apostolic succession

[rockytopva]

God loves EVERYONE. A person who has a relationship with our Lord already knows this. The gift of salvation is free to EVERYONE because God loves everyone and desires everyone to be saved. It is simply up to the person to accept the gift of salvation or not. Those who do not accept the free gift of salvation will not be saved. Simple as that.

In Christ,
Selene

How easy is it to be saved?

And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. - Acts 16:31

Easy... Right?

 

[Johnoneone]

God loves EVERYONE. A person who has a relationship with our Lord already knows this. The gift of salvation is free to EVERYONE because God loves everyone and desires everyone to be saved. It is simply up to the person to accept the gift of salvation or not. Those who do not accept the free gift of salvation will not be saved. Simple as that.

But to question God's love means that you do not know who God is.

1 Timothy 2:3-4 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

1 John 4:8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.




Yes, I agree that it is a merry-go-round question. Apparently, the poster does not understand that God's offer of salvation to EVERYONE is given to EVERYONE simply because God loves EVERYONE.

In Christ,
Selene

Its not a marry go round question. Nether of you are capable of separating Gods besire for men to come to him from the reality that many dont. I dont know who you two think your fooling but the joke may be on you avoiding the question for the 5th time. I'll play along one more time. Did Jesus send the holy spirit to all men, are all men born of this spirit universally? Is everyone going to be saved? You pretend that God loves everyone the same, does he treat them all the same? Is this what you believe?

Do you want to answer the question? Your both answering a question about the gift God offers, not the question I asked.
Can you point me to God loving those that oppose "reject" him? Old or New Testament. Did Jesus speak about his love for the men of religious system in Jerusalem. He said how he would have, If they had known him. He also said to them that his Father was not their father, without the same father they can hardly be called brothers.

 

[Johnoneone]

God loves EVERYONE. A person who has a relationship with our Lord already knows this. The gift of salvation is free to EVERYONE because God loves everyone and desires everyone to be saved. It is simply up to the person to accept the gift of salvation or not. Those who do not accept the free gift of salvation will not be saved. Simple as that.

Simply as that you say? That looks like the wide gate. and the way is easy http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matthew 7.13–14#footnote1 that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.

Matthew 7:13-14
13http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matthew 7.13–14#footnote0“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matthew 7.13–14#footnote1 that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matthew 7.13–14#footnote2the way is hard that leads to life, and http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matthew 7.13–14#footnote3those who find it are few.

 

[aspen]

Yes, I agree that it is a merry-go-round question. Apparently, the poster does not understand that God's offer of salvation to EVERYONE is given to EVERYONE simply because God loves EVERYONE.

In Christ,
Selene

The problem is - Jacob is making an arbitrary distinction between the gift of God's love to the world and the supposedly exclusive love He reserves for the redeemed. When you start dividing up God's love you run into problems.....

One of the problems is that you have to reject or limit the message in John 3:16.

The other is that you have to believe that God does not follow His own rules - He tells us to love our enemies, but hates His own - that is bad theology.

Finally, it fails to recognize that God has proven His love for the unredeemed by inviting them to accept His justification and sanctification - they are the ones who reject Him.

Problems galore.......

 

[Johnoneone]

When you can wiggle into your definition everything Jesus said, I and others may believe you know what you two are talking about.

Matthew 7:13-14
13“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

 

[Selene]

The problem is - Jacob is making an arbitrary distinction between the gift of God's love to the world and the supposedly exclusive love He reserves for the redeemed. When you start dividing up God's love you run into problems.....

One of the problems is that you have to reject or limit the message in John 3:16.

The other is that you have to believe that God does not follow His own rules - He tells us to love our enemies, but hates His own - that is bad theology.

Finally, it fails to recognize that God has proven His love for the unredeemed by inviting them to accept His justification and sanctification - they are the ones who reject Him.

Problems galore.......

Yes, I agree. Problems galore. It makes God look like a hypocrite......telling us to love our enemies, but hates His own....very bad theology. Also, there is such thing as free will. Just because God loves everyone does not mean that everyone is going to Heaven. Afterall, look at how many people can actually love their neighbors and their enemies.

 

[Johnoneone]

Yes, I agree that it is a merry-go-round question. Apparently, the poster does not understand that God's offer of salvation to EVERYONE is given to EVERYONE simply because God loves EVERYONE.

In Christ,
Selene

The problem is - Jacob is making an arbitrary distinction between the gift of God's love to the world and the supposedly exclusive love He reserves for the redeemed. When you start dividing up God's love you run into problems.....

One of the problems is that you have to reject or limit the message in John 3:16.

The other is that you have to believe that God does not follow His own rules - He tells us to love our enemies, but hates His own - that is bad theology.

Finally, it fails to recognize that God has proven His love for the unredeemed by inviting them to accept His justification and sanctification - they are the ones who reject Him.

Problems galore.......

This is a quote from an article I was reading while considering the topic of hell I think it also applies to the two of you.

The excuses with which men deceive themselves, when viewed in the light of their own admissions, is a glaring proof of the madness of their wickedness. How strange! Here is an individual admitting that he ought to obey God, and with the same breath excusing himself for not doing so! Does not everyone see the absurdity of admitting obligation and excusing yourself at the same moment!

Further, if sinners really and truly believed in their excuses, they would not admit the obligation and necessity of repentance. Take a man, for instance, who honestly believed he could not do better than he does, would he not at once tell you that he has nothing to repent about? He cannot honestly tell you anything else. He meets you at once with a full and flat denial of his moral obligation. He would say, "God cannot send me to hell for I do not deserve it. God cannot, with justice, shut me out of heaven." Again, he would not be afraid to die. He would say, "Why do you think I am afraid to meet a God of justice? Not I. God has nothing against me. He has no right to have, and I am therefore not afraid to die.["] Tell him to repent and be converted. "I have no need," says he, "I am right already." If they sincerely believed in the excuses, they would no more condemn themselves than a windmill. If they really believed they were machines, their consciences would never be disturbed. But the fact is, men assume and know that they are not machines in any such sense as not to be free and accountable. They can never, for their lives, escape the conviction that they are both free and accountable.

Again. If they really believed that men were machines, they would not blame the conduct of others. If you are sincere in professing this, if a man knock you, or take away your wife, your child, or any of your property, you cannot blame him; for how can he help it! He is a mere machine. How could he help it? Why, if you really believe you are machines, you could no more blame a man for knocking you down in the streets than you could blame the arm of a windmill for knocking you down. If you are knocked down by the arm of a windmill, why not blame it? Because you cannot assume that it was to blame; it is a mere machine, and you pick yourself up as well as you can and go away. But why blame a man, when according to this idea of yours he is not the least more culpable? But can this infidel in his heart believe this? No! I say he cannot. He cannot show to mankind, or even to himself, that man is not a moral agent.

 

[tomwebster]

This is a quote from an article I was reading while considering the topic of hell I think it also applies to the two of you.
....

What was the source of your quote? When you quote from an article you need to "cite your sources and provide proper credit."

 

[aspen]

This is a quote from an article I was reading while considering the topic of hell I think it also applies to the two of you.

So, because I have pointed out your rude tone and false dichotomy (either God's love is limited or "you are not answering the question" - WHICH IS IT?), I must be 'wicked'? Where is the reason in this statement?

The excuses with which men deceive themselves, when viewed in the light of their own admissions, is a glaring proof of the madness of their wickedness. How strange! Here is an individual admitting that he ought to obey God, and with the same breath excusing himself for not doing so! Does not everyone see the absurdity of admitting obligation and excusing yourself at the same moment!

Further, if sinners really and truly believed in their excuses, they would not admit the obligation and necessity of repentance. Take a man, for instance, who honestly believed he could not do better than he does, would he not at once tell you that he has nothing to repent about? He cannot honestly tell you anything else. He meets you at once with a full and flat denial of his moral obligation. He would say, "God cannot send me to hell for I do not deserve it. God cannot, with justice, shut me out of heaven." Again, he would not be afraid to die. He would say, "Why do you think I am afraid to meet a God of justice? Not I. God has nothing against me. He has no right to have, and I am therefore not afraid to die.["] Tell him to repent and be converted. "I have no need," says he, "I am right already." If they sincerely believed in the excuses, they would no more condemn themselves than a windmill. If they really believed they were machines, their consciences would never be disturbed. But the fact is, men assume and know that they are not machines in any such sense as not to be free and accountable. They can never, for their lives, escape the conviction that they are both free and accountable.

Again. If they really believed that men were machines, they would not blame the conduct of others. If you are sincere in professing this, if a man knock you, or take away your wife, your child, or any of your property, you cannot blame him; for how can he help it! He is a mere machine. How could he help it? Why, if you really believe you are machines, you could no more blame a man for knocking you down in the streets than you could blame the arm of a windmill for knocking you down. If you are knocked down by the arm of a windmill, why not blame it? Because you cannot assume that it was to blame; it is a mere machine, and you pick yourself up as well as you can and go away. But why blame a man, when according to this idea of yours he is not the least more culpable? But can this infidel in his heart believe this? No! I say he cannot. He cannot show to mankind, or even to himself, that man is not a moral agent.

For the record, I am being accused (off topic, BTW) of being wicked, unrepentant, arrogant about remaining unrepentant and refusing to view personal sin as a problem for humankind. And to think, some people have been shunned for being subtle.........

 

[Johnoneone]

Read your tone and words you used at the top of this page. I think it was you that called me names. I asked a question to selene since then you have lead the topic and conversion. My question was.

Can you point me to God loving those that appose him? Old or New Testament. Did Jesus speak about his love for the men of religious system in Jerusalem. He said how he would have, If they had known him. He also said to them that his Father was not their father, without the same father they can hardly be called brothers.

because they are not of the world; as I also am not of the world.

The Vatican is the smallest country in the world. It also holds seats in the United Nations. Has its own currency. The Vatican is a member of the world and hardly poor as well.

The point is you can't look at God as only a loving being in every occasion. He doesn't describe himself that way. His over all love for everyone is expressed at the cross for everyone. Thats the only part you choose to see. You dont see him executing justice against those that don't know him, for the sake of those that suffer for righteousness. Instead you make statements like this one. The words you use are unmerciful or hateful or vengeful, God calls it justice.

So you are talking about God's response to people who choose to remain unredeemed? The unredeemed are beyond the help of God, but not beyond His mercy. The unredeemed will be separated from the sheep and allowed to exist apart from God and His Body in Hell. If God were unmerciful or hateful or vengeful, He would force the unredeemed to remain in His Holy presence; instead, the damned will be allowed to scurry into Hell - and they will, as fast as possible.

 

[Selene]

The point is you can't look at God as only a loving being in every occasion. He doesn't describe himself that way. His over all love for everyone is expressed at the cross for everyone. Thats the only part you choose to see. You dont see him executing justice against those that don't know him, for the sake of those that suffer for righteousness. Instead you make statements like this one. The words you use are unmerciful or hateful or vengeful, God calls it justice.

Just because God is just and can mete out justice does NOT mean that He does not love. Do you have children of your own? If you are a father, you love your child no matter what even when your child sinned and went against you. What kind of father would you be if you only love your child when he is only good to you? A father still loves his son even when he committed a crime and landed himself in jail. He would not like what the son did, but he would still love his son. That is what true love is all about.

God is our Father, and He is the best Father ever. He created all of us, and we all turned against Him whenever we sinned. Does this mean that He no longer love us? God has always loved the sinner. It is the sin that He does not like. You have a very grave misconception of who God is. So, when you ask "does God love those who oppose Him?" The answer that we have always been telling you is "yes."

In Christ,
Selene

 

[aspen]

It is up to you if you want to be offended by post #31, Jacob - it wasn't meant to be offensive - it is simply a fact. Being offended by it is sort of like being offended by a traffic sign before a bridge that warns "caution, slippery when icy". Tough way to live.

Getting back to apostolic succession; the Early Church was concerned about being connected to the Apostles - in fact, many of the Early Church Fathers introduced themselves in their writings as disciples of disciples......also Gnostics attempted to legitimatize their later writings by using the names of the Apostles as authors.

 

[Selene]

It is up to you if you want to be offended by post #31, Jacob - it wasn't meant to be offensive - it is simply a fact. Being offended by it is sort of like being offended by a traffic sign before a bridge that warns "caution, slippery when icy". Tough way to live.

Getting back to apostolic succession; the Early Church was concerned about being connected to the Apostles - in fact, many of the Early Church Fathers introduced themselves in their writings as disciples of disciples......also Gnostics attempted to legitimatize their later writings by using the names of the Apostles as authors.

Who is Jacob? :mellow: Is Jacob the same person as Johnoneone?

 

[Johnoneone]

So, when you ask "does God love those who oppose Him?" The answer that we have always been telling you is "yes."

In Christ,
Selene

Back to the first question again
Can you point me to God loving those that appose him? Old or New Testament. Did Jesus speak about his love for the men of religious system in Jerusalem.

 

[aspen]

I just thought of a great new rule:

"Do not repeatedly ask a question that has been answered simply because you do not like the answer provided"

What do you all think?

 

[tomwebster]

Back to the first question again
Can you point me to God loving those that appose him? Old or New Testament. Did Jesus speak about his love for the men of religious system in Jerusalem.

Why don't you answer your own question, j1?

 

[rockytopva]

I just thought of a great new rule:

"Do not repeatedly ask a question that has been answered simply because you do not like the answer provided"

What do you all think?

Aspen... Thats a good rule!

 

[Selene]

Back to the first question again
Can you point me to God loving those that appose him? Old or New Testament. Did Jesus speak about his love for the men of religious system in Jerusalem.

Wow! You mean you really do not know God at all? Do you not know that those Pharisees were sinners? Did you think that the cheating tax collectors were not sinners? God loves all sinners (See 1 Timothy 1:15). That would also include the Pharisees because they were also sinners. Do you not know that Jesus not only ate and drank with the sinners in the streets, but also with the Pharisees who were sinners(See Luke 7:36).

Aspen... Thats a good rule!

Maybe he thinks that the Pharisees were NOT sinners.

Why don't you answer your own question, j1?

Good question.

 

[Selene]

aspen and selene cant provide bible references to support there opinion.

Really.....Johnoneone....most Christians believe that God loves everyone. That is what Christianity is all about....love, not hate.

 

[Johnoneone]

Really.....Johnoneone....most Christians believe that God loves everyone. That is what Christianity is all about....love, not hate.

Im fighting discrimination weirdos like your self have no worries hail mary selene