Dolores, I am not sure why you joined into this thread and out of the blue attacked sisters MS and Ladybug. It would seem that if you are going to lament about your posts being given, in your eyes, ill treatment that you would also avoid the same
I find it strange that knowing that any defense of the Grahams is going to garner push back in this forum (it always has, it always will ) Why bring the aggravation to yourself by so doing? You have many good things to say and most regular posters know what you think of the Grahams.
Appreciate all the conjectures and commentaries. Actually had previously heard someone suggest the same thing as sister MS
Now one thing of which I am certain is that all those who shared their conjectures and every commentator is wiser and more scholarly than I
Yet we realize there are different Greek words for love. The word used in Mark 10:21 is not phileo but agapao. It is used to speak of the Fatherâ€™s love for the Son; Christâ€™s love for His children; our wholehearted love for God; the deep love of one whose many sins were forgiven; etc.
In none of the other 141 times it is used in the NewTestament does it carry the connotation the commentators suggest it has in Mark 10
Yet it would be good to consider that you can tell about 40-50 brothers and sisters in Christ who know your wife that she is sick and request prayer as I did today.
That a missionary family serving in Pau Pau New Guinea whose only communication with those in the states other than a letter that goes to supporting churches, access FB (not instant because of where it originates) sharing progress and prayer requests that actually get read.
You can post a gospel message that you hope God will use in the lives of your unsaved friends (I Cor. 3:6)
Post relating to activities (like where we ate) or kids are a normal part of conversation when people get together and you discuss how things are going, you just get to share it with more people
Facebook abuses arenâ€™t FB problems they are the people using its problems The thing that some people seem to forget is that it is a public forum and your privacy in any information you share is non-existent
Anything we use should be done for the purpose of glorifying the Lord.
ladybug wrote: Sister MS, That could be, I really do not know for certain. Bro. US, from your 6:14 post, "â€śThen Jesus beholding him loved himâ€ť, so His love is not only for His elect." IF the rich young ruler was not among the saved, then the love Christ stated could not have been the same kind of electing love we find for the chosen of God. As you know, context determines the true meaning, as well as cross referencing. We agree that we cannot tell sinners God loves them, which was my original complaint against John UK.
Andrew Clements wrote: Of course it is **impossible** for anyone born of the flesh, but Christ regenerates even the most wicked (Saul) of His elect. I've noticed, U.S. that during this discussion, you have constructed points consistent with the Arminian position, a position the reformers unanimously rejected (Canons of Dordt). Your views seem to echo those of the Roman Catholics (with regard to the doctrine of Justification) during that period (and today). I know that our standard isn't "the church fathers", but Scripture. However, I would think that if my position was similar to the R.C's, this might at least leave cause for reexamination. Perhaps a glance at Luther's classic, "Bondage of the Will", might get your attention. Peace.
A curious post at best. I don't get doctrine from the Arminians or the Reformers or the synod of Dordt.
As far as I know you are the first to say that my positions agree with Arminians or the RCC. You will need to be more specific if you are really interested in me addressing the issues of which you speak.
ladybug wrote: US - you seem to have missed the point I was making, so I will not waste anymore time. To say that God's love is universal, for ALL mankind, is nowhere taught.
I never said that. I am not saying it with the next sentence. The unrepentant rich young ruler shows that God's love extends beyond His elect. If God didn't love sinners none would be saved. God bless.
Dear sister Ladybug, I gave you more than ample Scriptural support. Everything is not located in sermons in the Bible. If you donâ€™t want to accept that then we will agree to disagree but please donâ€™t say I offered no Scriptural support.
Note the testimony Paul gave of the Thessalonians. (1:9)
For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God;
Note in I Corinthians 6, Paul is listing SINS that are practiced by those who shall not inherit the kingdom of God.Â Â He is saying that ifÂ Â this is the pattern of your life, you are not on your way to heaven. (v9&10) but of the Corinthian believers he says such WERE some of you, they turned from their sinful life.Â Â Â
Frank mentioned this earlier I believe , how do we know that false professors never were redeemed, because they retain their sinful habits from which they were allegedly saved.Â Â Thus the dog returned to its vomit and the pig to the mire, because they **turned** back to and are entangled again in that from which truly born again believers would have turned away. (II Peter 2:20-22)Â Â
MatthewÂ Â (1:21)tells us of our Lord that He shall save His people FROM their sin
Could site more but not trying to hog the thread and its time to go eat!
Our Lord has a special love for His redeemed (Ephesian 5:25).Â Â But we also have these words about one who walked off unsaved (Mark 10:22-23) â€śThen Jesus beholding him loved himâ€ť, so His love is not only for His elect.
I agree, let us not go out and tell people â€śSmile God loves youâ€ť when you should be telling them that as rebels against God they are condemned and under His wrath.Â Â His love is shown in that He as the One mediator between God and man, has provided a way for them to be saved.Â Â
Godâ€™s love is a holy love, to say He looks down with some emotional gooey feeling towards all humanity is inaccurate.Â Â We agree on that.
God said He loves sinners.Â Â Jesus said He came to seek and to save those that were lost.Â Â
This next one addresses the previous issue, what did our Lord say,
I came not to call the righteous, but sinners (He didnâ€™t say elect sinners) to repentance. (Paying attention David G?)
God said He demonstrated His love while we were yet sinners (that would makes us of the number included in the workers of iniquity that God hates). In Ephesians 2 after talking of those whose lifestyle was in the lust of the flesh and were by nature ***children of wrath (see John 3:36)***, verse 4 talks about during that time in our lives it mentions the great love wherewith He loved us.Â Â Â Â Paul said that while he was a blasphemer and persecutor of Christians he was the object of Godâ€™s grace and love (I Timothy 1:12-16) When did God lay on the Lord our sins?Â Â When we were as sheep going astray.Â Â Paul said that what motivated him in giving the gospel was the love of Christ (II Corinthians 5:11-14)
Not sure how any of us know what was or was not included in preaching that occurred nearly 2000 years ago. I understand what youâ€™re getting at. No time to presently share more verses that back what I am saying until I get home
Thanks David G, hopefully Stevenr will also weigh in. Would you also define repentance and from where it originates? Are you onboard with Stevenr that salvation is simply repentance from trusting something other than Christ for your salvation?
I may not be able to respond for several hours and I am sure others will add their thoughts..