is not inconsistent for Him to love and at the same time judge. they are in fact, compatable if you understand what real love is.

As to loving everything, this is the first time I recall this claim coming up, so I have to ask where you are getting it from.

 

[razzelflabben]

if the God of unconditionally love exist why did he say the righteous are scarcely saved

Jesus the God of Conditional love said


1Pt 4:18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?


why will this God who loves everyone giving Peter a question like

where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?

when we all know that the GOD of unconditional love should not have sinners and ungodly people because he loves and forgive everyone no matter what?

Ozell, this is really out of control...you refuse to discuss the things you disagree with, and ignore responses that are given, then accuse others of not obeying God's commands.

So let's try this one more time...Don't confuse salvation with love, they are not the same thing. And btw, this comment, " GOD of unconditional love should not have sinners and ungodly people because he loves and forgive everyone no matter what?" demonstrates your willful ignorance of what is being said. No one here is advocating that love forgives no matter what, this is a tool on your part to make your view sound more than what it is. Our salvation is dependant on our acceptance, and God extending His unconditional love to all men. Furthermore, you have been shown scripture in which God says 'I forgive but still punish' so this too is a fallicy argument you have created (in other posts) to make your view seem more plausible.

the should appear in the kingdom with everyone else

he supposely loves everyone!!

He does love everyone, that is why everyone has a chance at salvation. If His love was conditional, you and I wouldn't have a chance at salvation. As it is, salvation is our choice, we get to decide if we want to live in God's love, or reject it.

 

[razzelflabben]

why do you assume I'm trying to change you?
who are you anyway?

Go back and reread your post and ask yourself

why are millions of Christians without homes?,
why are millions of christians without jobs?
why are millions of christians lack adequate food?

get your head out of the sand and look around you

christians are in trouble all over the world because people teach that God loves them unconditionally

tell the truth God love those who love him!!!

you love God by keeping his commandments

show them the scriptures and testament

you them this Prov 8:17 I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.
Jn 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

also

1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

BROTHER

save your prayer for those who really need it like the child molesting perverted priest who rape little boys

who many of you say God loves because God loves everyone no matter what they do.

shame on you all!!!!

Ozell, calm down, it was very simply a prayer offered on your behalf, a beautiful prayer in spirit and in truth, just the way God loves.

As to your question, every single story is different, but speaking from someone who has endured abuse as a child, molestation as a teen, inappropriate content issues that almost tore my marriage apart, abuse by the church, watching my children be physically assaulted for our stand on Christ, homelessness with three young children, dangerous neighborhoods, and now a child dieing at a young age, I will tell you without any doubt in my mind, that God is there, during every single thing that man suffers. He loves through the thing, and His purpose if above question. All of my experiences have made me the person I am and have given me not only good character, but a relationship with God that is beyond compare. And even though you and others doubt it, it has also given me a God love for man that most who know me marvel at (something I personally still don't get because I see how far I need to go). James tells us about hardships, and what he tells us among other things, is that they do not come to us to destroy us, but rather to strength us in the Lord. Even Job learned that all he endured was of value, because it taught Him about a God whose love is eternal, unfathomable, and unconditional. I know what God has taught me through my situations, what He wants to teach you or anyone else is between you and God. None the less, it is there in your life to strengthen you in Christ and will only destroy you if you allow it to. Consider
Romans 8:38-39 (New International Version)

38For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,[a] neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[razzelflabben]

God shows us everyday that he cannot love the non-sense that goes on in this world

Perverted child molesting priest
homosexual preachers
corrupt politicians
the divorce rate is sky high
one parent homes

God love everyone u all say.

Notice when you try to make your case, you suddenly shift attention from the person to their sin. Man can be separated from his sin, in the power and might of the Lord Jesus Christ, they are not inseperable Praise the Lord !!!!!!

 

[razzelflabben]

I haven't read the entire thread, especially with all of the multiple posts, but I do have a few things to say about unconditional and agape love. Agape does not have any ancient references to conditions. Speaking strictly from a language standpoint, agape would be a perfect and complete love. It was used primarily by Christianity at the time to denote a self-sacrificing love. It was use by greeks at the time to reference a consuming and pure love. Linguistically agape does not translate to unconditional and I agree that it's a misleading statement.

I think the disconnect happens when people try to envisions what the most idealistin and perfect, complete love would be. On the surface it sounds great that a perfect all loving God would love everyone all the time. I think what ozell is trying to point out is that a mindset like that is what started universalism. We're all not the same. Some believe and live their life accordingly and some don't. The Lord clearly states he will seperate the wheat from the chaff. He doesn't say we're all wheat and he only wants the best wheat. There can be lots of weeds or fruits of the flesh hiding in a garden of fruits of the spirit. Discernment is what we're called to do and that means strictly by definition, there are conditions to agape love.

Like the gift of salvation is already given and still needs to be accepted, so does Love. God's love is freely given to all who cry out for him (not just all), but they must then accept it.

Just some thoughts on the matter.
-God Bless
Dave T

Yep, something we have been trying to get Ozell to see. Unconditional love means that it is offered to everyone no matter what they do no matter if they accept it or not. It doesn't mean that love is offered to us if we do X, Y, or Z. This is contrast to salvation which is only offered if we do X,Y, or Z. The contrast of the two should be enough to show what is being said, but Ozell can't even understand that our love or God isn't the same thing as God's love for us.

Ah well, such is life, welcome

 

[tackattack]

ty for the welcome. It seems like a tautologyissue. Similar to an all powerful God problem. Of course God created the universe and everything in it, so from our perspective he's the pinacle of all power so omnipotent or all powerful. Of course God also has a nature and God doesn't have the power to do anything outside his nature. So technically omnipotent as a strict definition is a contradiction because you could do things both in line with and outside your nature. From a practical perspective of within this universe there is no higher power so it's the best axiom for all powerfull we could ever hope for. Relating that to the topic of omnibenevolence or all loving. It's of course distributed to everyone, but a relationship with God from our human perspetcive isn't 1 way (when we don't hear his voice it can see that way), it's 2 way and requires acceptance. I find that when people start to argue over definitions it's getting to the point where a step back and broader perspective is in order.

 

[razzelflabben]

ty for the welcome. It seems like a tautologyissue. Similar to an all powerful God problem. Of course God created the universe and everything in it, so from our perspective he's the pinacle of all power so omnipotent or all powerful. Of course God also has a nature and God doesn't have the power to do anything outside his nature. So technically omnipotent as a strict definition is a contradiction because you could do things both in line with and outside your nature. From a practical perspective of within this universe there is no higher power so it's the best axiom for all powerfull we could ever hope for. Relating that to the topic of omnibenevolence or all loving. It's of course distributed to everyone, but a relationship with God from our human perspetcive isn't 1 way (when we don't hear his voice it can see that way), it's 2 way and requires acceptance. I find that when people start to argue over definitions it's getting to the point where a step back and broader perspective is in order.

You sound like some of my kids...they love this type of discussion, me, I'm more for asking questions and finding answers.

I think that to an extent your right, love is two way, but not as most people assume. If we say love is two way, it indicates that love must be given and received, however, real love does not expect anything in return, therefore this is a fallacy of sorts. Let me explain further. In I Cor. 13 we see that love does not seek it's own, therefore the love talked about in the bible doesn't seek to have love returned to it. It is pleased when that happens, but love doesn't require it so to speak. So the surface answer has to be no, love is not a two way street, it does not require anything in order to be given. Love can stand alone. I often counsel people that it doesn't matter what someone else does or says, you are responsible for what you do or say. This is the concept here of love. Love doesn't need anything from anyone to exist. Love just is, it is independant of anything else.

However, a different look, a different direction of the concept reveals another truth about love, which as I understand it is the point you are trying to make. Where love is not a two way street, it cannot be fully realized unless it is accepted. In other words, we are going back to the discussion about living in or dwelling in God's love. This does have a condition. Love has no conditions, living in that love, fully realizing the wonders of that love, does indeed have a condition. We can look at it like the gift of a car. Let's say that someone gives me a brand new car for my birthday. The car is mine no matter what I do with it, but unless or until I get in it, turn the key, and drive it, I can't fully realize the wonders of that gift. Love is a similar idea, it is ours, no matter what we do with it, but if we don't accept it, if we don't do something with it, it has no real value to us.

 

[tackattack]

I agree that love is not a 2 way street when you're talking about giving and requirement. However it's a fallacy to not acknowledge that there are 2 sides to a relationship, which you did acknowledge. I only used the vernacular because it is common tautology. Yes love is all of the things in 1 Corinthians. But the perspective is what I'm talking about and a true and Godly love is when we neither expect God to love us or boast of his love, but freely give our praises to him with no want of blessing just as he give us to him without want or need. I think we're in total agreeance here, so I think I've conveyed my point and I don't feel the need to quibble over how it's presented. On a side note, I'm sure you meant no disrespect, but please don't infer my age or maturity with references to your personal life experiences, it's disingenuous.

 

[razzelflabben]

I agree that love is not a 2 way street when you're talking about giving and requirement. However it's a fallacy to not acknowledge that there are 2 sides to a relationship, which you did acknowledge.

actually, we spent a long time on it on this thread and it still fell on deaf ears.

I only used the vernacular because it is common tautology. Yes love is all of the things in 1 Corinthians. But the perspective is what I'm talking about and a true and Godly love is when we neither expect God to love us or boast of his love, but freely give our praises to him with no want of blessing just as he give us to him without want or need. I think we're in total agreeance here, so I think I've conveyed my point and I don't feel the need to quibble over how it's presented. On a side note, I'm sure you meant no disrespect, but please don't infer my age or maturity with references to your personal life experiences, it's disingenuous.

When did I do this? I'm lost....I don't know your age or maturity...and as to my personal experiences, I only present them when it is the best way to convey a point....I honestly am confused by this last part of this post...please show where I did any of this....

and btw, you'll have fun when Ozell weighs in on this topic, he still doesn't understand what is being said.

 

[tackattack]

You sound like some of my kids...they love this type of discussion, me, I'm more for asking questions and finding answers.

I'm sure you meant nothing by it. I have been severly repressed in my life due to several factors. One being a child in a church growing up there and then trying to be in a position of leadership within the Church as an adult. Some people will alway see you as yoou were, not as you are. Again, I'm sure you meant no harm. Some people will you terms like honey child, or dear, or little one to reference adults and while it may be common vernacular in a particular region, some other places consider it condescending.

 

[razzelflabben]

I'm sure you meant nothing by it. I have been severly repressed in my life due to several factors. One being a child in a church growing up there and then trying to be in a position of leadership within the Church as an adult. Some people will alway see you as yoou were, not as you are. Again, I'm sure you meant no harm. Some people will you terms like honey child, or dear, or little one to reference adults and while it may be common vernacular in a particular region, some other places consider it condescending.

really? I refer to the type of argument my children enjoy, children I am very fond of btw, and appreciate their skill at learning and growing and thinking things through and you find a way to see that as some attack on your personhood? Wow, okay I don't know whether I should apologize for complimenting you or not, I guess I'm sorry for complimenting you, I'm still not sure why I should be sorry for giving you a compliment, but I'm sorry you were offended by it.

BTW, my husband was a pk and mk and knows the abuse of the church very well. But even the abuse of his family wasn't enough to prepare us for the abuse of us and our kids when he became a pastor. In fact, I could tell you horror stories about the truths of most churches. But, love is love, and being easily offended is not love. Just some food for thought. Do with it what you will

 

[tackattack]

I'm sure fom your perspective it was meant as a compliment, however from my perspective a childishness was inferred becasue you weren't specific about how it related to your children. That's why concise communication is important. You should feel no need to apologize, as I've said I know you meant no offence and I took it as none. I appreciate the compliment, however in future communications referencing me being childlike please be specific (or don't do it at all) or there could be a miscommunication. Now I've gone and derailed the thread.. et's not beat the preverbial dead horse.

 

[razzelflabben]

I'm sure fom your perspective it was meant as a compliment, however from my perspective a childishness was inferred becasue you weren't specific about how it related to your children.

I don't want to drag this out, but I did specify, I said that the philosophical line of thinking that you were presenting is consistant with the philosophical type discussions my children are fond of having. Had I said something like, my children understand better than you, I could see your problem, but to express a similar discipline is far from an insult or non specifiic. I mean, how specific shall I be, must I be so consumed with your fears that I define every thought before writing it? Thus I must define consumed? your? fears? define? before you can comprehend what I am saying? That is just nuts, there are some standard, so basic communication rules that govern every discussion.

Sun. in SS. I was talking about God's ability to be true to his words and that if He could be trust with saying something we should certainly be able to rest in His promises. Before I got to the part about promises, the teacher "repremanded " me for using the word if in relation to God's word. The entire class corrected the teacher. You see, his (the teachers) intent was to find something to be offended about and because of that, he didn't even hear what was said. You did the same thing it would appear. Because you wanted to be offended, you didn't read what was said. I have used comparisons of my children as both compliments and critisizms and I assure you that no part of the sentence structure leads itself to anything but compliment when read for what it says and not for the purpose of being offended. Now I really would like for this to end, so you can take that for what it's worth, an honest look at what was said and how it could be interpreted, or you can twist it into another offensive comment and I will put you on ignore status until you are ready to communicate fairly. If you read it other than what it said, you are responsible, if I wrote it to sound other than what it intended it is my responsiblity, I check several different ways to see if I was above reproach and I have a clear conscience, just as I had in SS when everyone but the teacher was understanding what I said, even the guy that usually disagrees with me, took on the teacher. .

That's why concise communication is important. You should feel no need to apologize, as I've said I know you meant no offence and I took it as none. I appreciate the compliment, however in future communications referencing me being childlike

I didn't even indicate it was childlike, that is my problem here. I am 50 years old according to my posts, which means my children must be aging to the point of no childlike. In fact, when my children are in their 50's they will still be my children and I will refer to them as my children if I am alive to see it. Just because someone says, you remind me of my child, doesn't mean you are being called child like. And Btw, we are told to come to God as a young child. Childlike, even if it is what I said, is not a bad thing, but rather a good thing according to scripture. The problem is, I didn't say anything in the post that equated you to a child, only compared you to my children, several of which are older btw.

please be specific (or don't do it at all) or there could be a miscommunication. Now I've gone and derailed the thread.. et's not beat the preverbial dead horse.

Here's the problem and then I hope we can get back to topic.

You have been shown how what I said is not what you read. There is this phenomina (never could spell that word) in which people have a negative reaction to innocent things because of past experiences. That basically means that the person saying the thing is innocent of all accusations, and the offended person is over reacting because of that negative response. In other words, you wanted to be offended by what I said and so you were because you could make an excuse for it. That make the quilty party you and not me, and you need to find healing for your negative experience. In all love, let me give you this blessing. May you find peace for your troubled soul, truth when you look deep inside, and grace to accept your own mistakes rather than passing them off on others. (BTW, it's a blessing for all who read it, not just you)

 

[tackattack]

I wanted to send this in PM, but I can't yet and I really didn't want to derail the thread any more so I won't respond to anything other than PM's on this derailment

All of this amounts to the same things I've said. I don't hold you responsible, you should feel completely blameless for this. It is my own inadequsies (never could spell that one either) and past that causes me to cringe at references to immaturity. There is no way you could have known that. I would hope as a compassionate Christian you would be concerned if someone has taken offence to your words, which you did and apologized. You are absolutely correct that it's not really about the conciseness of communication it's about the content. I was simply trying to ask you in a nice way not to relate immaturity or likeness to children in relation to me at all even remotely. I'm new here and you did indeed specify that they liked this type of discussion, but you then followed it with a "but I" which also can be considered a tad sanctimonious. When the bottom line is none of the sentence needed to be there at all, it serves no purpose and it makes me feel uncomfortable. It wasn't your fault, you didn't know, so you shouldn't feel guilty. It's not about who was right or wrong, if anyone was it was me for not communicating my issues clearly. I truly appreciate your blessings and thoughts on the subject. My soul's condition however is my responsibility, not yours and I place it in Jesus' hands every day. I hope this doesn't distance us any more, I'm not here to ruffle feathers just talk about Christianity, but I thought in the interst of future conversations I could let you know about some things that make me uncomfortable. I didn't tell you thos things to make you feel guilty because I wasn't offended, I just had a knee-jerk reaction, and wanted to have calm and peacefull discussions here. Thank you for your continued attention in this matter, but it was purely informational. I've spent far too much time on this matter that's keeping me from viewing other sections of the website. I hope that this doesn't upset you to the point you're going to ignore some one. In fact I wish you many blessings in your life.

 

[ozell]

I haven't read the entire thread, especially with all of the multiple posts, but I do have a few things to say about unconditional and agape love. Agape does not have any ancient references to conditions. Speaking strictly from a language standpoint, agape would be a perfect and complete love. It was used primarily by Christianity at the time to denote a self-sacrificing love. It was use by greeks at the time to reference a consuming and pure love. Linguistically agape does not translate to unconditional and I agree that it's a misleading statement.

I think the disconnect happens when people try to envisions what the most idealistin and perfect, complete love would be. On the surface it sounds great that a perfect all loving God would love everyone all the time. I think what ozell is trying to point out is that a mindset like that is what started universalism. We're all not the same. Some believe and live their life accordingly and some don't. The Lord clearly states he will seperate the wheat from the chaff. He doesn't say we're all wheat and he only wants the best wheat. There can be lots of weeds or fruits of the flesh hiding in a garden of fruits of the spirit. Discernment is what we're called to do and that means strictly by definition, there are conditions to agape love.

Like the gift of salvation is already given and still needs to be accepted, so does Love. God's love is freely given to all who cry out for him (not just all), but they must then accept it.

Just some thoughts on the matter.
-God Bless
Dave T

Thanks Bro!!!!

God is Love

you said what Solomon wrote


Prov 8:17 I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.

 

[ozell]

everyone yes, God is just, therefore, it is not inconsistent for Him to love and at the same time judge. they are in fact, compatable if you understand what real love is.

As to loving everything, this is the first time I recall this claim coming up, so I have to ask where you are getting it from.

Sister

the Point is The Lord was going to Kill Moses who we all know God loved and listened to.

The Lord was going to kill this man for not circumcising his sons
.

The Lord was going to kill Moses even though the Lord love him!!!

 

[ozell]

Lord, bless Ozell and open up the floodgates of Your Love to him.

this is why I know the Lord love me, not because of idle words or vain prayers

I keep his commandments which proves to him that I love him

Jn 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

check this one out

Jesus love me because I keep his commandments

lets read

1Jn 5
1: Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
2: By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
3: For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

everytime you or other posts I can always turn to these verses and more and read the what Godly love is!!!

 

[ozell]

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosover believes in Him shall not perish.

The world, in all its sins and child molesters and theifs and murderers and all the unbelievers, God loves.

Lord, send a strong measure of Your Holy Spirit onto Ozell that he may see Your salvation.

so God love child molesters, and thieves and murderer

Jn 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

if these people don't repent and turn from their wicked ways your God on unconditional love will accpet them as they are

a child molester
a murderer
a thief

are you sure about this or are you speaking thru emotions?

 

[ozell]

=Christownsme;55759275]For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosover believes in Him shall not perish.

understand this from Paul in Hebrews addressing the same thing as John said

Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7: Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8: Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9: Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10: By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.


Tell me who are the we that are sanctified by the body of Jesus?

who is the world did the Father give Jesus for?

Lord, send a strong measure of Your Holy Spirit onto Ozell that he may see Your salvation

your prayer has a breach in it because of your spirit

Prov 15:4 A wholesome tongue is a tree of life: but perverseness therein is a breach in the spirit.

Jesus said this about his Holy Spirit

pay attention

Jn 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16: And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17: Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18: I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

see the condition of keeping Jesus commandments, notice the word if is used

someone where there is a breach in your prayer concerning the holy spirit

yet I know you never read this verse before so you should study it.

again concerning your prayers and your understanding of the holy spirit I leave you again with this verse

Prov 15:4 A wholesome tongue is a tree of life: but perverseness therein is a breach in the spirit.