WHY SALVATION CAN BE LOST

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
We also get eternal security through the Scriptures. John 5:24 and John 10:28.

Yes you keep saying this even after you have been shown all through out this thread that those scriptures do not say what you think they do.

I keep saying this because they DO prove eternal security.

What you still haven't done is show what they ARE teaching.

You are very LONG on disagreement, but very SHORT on proving why you disagree.

I've explained John 5:24 and 10:28 many times. You've had EVERY oppoturnity to address my explanations and prove to me that they say something else.

But you haven't.

 

[Clare73]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
We also get eternal security through the Scriptures. John 5:24 and John 10:28.
I keep saying this because they DO prove eternal security.
What you still haven't done is show what they ARE teaching.

You are very LONG on disagreement, but very SHORT on proving why you disagree.
I've explained John 5:24 and 10:28 many times. You've had EVERY oppoturnity to address my explanations and prove to me that they say something else.
But you haven't.

Been there. . .done that with Hebrews 7:11. . .got the T-shirt. . .already.......

 

[GDL]

Long time no see!

Looks like I missed this one. . .sure wish I had seen it sooner.

Point: Under love/grace vs. under law.

13:10 = Love/grace fulfills the law "and every other commandment there may be"(Romans 13:8-10); ergo, we are not under law-keeping (Galatians 3:25, Galatians 4:21, Galatians 5:18; Romans 6:14; 1 Corinthians 9:20)

Assertion = The Law fulfills love; ergo, we are under law keeping to fulfill love/grace.

Hi Clare. Yes, a hiatus from this site for a while. Still considering how much or whether to be involved again. Thought you must have missed my question. Thanks for answering.

Since you were discussing with LoveGodWord in the post I asked you about, I'd like to see if LGW comments on your reply. I'll just respond partially for now.

I made a few comments on other posts about precision in thinking and using God's Word. I begin there. I'm mainly addressing the language of the Text.

13:10b is an interesting clause for a couple of grammatical reasons:

- There is no verb. At times this structure is used to emphasize what's being said. In this case I'd see that emphasis being the strength of the connection between the subject (Love) and the predicate nominative that follows (fulfillment of the law).
- Since the structure is predicate nominative (fulfillment of the law), it's essentially being equated with the subject. I think you've picked this up in at least part of your Assertion, but I'm leaving this for you to confirm.
​

Since you're changing what's specifically being said, by using the verb "fulfills" and you're adding "grace" into this (at this point I'm not suggesting either is wrong for explaining as you're doing), I'm just looking to bring this back to the language of this verse. What's said is:

- Love [is emphatically] fulfillment of the law

• As such, it's essentially defining at least partially what Biblical Love is. In this case it's Love for neighbor, which summarizes at minimum part of the 10 commandments
• This is essentially the same as what John tells us about Love (for God) in 1 John 5:3 - Love for God is keeping His commandments. Thus, this also at least partially defines what Biblical Love is.
• If I were to paraphrase all of this, in simplicity I'd say that Biblical Love is obeying God - if we obey God's commands regarding how we think and act towards people, then we Love people and we Love God. This works the other way also: if we Love God, then we will Love people as and in the ways God commands. John covers this connection in discussing Love for fellow Children of God in 1 John 4.

For now, I'll just add that one of the ways I make sense of the use of "under" such as Law or Grace, is through using one of the senses of what the [Greek] word means: it can trend into 'being under subjection to."

We were under subjection to God's Law. Now we're under subjection to God's Grace in Christ. What was ruling me? What now rules me? How do we deal with God's Law and commandments based upon this?

Maybe more later. I'm sure you're well-able to communicate agreement or disagreement. I'll also look for LGW to comment. Probably quite late in his part of the world.

​

 

[Clare73]

Hi Clare. Yes, a hiatus from this site for a while. Still considering how much or whether to be involved again. Thought you must have missed my question. Thanks for answering.

Since you were discussing with LoveGodWord in the post I asked you about, I'd like to see if LGW comments on your reply. I'll just respond partially for now.

I made a few comments on other posts about precision in think and using God's Word. I begin there. I'm mainly addressing the language of the Text.

13:10b is an interesting clause for a copy of grammatical reasons:

- There is no verb. At times this structure is used to emphasize what's being said. In this case I'd see that emphasis being the strength of the connection between the subject (Love) and the predicate nominative that follows (fulfillment of the law).​

- Since the structure is predicate nominative (fulfillment of the law), it's essentially being equated with the subject. I think you've picked this up in at least part of your Assertion, but I'm leaving this for you to confirm.​

The assertion is not mine, it is LGW's. . .mine is "13:10."

Since you're changing what's specifically being said, by using the verb "fulfills" and you're adding "grace" into this (at this point I'm not suggesting either is wrong for explaining as you're doing), I'm just looking to bring this back to the language of this verse. What's said is:
- Love [is emphatically] fulfillment of the law

Agreed. . .I will use the word "fulfillment."

• As such, it's essentially defining at least partially what Biblical Love is. In this case it's Love for neighbor, which summarizes at minimum part of the 10 commandments
• This is essentially the same as what John tells us about Love (for God) in 1 John 5:3 - Love for God is keeping His commandments. Thus, this also at least partially defines what Biblical Love is.

• [*]If I were to paraphrase all of this, in simplicity I'd say that Biblical Love is obeying God - if we obey God's commands regarding how we think and act towards people, then we Love people and we Love God. This works the other way also: if we Love God, then we will Love people as and in the ways God commands. John covers this connection in discussing Love for fellow Children of God in 1 John 4.

"Love is satisfaction (fulfillment) of the law" is not the same as
"the law is satisfaction (fulfillment) of love."
The requirements of love far exceed the written code (law).

In the new covenant, we are under love, we are not under the written code (Romans 6:14, 2:12, 3:19,
1 Corinthians 9:20-21; Galatians 4:21, 5:18).
And the meaning of being "under the law" seems pretty plain to me, in context of all that Paul states on the matter.

For now, I'll just add that one of the ways I make sense of the use of "under" such as Law or Grace, is through using one of the senses of what the [Greek] word means: it can trend into 'being under subject to."
We were under subjection to God's Law. Now we're under subjection to God's Grace in Christ. What was ruling me? What now rules me? How do we deal with God's Law and commandments based upon this?

Maybe more later. I'm sure you're well-able to communicate agreement or disagreement. I'll also look for LGW to comment. Probably quite late in his part of the world.

And I'm thinking a discussion based in your hermeneutic would not be fruitful with me.
I experience it as making God's word unknowable, with which I am not in agreement.
But thanks for checking in, it's good to know you're still around.

​

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Hi Clare. Yes, a hiatus from this site for a while. Still considering how much or whether to be involved again. Thought you must have missed my question. Thanks for answering.

Since you were discussing with LoveGodWord in the post I asked you about, I'd like to see if LGW comments on your reply. I'll just respond partially for now.

I made a few comments on other posts about precision in think and using God's Word. I begin there. I'm mainly addressing the language of the Text.

13:10b is an interesting clause for a copy of grammatical reasons:

- There is no verb. At times this structure is used to emphasize what's being said. In this case I'd see that emphasis being the strength of the connection between the subject (Love) and the predicate nominative that follows (fulfillment of the law).
- Since the structure is predicate nominative (fulfillment of the law), it's essentially being equated with the subject. I think you've picked this up in at least part of your Assertion, but I'm leaving this for you to confirm.
​

Since you're changing what's specifically being said, by using the verb "fulfills" and you're adding "grace" into this (at this point I'm not suggesting either is wrong for explaining as you're doing), I'm just looking to bring this back to the language of this verse. What's said is:

- Love [is emphatically] fulfillment of the law

• As such, it's essentially defining at least partially what Biblical Love is. In this case it's Love for neighbor, which summarizes at minimum part of the 10 commandments
• This is essentially the same as what John tells us about Love (for God) in 1 John 5:3 - Love for God is keeping His commandments. Thus, this also at least partially defines what Biblical Love is.
• If I were to paraphrase all of this, in simplicity I'd say that Biblical Love is obeying God - if we obey God's commands regarding how we think and act towards people, then we Love people and we Love God. This works the other way also: if we Love God, then we will Love people as and in the ways God commands. John covers this connection in discussing Love for fellow Children of God in 1 John 4.

For now, I'll just add that one of the ways I make sense of the use of "under" such as Law or Grace, is through using one of the senses of what the [Greek] word means: it can trend into 'being under subject to."

We were under subjection to God's Law. Now we're under subjection to God's Grace in Christ. What was ruling me? What now rules me? How do we deal with God's Law and commandments based upon this?

Maybe more later. I'm sure you're well-able to communicate agreement or disagreement. I'll also look for LGW to comment. Probably quite late in his part of the world.

​

Hi GDL good post.

Some background if it might be helpful for your discussion with @Clare73. I have done a number of detailed scripture responses to Clare on different topics that seem to get ignored showing that love is not separate from Gods' law and that true love to God and man (two great commandments that Jesus quotes in Matthew 22:36-40 from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18) is demonstrated in God's new covenant promise as obedience to Gods' law from a new heart in all those who have been born again to love (Matthew 22:36-40; Romans 13:8-10; James 2:8-12; 1 John 5:2-4; 1 John 3:6-9; Galatians 5:16; Romans 8:4; Romans 6:1-23; Hebrews 8:10-12 from Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:24-27 etc), just like genuine faith is not separated from doing what God's Word says (James 2:17-26; Romans 3:31; Matthew 7:21). The responses I received like some other people in this thread is to ignore what has been written from the scriptures and shared with them, while simply repeating what they wrote and what was already responded to in my posts the first time. I also continued asking what was it in my post that she did not agree with in order to try and understand what the problem was from her side but I did not get a response in return. You can see my responses here in regards to love shown in post # 521 linked showing that love to God and man is demonstrated in obedience to Gods' law from the heart if your interested in what my earlier response to Clare was for background info to help your discussion.

Also you might want to see Clare's claim that Hebrews 7:12 is talking about Gods' 10 commandments being abolished and my responses to these claims from the scriptures posted in post # 775; and post # 789 linked. I do not seem to be able to get Clare to discuss my posts or to respond to them or to show me what it is she is in disagreement with in my posts and scriptures shared with her except that she ignores my posts and simply repeats and cut and pastes what she wrote the first time, so I have decided Clare and I are best off to agree to disagree because our discussions do not seem to be profitable or lead anywhere. I pray you might have more success in your discussion with her. I have decided it is best leave it with Clare to pray about and agree to disagree. I wish you well in your discussion with Clare and that it might be a fruitful one. I might pop in from time to time to help with the discussion though if it might be helpful

God bless.

 

[GDL]

The assertion is not mine, it is LGW's. . .mine is "13:10."

OK. I haven't noticed LGW assert this. I'd be interested to see if he agrees that he did.

Agreed. . .I will use the word "fulfillment."

Thanks. Agrees with 13:10.

"Love is satisfaction (fulfillment) of the law" is not the same as
"the law is satisfaction (fulfillment) of love."

Agreed in regard to 13:10:

• Love | [is] \ fulfillment of law
• Fulfillment of law is love

I've not said the law is fulfillment of love, so I guess you're referring to what you say LGW said. Law is not the predicate nominative in 13:10.

The requirements of love far exceed the written code (law).

Big statement that would require a lot more discussion. Not for now. Only thing I'll say is that I don't know of anyone but God who fully knows and understands God's Law, all it contains, and the full scope and depth of it.

In the new covenant, we are under love, we are not under the written code (Romans 6:14, 2:12, 3:19, 1 Corinthians 19:20-21; Galatians 4:21, 5:18).
And the meaning of being "under the law" seems pretty plain to me, in context of all that Paul states on the matter.

OK, then no discussion on what you say here, thus no agreement or disagreement expressed.

And I'm thinking a discussion based in your hermeneutic would not be fruitful with me.
I experience it as making God's word unknowable, with which I am not in agreement.
But thanks for checking in, it's good to know you're still around.

OK. I'll just say that this was mainly a translation matter and then how a clause relates to other verses concerning love and keeping God's commandments. That's not really a discussion on interpretive principles, so I'll assume you're drawing from something else, or not being specific on something I've said that you disagree with.

I don't think God's Word is unknowable. I do think He is ultimately in control of what we know, and I do think there remains an awful lot of work going on by an awful lot of people to know more. If it was unknowable, what would be the point of studying it as we do? I do agree with what one very hard-working teacher once said, which in essence was that no one can really know all of God's Word in a lifetime. I think he was solemnly coming to grips late in life after many decades of intense study and teaching.

Thanks. I'm still around until I'm not...

 

[LoveGodsWord]

OK. I haven't noticed LGW assert this. I'd be interested to see if he agrees that he did.



Thanks. Agrees with 13:10.



Agreed in regard to 13:10:

• Love | [is] \ fulfillment of law
• Fulfillment of law is love

I've not said the law is fulfillment of love, so I guess you're referring to what you say LGW said. Law is not the predicate nominative in 13:10.



Big statement that would require a lot more discussion. Not for now. Only thing I'll say is that I don't know of anyone but God who fully knows and understands God's Law, all it contains, and the full scope and depth of it.



OK, then no discussion on what you say here, thus no agreement or disagreement expressed.



OK. I'll just say that this was mainly a translation matter and then how a clause relates to other verses concerning love and keeping God's commandments. That's not really a discussion on interpretive principles, so I'll assume you're drawing from something else, or not being specific on something I've said that you disagree with.

I don't think God's Word is unknowable. I do think He is ultimately in control of what we know, and I do think there remains an awful lot of work going on by an awful lot of people to know more. If it was unknowable, what would be the point of studying it as we do? I do agree with what one very hard-working teacher once said, which in essence was that no one can really know all of God's Word in a lifetime. I think he was solemnly coming to grips late in life after many decades of intense study and teaching.

Thanks. I'm still around until I'm not...

Hi GDL, for your interest, no I never said any such thing or made any such claims. I tend to get accused of many things I have never said here which people try to build arguments around sadly. You can follow the full conversation from the linked post I provided in post # 521 linked as evidence of this and make your own mind up however.

God bless

 

[GDL]

You can see my responses here in regards to love shown in post # 521 linked showing that love to God and man is demonstrated in obedience to Gods' law from the heart if your interested in what my earlier response to Clare was for background info to help your discussion.

LGW quote:

Love is not separate to God's law. Love is expressed through obedience to Gods' law which is why Jesus says on these two commandments of love to God and love to man hang all the law and the prophets *Matthew 22:36-40. Paul agrees with Jesus in Romans 13:8-10 when he says that we show our love to our fellow man by keeping those laws in Gods' commandments that show us our duty of love to our neighbor (Exodus 20:12-17). James also agrees with Jesus and Paul in James 2:8-12 when he says if we break anyone of Gods' 10 commandments we stand guilty before God of breaking all of them. While John also agrees in 1 John 5:2-3 that we need to be born of God to love and walk in His Spirit which is Gods' new covenant promise in all those who believe and follow what Gods' Word says *John 3:3-7; 1 John 3:6-9; Galatians 5:16; Hebrews 8:10-12 from Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:24-27. No one loves God therefore by breaking God's law and not believing and following what Gods' Word says. Those are the children of the devil according to 1 John 3:6-10.

What Clare quotes and then highlights and adds is the grammatical structure of the portion she apparently sees:

LoveGodsWord said: ↑
Love is not separate to God's law. Love is expressed through obedience to Gods' law which is why Jesus says on these two commandments of love to God and love to man hang all the law and the prophets *Matthew 22:36-40. Paul agrees with Jesus in Romans 13:8-10 when he says that

we (subject) show our love (object) to our fellow man by keeping those laws (appositional phrase of the subject we),

which means the same thing as:

We, by keeping those laws (subject), show our love (object) to our fellow man.

So. . .keeping those laws (subject) shows our love (object) to our fellow man.

That is knowing misrepresentation of Romans 13:8-10; i.e., exchanging the grammatical object (law) for the grammatical subject (love) of the NT texts in Romans 13:8, Romans 13:9-10, which are:

"Love (subject) is the fulfillment of the law (object) 'and whatever other commandment there may be'." (Romans 13:9-10)

"He who has loved (subject) his fellow man has fulfilled the law (object)." (Romans 13:8)

Please explain the meaning of those two texts (Romans 13:8, Romans 13:9-10), not a according to your grammatical misrepresentation of them, but according to their NT grammatical order; i.e., the grammatical subject = love, the grammatical object = law.

A lot to address.

I see a paraphrase of Romans 13:8 by LGW, but I don't see it being in error. I don't like all the restructuring of what the verse says, but in translating we do restructure at times to test our translations.

I think Clare is initially not analyzing the structure correctly. I see the error begin by categorizing "by keeping those laws" as being appositional to "we." As it was stated by LGW, it's rather adverbial and modifying the verb.

We (subject) show by keeping those laws (verb and adverbial modifier) our love (object). It's an altered structure, and I don't care for the verb and concept of "show" because it adds to what's said in the verses, but it otherwise seems consistent enough with what's said in 13:8. "keeping those laws" trends more into the language of 1 John 5:3 but obeying/keeping God's commands pertaining to love I can see as the intended meaning of keeping those laws (commands). There's just a lot of admixture of terminology being used here and restructuring of language, which usually creates extra work to interpret the author's meanings.

When Clare next drops the subject "we" and turns the modified (dropping "by") adverbial phrase into a subject it really doesn't change the essence of what's being said by LGW about love being shown by keeping those laws. So, if the first LGW statement is essentially correct, then so is the modified one by Clare.

Romans 13:8 ...the one who loves (or is loving) the other (this phrase is the subject) has fulfilled (verb) law (object).

Romans 13:9 God's commandments summarized by God's command to love neighbor as self (I see this as the central and therefore primary point to the 3 verses. It's probably why all the emphasis is structured into 13:10 as I pointed out in a prior post).

Romans 13:10 ...Love (subject) [is] (implied verb) fulfillment of law (predicate nominative)

• The love neighbor command summarizes commands about what not to do to other people
• Obeying/Keeping God's commands about how not to treat other people is obviously implied and included in God's command to love neighbor
• Law is obviously speaking about God's commands
• The one who loves another (by keeping God's negative commands stating what not to do to other people & other commands) has fulfilled law
  
• Love is fulfillment of law
  
• Fulfillment of law is love (restatement pursuant to predicate nominative construction in 13:10)
• I'm not comfortable replacing "is" with "shows" in the above 2 statements from 13:10
  
• Changing the way these points are stated is not wrong as long as the points that are stated remain consistent
• Unless one sees a real need and is adept at grammar, IMO it's best not to change the way things are stated in the Text. If restructuring the grammar, we should be prepared to explain how the change remains consistent in meaning with the original

That's my take LGW. It's late, early really, so I'll review later. Hope it's not too sloppy, but understandable. I'm not seeing any "knowing misrepresentation" in your paraphrased explanations as alleged. I do see a lot of unnecessary IMO language restatements. I'll look again later.

 

[GDL]

Hi GDL, for your interest, no I never said any such thing or made any such claims. I tend to get accused of many things I have never said here which people try to build arguments around sadly.

A lot of that in these forums I'm afraid. I've been guilty of some harshness myself before the hiatus. Some of the reasons I didn't miss the site.

In my long answer to you above, I didn't see you putting forth error pertaining to the claim.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

OK. I haven't noticed LGW assert this. I'd be interested to see if he agrees that he did.



Thanks. Agrees with 13:10.



Agreed in regard to 13:10:

• Love | [is] \ fulfillment of law
• Fulfillment of law is love

I've not said the law is fulfillment of love, so I guess you're referring to what you say LGW said. Law is not the predicate nominative in 13:10.



Big statement that would require a lot more discussion. Not for now. Only thing I'll say is that I don't know of anyone but God who fully knows and understands God's Law, all it contains, and the full scope and depth of it.



OK, then no discussion on what you say here, thus no agreement or disagreement expressed.



OK. I'll just say that this was mainly a translation matter and then how a clause relates to other verses concerning love and keeping God's commandments. That's not really a discussion on interpretive principles, so I'll assume you're drawing from something else, or not being specific on something I've said that you disagree with.

I don't think God's Word is unknowable. I do think He is ultimately in control of what we know, and I do think there remains an awful lot of work going on by an awful lot of people to know more. If it was unknowable, what would be the point of studying it as we do? I do agree with what one very hard-working teacher once said, which in essence was that no one can really know all of God's Word in a lifetime. I think he was solemnly coming to grips late in life after many decades of intense study and teaching.

Thanks. I'm still around until I'm not...

Good post! I think many people on these forums have convinced themselves that love is the fulfillment of the law and turned it into meaning they no longer need to keep God’s commandments as long as they love God (on their terms) or love their neighbor (on their terms) and the Ten Commandments has been “fulfilled” i.e. abolished when there is no such scripture stating this. 1 John 5:3 and other scriptures show us the exact opposite. Love is the fulfillment of the law which is shown through keeping the Ten Commandments-how we show love to God (1-4) and love to our fellow man (5-10) which can be summarized in one word- LOVE when we keep them.

 

[GDL]

Good post! I think many people on these forums have convinced themselves that love is the fulfillment of the law and turned it into meaning they no longer need to keep God’s commandments as long as they love God (on their terms) or love their neighbor (on their terms) and the Ten Commandments has been “fulfilled” i.e. abolished when there is no such scripture stating this. 1 John 5:3 and other scriptures show us the exact opposite.

Very much agree. Frequently, love on their terms seems to be how they feel. Many years ago, I remember teaching a class wherein I said something like, when we say we love God, in truth there's criteria for that statement.

Good comments. Thanks!

 

[Clare73]

.Thanks. Agrees with 13:10.
Agreed in regard to 13:10:
Love | [is] \ fulfillment of law
Fulfillment of law is love
I've not said the law is fulfillment of love,

so I guess you're referring to what you say LGW said. Law is not the predicate nominative in 13:10.
Big statement that would require a lot more discussion. Not for now. Only thing I'll say is that I don't know of anyone but God who fully knows and understands God's Law, all it contains, and the full scope and depth of it.
OK, then no discussion on what you say here, thus no agreement or disagreement expressed.
OK. I'll just say that this was mainly a translation matter and then how a clause relates to other verses concerning love and keeping God's commandments. That's not really a discussion on interpretive principles, so I'll assume you're drawing from something else, or not being specific on something I've said that you disagree with.
I don't think God's Word is unknowable. I do think He is ultimately in control of what we know, and I do think there remains an awful lot of work going on by an awful lot of people to know more. If it was unknowable, what would be the point of studying it as we do? I do agree with what one very hard-working teacher once said, which in essence was that no one can really know all of God's Word in a lifetime. I think he was solemnly coming to grips late in life after many decades of intense study and teaching.

Thanks. I'm still around until I'm not...

. . .

 

[GDL]

1 John 5:3 and other scriptures show us the exact opposite. Love is the fulfillment of the law which is shown through keeping the Ten Commandments-how we show love to God (1-4) and love to our fellow man (5-10) which can be summarized in one word- LOVE when we keep them.

I'm still pausing when I read "show[n]" - even knowing you and LGW understand the verses, and the wording is not conceptually wrong. With some paraphrasing of my own:

5:1 Those who love/are loving God also love/are loving the ones born from God

5:2 Whenever we love God / do God's commandments (parallelism), we know we love God's children

5:3 Love for God = keeping God's commandments and His commandments not being burdens

This is essentially restating Romans 13:8-10 and detailing how loving God / keeping God's commands is included in and even the basis of loving our Christian siblings. "Shows" is not here. Parallelism and equation are here, as it is in the Romans verses.

To tighten this up:

1 John 4:20 paraphrased and simply using the masculine for simplicity and using the Text: If a Christian says he loves God and hates his brother, then he is a liar. The Christian who does not love his brother is not able to love God.

4:21 We have this commandment from God: The Christian who loves God love also his brother.

We can't love God because we're not obeying His command to love our Christian sibling - love for God is keeping His commandments, which are not a burden. Obeying God's commandments written in His Law = loving God and His Children. Loving God and His Children = obeying God's commandments written in His Law. No obedience to God's commandments written in God's Law = no Love for God and His Children. No Love for God and His Children = no obedience to God's commandments written in His Law.

 

[GDL]

. . .

Clarity would be better. Laughing at both highlights? Disagree or agree with the first one?

 

[Clare73]

Clarity would be better. Laughing at both highlights? Disagree or agree with the first one?

I agree with the first one.

I'm obviously laughing at the funny one.

 

[GDL]

I agree with the first one.

I'm obviously laughing at the funny one.

Thanks. Clarity is good. What's apparent to one is not always clear to another. Agreement is also good when agreeing on truth.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I'm still pausing when I read "show[n]" - even knowing you and LGW understand the verses, and the wording is not conceptually wrong. With some paraphrasing of my own:

5:1 Those who love/are loving God also love/are loving the ones born from God

5:2 Whenever we love God / do God's commandments (parallelism), we know we love God's children

5:3 Love for God = keeping God's commandments and His commandments not being burdens

This is essentially restating Romans 13:8-10 and detailing how loving God / keeping God's commands is included in and even the basis of loving our Christian siblings. "Shows" is not here. Parallelism and equation are here, as it is in the Romans verses.

To tighten this up:

1 John 4:20 paraphrased and simply using the masculine for simplicity and using the Text: If a Christian says he loves God and hates his brother, then he is a liar. The Christian who does not love his brother is not able to love God.

4:21 We have this commandment from God: The Christian who loves God love also his brother.

We can't love God because we're not obeying His command to love our Christian sibling - love for God is keeping His commandments, which are not a burden. Obeying God's commandments written in His Law = loving God and His Children. Loving God and His Children = obeying God's commandments written in His Law. No obedience to God's commandments written in God's Law = no Love for God and His Children. No Love for God and His Children = no obedience to God's commandments written in His Law.

Thank you for pointing that out again. Keeping the commandments IS love, which is stronger and different than showing love by keeping the commandments.

What I should have said above is this:

Love is the fulfillment of the law which is keeping the Ten Commandments-Love to God is obeying the commandments. Obeying commandments 1-4 specifically refers to loving God and commandments 5-10 is love towards our fellow man. That’s why Love is the fulfillment when we obey these commandments.

1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I agree with the first one. I'm obviously laughing at the funny one.

So Clare are we in agreement now? Do you agree that we love God by keeping His commandments from the heart which is the fruit of genuine faith in God's Word? You haven't said much so I am still not sure exactly what you believe or if you feel GDL's posts have been helpful or not. Thanks also @GDL I believe your posts have been very helpful

 

[FreeGrace2]

So Clare are we in agreement now? Do you agree that we love God by keeping His commandments from the heart through faith?

This isn't the gospel, no way, no how.

It is true that those who do love God WILL keep His commandments. But the only ones who really love God have already put their trust in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross and have therefore been born again and have the Holy Spirit.

You should get your facts straight.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

This isn't the gospel, no way, no how.

It is true that those who do love God WILL keep His commandments. But the only ones who really love God have already put their trust in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross and have therefore been born again and have the Holy Spirit.

You should get your facts straight.

Hello FG2, your making arguments no one is arguing about. So if we are both in agreement what is your argument? You have none because we are both in agreement but for clarity's sake so there is no misunderstandings, as posted earlier and throughout this thread, according to the scriptures, we are saved by grace through faith and not of ourselves it is a gift of God and not of works lest any man should boast *Ephesians 2:8-9. Obedience to God's law is not how we are saved because all of us have already broken the law and are under it's penalty of condemnation and death *Romans 3:9-23; 2 Corinthians 3:3-11. So it is by God's grace through faith that we are saved through Gods forgiveness of our sins. According to the scriptures, obedience to Gods' law is the fruit of genuine faith of one that is already been given Gods promise of salvation and the fruit of God's work in us *Philippians 2:13 as we believe and follow his word *John 10:26-27. If our faith has no fruit it is dead *James 2:18-20; 26 and our tree will be cast down and thrown into the fire *Matthew 3:10; 7:19-20; 13:49-50; Hebrews 10:26-27. Therefore we do not abolish God's law through faith like some people teach but God's law is established in the heart by faith that works by love *Romans 3:31; 1 John 5:3-4; Romans 13:8-10. According to the scriptures, sin (breaking God' commandments and not believing and following God's Word) is the difference between the children of God and the children of the devil *1 John 3:6-10; Revelation 12:17; Revelation 14:12; Revelation 22:14 and according to James there is no such thing as faith that does not have the fruit of obedience to Gods' Word. As posted to your friend faith without works is simply the dead faith of devils according to James 2:17-26. Gods Word does not teach lawlessness (without law) in my view according to the scriptures *1 John 2:3-4. For me the gospel (good news) is every word that proceeds out the mouth of God that Jesus tells us we are to live by according to the scriptures (Matthew 4:4).

Take Care.