Using Scripture, prove to me that God love unconditionally

[ToBeLoved]

When I asked a group of the non-Christian teenage boys I work with what unconditional means, they said "without conditions". Websters concurs.

If someone says that isn't what Bible means by unconditional, ask them where unconditional is used in the Bible. It isn't there.

So how can you say that God doesn’t love His creation without condition when the Bible says that

 

[ToBeLoved]

The word "unconditional" doesn't need to be there when the implication of it is thoroughly present.

St. Paul in his epistle to the Romans writes that God, "demonstrates His love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). Notice that God's love for us wasn't after we did X, Y, and Z in order to merit or win over God's affections, it was while we were still sinners, while we were enemies of God (Romans 5:10) that we were reconciled to Him. Was there something about us that made God love us? No, not as St. Paul says it, God had love for us and on that account, Christ died for us and God reconciled us--sinners and enemies--to Himself.

And consistently throughout Scripture that's the theme of God's love. God loves us, not because there's something that we did to win His affection, or because we did anything righteous to merit His favor; but just the opposite we've done nothing of worthwhile to win Him over to us, and in fact, we have done everything possible to stand opposed to God. What did Paul say in Romans 3? "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" and "There is no one righteous, not even one. No one has understanding, there is no one who seeks God." (Romans 3:10-11).

So what condition was there that triggered God's love for us? There wasn't one. God loved us, because that's who God is. What does St. John write? "God is love" (1 John 4:8), and what else does he say, does he say, "God loved us because we loved Him?" No, just the opposite, "We love because He first loved us." (1 John 4:19).

The occasion of God's love is that He is love, and He has purposed to redeem and rescue His creation out of His love for what He has made, and that means coming down to meet us sinners, acting in all our blood-thirsty hatred of Him, suffering at our hands in love, and dying for us that we might be reconciled to God, redeemed, saved. Because that's who God is, the One who throws Himself away in love for the unloving and the unlovely. While we were enemies of God, even while our fists were balled up, shaking them furiously at God because of our own hatred of all that is good, He wrapped us up in the robes of His righteousness, in Jesus, and declared us to be His own beloved children. That's who God is.

-CryptoLutheran

I think somehow he is saying that an unloving act like sending people to hell is not a loving God.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think somehow he is saying that an unloving act like sending people to hell is not a loving God.

Ah. Well then that seems to be easily resolved by the fact that God doesn't send people to hell--that's something we do ourselves. It is the will of God that all be saved, and none should perish. God's will is salvation, hell is an act of human will.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

The word "unconditional" doesn't need to be there when the implication of it is thoroughly present.

St. Paul in his epistle to the Romans writes that God, "demonstrates His love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). Notice that God's love for us wasn't after we did X, Y, and Z in order to merit or win over God's affections, it was while we were still sinners, while we were enemies of God (Romans 5:10) that we were reconciled to Him.

I agree with Scripture. But, I have never said anything to the contrary. I have never said we have to meet the Law in order to be loved by God. We cannot earn God's love.

The conditions I have continually spoken of are AFTER God has shown his necessarily prevenient (loving first) love. So read Romans 5:8-10 again. Consider this: If that means EVERY man, then ALL are saved from His wrath no matter what they do. If EVERY man was to receive what Jesus did, regardless of anything they did--including whether they chose to believe God's testimony about His Son or not--then NONE would be left to suffer the wrath of God. And, if that was the case, it would be unconditional love shown to ALL men. But, that is not what Scripture says has happened or will happen.

Was there something about us that made God love us?

No outside force makes the Sovereign God do anything. He does it out of the integrity of who He is. And, if God lacked integrity, then we couldn't trust anything He said. I am sure God that when He says something, it will come to pass. It is based on that, that we can trust Him.

God chooses to love us, because we are His creation. And, in His eyes, we are a special creation.

No, not as St. Paul says it, God had love for us and on that account, Christ died for us and God reconciled us--sinners and enemies--to Himself.

See above discussion.

And consistently throughout Scripture that's the theme of God's love.

Agreed.

God loves us, not because there's something that we did to win His affection, or because we did anything righteous to merit His favor; but just the opposite we've done nothing of worthwhile to win Him over to us, and in fact, we have done everything possible to stand opposed to God.

I would disagree that everyone did everything possible to stand opposed to God. Enoch walked with God; Noah "found grace in the eyes of the LORD....Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God (Gen 6:8-9), so God spared him and his family while killing the rest of those people. Job "was a perfect (good) and upright man, one who fears God and eschews evil" according to God. There was a reason God chose Abram. There was a reason God chose Moses. There was a reason God chose David--and that is spoken of in 1 Sam 16:7--even if you don't believe that applies to others God has chosen. God says it to Samuel specifically about David. And, the list goes on.

What did Paul say in Romans 3? "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" and "There is no one righteous, not even one. No one has understanding, there is no one who seeks God." (Romans 3:10-11).

I agree. Sinning and falling short, which all who I mentioned above had also done, only means that no one deserves God's love or favor. We clearly deserve to die (not to live any longer). God's wrath takes it a step further. There is a place God created called hell. That is a place of eternal (permanent) torment and suffering and separation from the God whose love the people (who will end up there) rejected. But God provided a way (JESUS) for any who will love GOD back to be rescued from that eternal punishment.

So what condition was there that triggered God's love for us? There wasn't one.

There is NO condition outside of God that causes God to do anything. He is truly sovereign. In His sovereignty, He created us. He loves us (as an entity--man), because He created us and He created us in His image. He chose to have a relationship with Adam, in the first place. He wants a relationship with ALL MEN WHO WANT TO have a relationship with Him. He does not want to have a relationship with ALL MEN. There are some He will cut off. There are some He will subject to permanent punishment with no chance of repentance, according to the Scriptures.

God loved us, because that's who God is. What does St. John write? "God is love" (1 John 4:8), and what else does he say, does he say, "God loved us because we loved Him?" No, just the opposite, "We love because He first loved us." (1 John 4:19).

EXACTLY!!!!! We love, because He FIRST loved us. Not because He unconditionally loves us no matter what we do or what we choose after He has extended that love to us. HE LOVED US FIRST. When the Sovereign God chooses to extend that love, there is an expected response, BELIEVE. If you don't show that response, there are consequences--just like there were consequences for lucifer.

The occasion of God's love is that He is love, and He has purposed to redeem and rescue His creation out of His love for what He has made,

Agreed and yet lucifer, the fallen angels who followed him, and all men who don't truly believe in God, and therefore remain in His love, were also His creation. And, they will find themselves in the Lake of Fire, the everlasting and torturous second death.

and that means coming down to meet us sinners, acting in all our blood-thirsty hatred of Him, suffering at our hands in love, and dying for us that we might be reconciled to God, redeemed, saved. Because that's who God is, the One who throws Himself away in love for the unloving and the unlovely. While we were enemies of God, even while our fists were balled up, shaking them furiously at God because of our own hatred of all that is good,

I agree God is Love. But, this emotional theatrical paragraph above is not Scriptural. It is the picture you receive from people trying to manipulate you.

He wrapped us up in the robes of His righteousness, in Jesus, and declared us to be His own beloved children. That's who God is.

Does He do that for all men--according to Scripture? If we are all wrapped in Jesus, then none go to hell. That is not what Jesus said. That is not what Peter said. That is not what Revelation, Jude, John, James or Paul say.


-CryptoLutheran

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

I think somehow he is saying that an unloving act like sending people to hell is not a loving God.

God is love. He defines love. I am not attacking the character of God and saying that a loving God would never send anyone to hell. In contrast, I don't put requirements on the sovereign God. I just report what I read in Scripture.

I AM saying that if God permanently and unconditionally loves an individual, that individual would never end up in permanent torturous punishment. A sovereign God who loves each and every person unconditionally would not allow permanent punishment nor push anyone in such a direction at any point in time.

I AM saying that THEOLOGY that suggests that God loves unconditionally is not in accordance with Scripture and that it puts those who hold onto it in the position of trying to be God's defense attorney when the sovereign God doesn't need one. People who claim unconditional love are the ones who have to backpedal and explain the curse, the flood, and why people end up in eternal torment. I, as one who believes in "love with conditions extended necessarily after God first loved--don't have to defend Him in any of those situations. He is sovereign. We transgressed. We ALL deserve hell; but, because of God's love and grace, many won't get what we deserve because we accepted His condition of genuine belief--God isn't mocked and God knows the heart. God knows the difference between genuine belief and the lack of genuine belief that Jesus calls out: "why do you call me 'Lord' and don't do what I say?" "He who hears My words and does not do them, I will show you who he is like...." "If any man loves Me, he will keep My Words; and My Father will love him, and we will come and make our abode with him." "He who overcomes...I will not blot out of the book of life...."

Jesus own words say things that contradict the idea that God unconditionally loves. This is why young's theology (as first exposed in "the shack" for those with eyes to discern and later exposed in young's book called "lies we believe....") is so confused. When you hold the position God loves unconditionally, you now pit the Father against the Son, because the Son confirmed both before and after suffering on the Cross that not all would be found in heaven and some would be on the receiving end of God's eternal punishment.

People who aren't schooled in religious theology catch that "eternal punishment" right away and question how an unconditionally loving God could send anyone to hell. When told people choose it, they will again say "how could a loving God ALLOW anyone to go to hell?" "Who created hell?" "Who decided that men who don't believe "God's testimony about His Son" will go there?" So, while the decision may be in the man's hand, it doesn't change the fact that God ordained hell. So, again, why would an UNCONDITIONALLY LOVING and Sovereign God allow anyone to even choose hell?

I AM saying that GOD LOVING FIRST (even loving first more than once) does not equate to unconditional love. BUT, I AM also saying God MUST NECESSARILY LOVE FIRST.

I have also shown that there are times that there is a point when HIS LOVE STOPS REACHING OUT to a specific individual (2 Thes 2 delusion, and Romans 1 reprobate mind, the mark of the beast recipients, those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit, as a few examples). If God's love stops reaching out at any point to any individual, it is conditional love.

In short, what I AM saying is the love of God that is extended to the individual man is conditional, because that individual man must respond a certain way to continue to receive God's love.

 

[JoeP222w]

The first place to start would be to ask what is meant when someone says that God loves "unconditionally".

 

[razzelflabben]

this post is very confusing without the proper tags but I think I can summarize the disagreement after reading through this and praying about how to explain things so that some of you all can follow what is being said.

The disagreement seems to be with whether or not God's Love stops when we reject Him. Now, the case has not been made from scripture that God's Love stops when we reject Him but that seems to be what some people believe. In fact, if God's Love stops when we reject Him none of us could be saved for we all rejected Him at one point in our lives. Love that is real Love, Biblical Love produces a covenant that sticks with the receiver to the bitter end. So the question then is, does God's Love stop when we go to hell...this has been shown in scripture to not be the case but some use certain passages to justify their thought that it does, here in is the problem...1. God desires ALL men to come to Him, not just the one's that He created for specific "noble" tasks...John 12:32...2. God is grieved when men do not come to Him which is an indication that He still Loves them...
Genesis 6:6
Psalm 78:40
2 Chronicles 21:7
Isaiah 63:10
Isaiah 65:3
Ephesians 4:30
Psalm 139:24
Hosea 12:14 See, grief over disobedience is a reaction to Love, a continued Love, an unconditional Love.
3. God is Love...I John 4:8...If God is Love then anywhere He is Love is there, that is without condition. IOW's the very fact that God is Love and thus cannot be separated from that Love is evidence that His Love is unconditional...4. Now for the question of whether or not God is in hell...Revelation 14:10
he too will drink the wine of God's anger, poured undiluted into the cup of His wrath. And he will be tormented in fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb....

That pretty much so addresses all the opposition to God's unconditional Love that I can recall from this thread....which opens the door for some questions so that we can all reason together as scripture tells us to do...1. what is God's Love and how does it differ from worldly love...2. What is hell? Why does it exist? Why do people go to hell? ...3. Do Love and hate coexist or are they opposites...and 4. Why can't or won't God rescue people from hell if they change their minds once they get there? Is it because He stopped being Himself aka Love or is it some other reason?

All these questions have answers in scripture the question is whether or not we are interested enough in knowing who God really is to take the time to find the answers.

 

[razzelflabben]

God is love. He defines love. I am not attacking the character of God and saying that a loving God would never send anyone to hell. In contrast, I don't put requirements on the sovereign God. I just report what I read in Scripture.

I AM saying that if God permanently and unconditionally loves an individual, that individual would never end up in permanent torturous punishment. A sovereign God who loves each and every person unconditionally would not allow permanent punishment nor push anyone in such a direction at any point in time.

you do understand that that is exactly why God sent Jesus to suffer and die, right? Because He didn't want anyone ending up in hell...the same hell that is the consequence of sin not the punishment for it.

So basically your argument boils down to this...if God's Love was unconditional He would force us to Love Him...which wouldn't be Love at all. IOW's Love is a willing thing not a forced one...

I AM saying that THEOLOGY that suggests that God loves unconditionally is not in accordance with Scripture and that it puts those who hold onto it in the position of trying to be God's defense attorney when the sovereign God doesn't need one. People who claim unconditional love are the ones who have to backpedal and explain the curse, the flood, and why people end up in eternal torment.

how dishonest....! Sorry to be so blunt but I have offered you multiple scriptures that disagree with your assertions here and you refuse to address any of them making the opposite of what you say here true...it is the one who thinks God's Love is conditional that lacks Biblical evidence...but you know what, I am not even willing to make that claim, I would rather just discuss the topic as you claimed you wanted to but refuse to do. It's sad that you prefer to make accusations than to discuss what scripture says.

I, as one who believes in "love with conditions extended necessarily after God first loved--don't have to defend Him in any of those situations. He is sovereign. We transgressed. We ALL deserve hell; but, because of God's love and grace, many won't get what we deserve because we accepted His condition of genuine belief--God isn't mocked and God knows the heart. God knows the difference between genuine belief and the lack of genuine belief that Jesus calls out: "why do you call me 'Lord' and don't do what I say?" "He who hears My words and does not do them, I will show you who he is like...." "If any man loves Me, he will keep My Words; and My Father will love him, and we will come and make our abode with him." "He who overcomes...I will not blot out of the book of life...."

but see, this is the problem...both sides agree with this but you are so busy trying to accuse others that you can't see that there is no backpedaling or making excuses for the unconditional crowd because hell is NOT the punishment for sin but the consequence therefore it is ONLY UNconditional Love that addresses all these things. You as I said before are confusing Love with the consequences for sin.

Here is a parable for you...Your son is told not to run in front of moving cars. Unfortunately he disobeys you and runs across the busy highway and is struck by a car and killed. Do you stop loving him because he refused to accept your instruction? Of course not, as someone who has lost a child I know that the Love continues. What you are trying to claim is that God stops Loving when we choose to run in front of moving cars. How sad that really is...it is unbelievably sad to think that anyone can read scripture and think that God stops Loving just because we choose to go to hell rather than to reconcile ourselves with God.

Jesus own words say things that contradict the idea that God unconditionally loves. This is why young's theology (as first exposed in "the shack" for those with eyes to discern and later exposed in young's book called "lies we believe....") is so confused. When you hold the position God loves unconditionally, you now pit the Father against the Son, because the Son confirmed both before and after suffering on the Cross that not all would be found in heaven and some would be on the receiving end of God's eternal punishment.

but see, eternal torment (not punishment) is not the Lack of Love but rather the justness of Love. This is where your fatal flaw is in your theology.

People who aren't schooled in religious theology catch that "eternal punishment" right away and question how an unconditionally loving God could send anyone to hell.

Lol because they aren't reading scripture but listening to traditional teaching...see, scripture clearly teaches that God doesn't send anyone to hell, the law does....He is the judge that carries out the sentence but the law is the one who condemns...until you get this theology right I doubt you will ever be able to understand what is being said.

When told people choose it, they will again say "how could a loving God ALLOW anyone to go to hell?" "Who created hell?" "Who decided that men who don't believe "God's testimony about His Son" will go there?" So, while the decision may be in the man's hand, it doesn't change the fact that God ordained hell. So, again, why would an UNCONDITIONALLY LOVING and Sovereign God allow anyone to even choose hell?

The answer is easy...Do you want to be forced into servitude to anyone? How is forced servitude Love? they always answer it is not, that Love is a willing act...which is exactly how we know that your argument is flawed. Hell is the consequence of sin not a punishment for it...why? because Love requires a free will...in free will we choose whom we will serve, God or Satan.

I AM saying that GOD LOVING FIRST (even loving first more than once) does not equate to unconditional love. BUT, I AM also saying God MUST NECESSARILY LOVE FIRST.

I dont' know why you are so stuck on this but refuse to address all the other things that you have been told but it isn't helping your case to be so obsessed on this.....

I have also shown that there are times that there is a point when HIS LOVE STOPS REACHING OUT to a specific individual (2 Thes 2 delusion, and Romans 1 reprobate mind, the mark of the beast recipients, those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit, as a few examples). If God's love stops reaching out at any point to any individual, it is conditional love.

and yet I refuted your conclusions of these and you refused to address the issues only reposted your opinions which suggests to me that you are wrong since truth stands firm against criticism and questions and you fall in their face.

In short, what I AM saying is the love of God that is extended to the individual man is conditional, because that individual man must respond a certain way to continue to receive God's love.

as you have repeatedly been shown, the continuing is the favor of God's Love not the Love itself.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

you do understand that that is exactly why God sent Jesus to suffer and die, right? Because He didn't want anyone ending up in hell...the same hell that is the consequence of sin not the punishment for it.

So basically your argument boils down to this...if God's Love was unconditional He would force us to Love Him...which wouldn't be Love at all. IOW's Love is a willing thing not a forced one... how dishonest....! Sorry to be so blunt but I have offered you multiple scriptures that disagree with your assertions here and you refuse to address any of them making the opposite of what you say here true...it is the one who thinks God's Love is conditional that lacks Biblical evidence...but you know what, I am not even willing to make that claim, I would rather just discuss the topic as you claimed you wanted to but refuse to do. It's sad that you prefer to make accusations than to discuss what scripture says. but see, this is the problem...both sides agree with this but you are so busy trying to accuse others that you can't see that there is no backpedaling or making excuses for the unconditional crowd because hell is NOT the punishment for sin but the consequence therefore it is ONLY UNconditional Love that addresses all these things. You as I said before are confusing Love with the consequences for sin.

Here is a parable for you...Your son is told not to run in front of moving cars. Unfortunately he disobeys you and runs across the busy highway and is struck by a car and killed. Do you stop loving him because he refused to accept your instruction? Of course not, as someone who has lost a child I know that the Love continues. What you are trying to claim is that God stops Loving when we choose to run in front of moving cars. How sad that really is...it is unbelievably sad to think that anyone can read scripture and think that God stops Loving just because we choose to go to hell rather than to reconcile ourselves with God. but see, eternal torment (not punishment) is not the Lack of Love but rather the justness of Love. This is where your fatal flaw is in your theology. Lol because they aren't reading scripture but listening to traditional teaching...see, scripture clearly teaches that God doesn't send anyone to hell, the law does....He is the judge that carries out the sentence but the law is the one who condemns...until you get this theology right I doubt you will ever be able to understand what is being said. The answer is easy...Do you want to be forced into servitude to anyone? How is forced servitude Love? they always answer it is not, that Love is a willing act...which is exactly how we know that your argument is flawed. Hell is the consequence of sin not a punishment for it...why? because Love requires a free will...in free will we choose whom we will serve, God or Satan. I dont' know why you are so stuck on this but refuse to address all the other things that you have been told but it isn't helping your case to be so obsessed on this..... and yet I refuted your conclusions of these and you refused to address the issues only reposted your opinions which suggests to me that you are wrong since truth stands firm against criticism and questions and you fall in their face.as you have repeatedly been shown, the continuing is the favor of God's Love not the Love itself.

Okay. You love to try to incite me and for that I greatly appreciate God putting you in my life. I won't lower myself to trade barbs with you, despite the brilliant temptation you provide.

You claim you have shown things that I don't agree you have shown. I responded and you write off the Scripture I share as not meaning what I say it does.

When I have more time, I will respond to the things you have written in this.

 

[razzelflabben]

Okay. You love to try to incite me and for that I greatly appreciate God putting you in my life. I won't lower myself to trade barbs with you, despite the brilliant temptation you provide.

You claim you have shown things that I don't agree you have shown. I responded and you write off the Scripture I share as not meaning what I say it does.

Please don't insult me like this. I did NOT say that the scripture you shared was not meaning what you said, I said that in context it does NOT show conditional Love. One great example of this is the part in the context of the passage that talks about Pharaoh still having the right to choose God or sin. This means that created for a less than noble cause or not, God still Loved him enough to give him the choice of whether or not to accept God's Love that was extended to him without conditions.

You see, context is vital to communication and you don't seem to understand that. In fact, you just accused me of inciting you when all I did was ask you to discuss the topic as you claimed you wanted to do but refuse to do so. That isn't on me, that is on you. If you say, "I want to discuss x" then refuse to discuss X it isn't inciting you to anything to ask why you are changing your mind.

When I have more time, I will respond to the things you have written in this.

I am anxious since I have been already waiting for days now and stated them repeatedly. I mean if you don't want to discuss it, just say you changed your mind. If you still want to discuss then I would expect you to address what is said...oh and remember, you yourself require scripture to back it up...since I showed you context I expect your rebuttal to be based in the context and totality of scripture not just another post where you repeat your opinions which is equivalent to saying "cause I say so".

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Please don't insult me like this. I did NOT say that the scripture you shared was not meaning what you said, I said that in context it does NOT show conditional Love. One great example of this is the part in the context of the passage that talks about Pharaoh still having the right to choose God or sin. This means that created for a less than noble cause or not, God still Loved him enough to give him the choice of whether or not to accept God's Love that was extended to him without conditions.

You see, context is vital to communication and you don't seem to understand that. In fact, you just accused me of inciting you when all I did was ask you to discuss the topic as you claimed you wanted to do but refuse to do so. That isn't on me, that is on you. If you say, "I want to discuss x" then refuse to discuss X it isn't inciting you to anything to ask why you are changing your mind. I am anxious since I have been already waiting for days now and stated them repeatedly. I mean if you don't want to discuss it, just say you changed your mind. If you still want to discuss then I would expect you to address what is said...oh and remember, you yourself require scripture to back it up...since I showed you context I expect your rebuttal to be based in the context and totality of scripture not just another post where you repeat your opinions which is equivalent to saying "cause I say so".

I wish you could see how you present yourself. You have called me "dishonest", you tell me what "I don't seem to understand"; but you take offense and say "Don't insult me like this" when I call you on it. Really?

You think the context supports you. I would argue that the context of Scripture--whether New Testament, Old Testament or both, actually supports me--not you.

I won't change my mind. I used to blindly accept the unconditional love lie. My eyes are open. I'm not going back to deception. But, I have other responsibilities, too. Those responsibilities limit the time I can spend. As it is, I have been cutting back on my sleep to participate in conversations to the extent that I can. No regrets in taking the time. I just can't give unlimited time right now. I don't think the conversation dematerializes if I am not as timely as either of us would like. I think you still get an alert whenever I respond. Also, other people are saying things and I am trying to respond to more people than just you.

 

[razzelflabben]

I wish you could see how you present yourself. You have called me "dishonest", you tell me what "I don't seem to understand"; but you take offense and say "Don't insult me like this" when I call you on it. Really?

I called you dishonest because you continue to twist what I said...I said the text doesn't support what you are claiming because I show you context and you offer nothing in rebuttal...you see, I do see how I am posting and it is all said in Love....a Love that is above reproach whether or not you understand it that way. It is hard to be confronted with truth when we don't want to hear it. You have had amble opportunity to show in scripture where I am wrong in the context of what is being said and all you offer is accusations against me. I Cor. 13 tells us that Love rejoices in the truth. The truth is NOT your accusations of me attacking you but rather the truth is that I have repeatedly asked you to address the text you yourself posted and you refused. You should in Love be rejoicing that I asked you to address it as in I am considering what you are saying but have some problems I need you to explain....you refuse...then tell me I am the problem...how strange that you would refuse to address the issues and when I call you out on that you accuse me of being the problem. It's simple, Love would address the problems I see in the context.

Now as to the accusation about you not understanding...your assertions have always been centered on how to stay in the favor of Love and not on the OP question about whether or not God's Love is conditional. When I and others pointed out to you the difference and the specific nature of the OP question you once again fell into the repeating your opinions and refused to address the differences that were pointed out to you. The most kind thing someone can do in that situation is assume that you do not understand...which is what I said....again, an act of I Cor. 13 Love.

So how about you dropping your offense at truth and addressing the issues that have been raised of your ideas and understanding so that there is no need to point out to you that you have failed to address the issues. That way you don't have to be offended by I Cor. 13 Love.

You think the context supports you. I would argue that the context of Scripture--whether New Testament, Old Testament or both, actually supports me--not you.

well, see this is where you are getting offended for no reason. The context we are talking about is specific to the passage you presented about objects of wrath...I went verse by verse into the context of the passage you presented that supposedly defends your position in scripture and showed you what I say...you once again resorted to the above offense rather than addressing the context as it occurs in scripture. You cannot just say "I would argue that the context of scripture actually supports me." you have to show how the context of what we are talking about defends your position. If you offer nothing the most kind thing we can assume is that you were wrong and too proud to confess it. I personally opted for giving you another chance to prove your position but instead of taking it, you make accusations here about how I am behaving...did you follow that? I gave you the benefit of the doubt, assuming that your refusal to address the issues was innocent and you got offended by that...would you rather I assume you are being prideful and arrogant by trying to convince us that you are speaking for God and thus your interpretation is not to be questioned? Seems to me that the kindness I offered should be considered good not offensive but hey, if you prefer I'll assume your refusal is not innocent...your call let me know what you decide.

I won't change my mind. I used to blindly accept the unconditional love lie. My eyes are open. I'm not going back to deception. But, I have other responsibilities, too. Those responsibilities limit the time I can spend. As it is, I have been cutting back on my sleep to participate in conversations to the extent that I can. No regrets in taking the time. I just can't give unlimited time right now. I don't think the conversation dematerializes if I am not as timely as either of us would like. I think you still get an alert whenever I respond. Also, other people are saying things and I am trying to respond to more people than just you.

I am very patient but refusing to respond just so you can restate your opinions is cutting into your time with an argument equivalent to "cause I say so"...which is a huge problem...please, take your time and get some sleep but don't waste either of our time by saying, "cause I say so" instead use your time wisely and address the context that as I understand it, shows you wrong. There is no shame in being wrong which is exactly why I am asking you to show me...in case I have it wrong...but if you can't show how the text shows conditions I can't understand how you are getting your claim now can I? IOW's when scripture says that even though God hardened Pharaoh's heart He also gave him the right to choose heaven or hell...then I can't ignore that passage to go along with you just because "you say so"...

 

[ToBeLoved]

God is love. He defines love. I am not attacking the character of God and saying that a loving God would never send anyone to hell. In contrast, I don't put requirements on the sovereign God. I just report what I read in Scripture.

I AM saying that if God permanently and unconditionally loves an individual, that individual would never end up in permanent torturous punishment. A sovereign God who loves each and every person unconditionally would not allow permanent punishment nor push anyone in such a direction at any point in time.

I AM saying that THEOLOGY that suggests that God loves unconditionally is not in accordance with Scripture and that it puts those who hold onto it in the position of trying to be God's defense attorney when the sovereign God doesn't need one. People who claim unconditional love are the ones who have to backpedal and explain the curse, the flood, and why people end up in eternal torment. I, as one who believes in "love with conditions extended necessarily after God first loved--don't have to defend Him in any of those situations. He is sovereign. We transgressed. We ALL deserve hell; but, because of God's love and grace, many won't get what we deserve because we accepted His condition of genuine belief--God isn't mocked and God knows the heart. God knows the difference between genuine belief and the lack of genuine belief that Jesus calls out: "why do you call me 'Lord' and don't do what I say?" "He who hears My words and does not do them, I will show you who he is like...." "If any man loves Me, he will keep My Words; and My Father will love him, and we will come and make our abode with him." "He who overcomes...I will not blot out of the book of life...."

Jesus own words say things that contradict the idea that God unconditionally loves. This is why young's theology (as first exposed in "the shack" for those with eyes to discern and later exposed in young's book called "lies we believe....") is so confused. When you hold the position God loves unconditionally, you now pit the Father against the Son, because the Son confirmed both before and after suffering on the Cross that not all would be found in heaven and some would be on the receiving end of God's eternal punishment.

People who aren't schooled in religious theology catch that "eternal punishment" right away and question how an unconditionally loving God could send anyone to hell. When told people choose it, they will again say "how could a loving God ALLOW anyone to go to hell?" "Who created hell?" "Who decided that men who don't believe "God's testimony about His Son" will go there?" So, while the decision may be in the man's hand, it doesn't change the fact that God ordained hell. So, again, why would an UNCONDITIONALLY LOVING and Sovereign God allow anyone to even choose hell?

I AM saying that GOD LOVING FIRST (even loving first more than once) does not equate to unconditional love. BUT, I AM also saying God MUST NECESSARILY LOVE FIRST.

I have also shown that there are times that there is a point when HIS LOVE STOPS REACHING OUT to a specific individual (2 Thes 2 delusion, and Romans 1 reprobate mind, the mark of the beast recipients, those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit, as a few examples). If God's love stops reaching out at any point to any individual, it is conditional love.

In short, what I AM saying is the love of God that is extended to the individual man is conditional, because that individual man must respond a certain way to continue to receive God's love.

And you know how God loves? And even what true, perfect love is?