All ya need is love... All ya need is love.

Thanks for asking Thess,

First, Paul is speaking to believing Christians, those of the faith, instructing Christians it how to live the Christian life.
The Christian life's attributes are faith hope and love, and the greatest of these christian life attributes is love. Can one love without faith? No, Man does not love others without first having faith in those for whom he has love. I know of no man who loves all other men. Man cannot stand on love alone, because love sometimes fails the man. Hope is what you have, when you do not have what you hope for. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. In spite of Loves failures, Faith remains. (reality, not hyperbole)

Second, James 2:14-23 addresses the Christian life and how it is by works that you do that you are known. You cannot simply declare that you are a Christian without doing the works of the Christ. Therefore to others who observe you, your works are what justify what you say about yourself. Your works do not Justify you before the throne of God, Jesus' atonement for the sins of the world is what justifies mankind before the Throne of God. Would you rather be justified before man or before God?

Now ALL, believers and unbelievers alike, are before the Judgement throne of God. Works have been tested as if by fire and the result laid at Jesus' feet. Jesus death on the cross paid the penalty for the sins of the world. So you are now standing before God, you have no works they have been tested, your sins are not accounted against you because they have been paid for. All you have is your individual condition of faith. You either have faith or you do not! That is all that stands between you and the Lake of Fire. If you have faith, you are spared to live eternally with Jesus. If you are found lacking faith, you are cast into the lake of fire.

 

Sorry to bore you to sleep Wputnam, but the title of this thread is "all you nees is love?"

I disagree! Love is not sufficient to salvation! Love won't even be mentioned at the Judgment Throne of God!

Edited, sorry I misspelled your name.

 

Yelsew replied:

Sorry to bore you to sleep Wputnam, but the title of this thread is "all you nees is love?"

Yes, but the thrust of my message was trying to discern who you were responding to.

And the fellow was my attempt at being humorous.

I disagree! Love is not sufficient to salvation! Love won't even be mentioned at the Judgment Throne of God!

I don't think I said anything about love not being sufficient, but in the contest of believing in Christ - having "faith" if you will, is indeed not sufficient per se without love, the most important ingredient that is directed to Christ and to all we come into contact with, of course.

Love for chocolate, for example, does not qualify!

Edited, sorry I misspelled your name.

I probably would not have even noticed it!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

Hey WP:

You're back to your old tricks of writing long posts again.

Your whole program seems to hinge on the basis of one scripture in Matthew that
says ".......and upon this rock I build my church". And, those words were said to
one man, Peter, who Jesus, four verses later, called the same man, Satan. This
is the same man who denied knowing Jesus and made a fool of himself. That
was the first Pope? Are those traits inheritable also as you say the authority
of Peter is inherited by successors ? (Loose and bind, etc).

If there are other churches that existed during that time, please name
them for me. And by that, I don't mean such titles as "the church at Corinth"
since all we read of is, it belonged to the same mother church, THE CHURCH
as a whole, just as the church at Ephasus belonged.

If the ''church'' that existed at the time was named, please NAME IT FOR ME !!
And, don't use "Church of the Living God" as 1 Tim 3:15 portrays for that term
is also "generic" ( ... ...) and is not capitalized, and does not point to a visible
church. And the bible doesn't use the term 'mother church'. And, the bible
doesn't capitalize the word church as you do. And the bible doesn't refer to the
church as "she" as you do. Harlots are shes.

What church was it up until the time there was the first split in the church,
about the 9th century, a period of about 800 years?

The caveman's cart existed as a means of transportation long before Henry
Ford put a proper name on his auto. That does not give Henry the right to
claim to be the author of transportation. "If you have an ear to hear, WP........".

Not so fast, Singer, as I need to know how it is that somehow "not having
a church" frees you from the obligations of being a believer in Christ that
you may not do those things He commands you to do! This is incredible!

Neither scripture nor the Holy Spirit in me makes the accusation to join
any church. It only says "forsake not the gathering" and I do not forsake that.
It does not say "forbid not................".

And if He established a church with great authority, is it not encumbant
upon you to find that church and adhere to it?


And IF.....? (Exercise that possibility, WP) IF !!!!


One more time - all He commands you to do, including obedience to
the church which just may excommunicate you from the community
if you don't repent of your sinful ways - perMatthew 18:15-18!

Sorry, WP, it just doesn't name a church. Verse 20 says
"where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst
of them" (Jesus). Does He only come into the "midst" of gathered CAtholics?

You still haven't explained why Jesus' followers didn't eat his flesh and
drink his blood when he was right there with them , but yet that
is the policy today of modern Catholics. (Actual Body and Blood). They
couldn't have gotten any more "actual" than having Him there and
available to them...yet they ate bread and wine.

Keep prayin for me PAXman.....I'm learnin !
Peace

 

Is Peter the rock upon which Jesus built his church?
OR, is what Peter confessed about Jesus the Rock?

Peter is dead and gone, his body decomposed, it's structure unable to hold up any edifice.

The Truth of who Jesus is remains strong, able to support a million structures.

If your faith is built on Peter, you are in serious trouble.

If your faith is built on Jesus, your faith is on the Solid rock.

 

Singer replied:

Hey WP:

You're back to your old tricks of writing long posts again.

Get used to it, Singer, as I am going to purposly make this post as long as it takes to make my point!

Your whole program seems to hinge on the basis of one scripture in Matthew that
says ".......and upon this rock I build my church". And, those words were said to
one man, Peter, who Jesus, four verses later, called the same man, Satan. This
is the same man who denied knowing Jesus and made a fool of himself. That
was the first Pope? Are those traits inheritable also as you say the authority
of Peter is inherited by successors ? (Loose and bind, etc).

Singer, while Christ did indeed say that He was going to build His church upon Peter, please notice that this is in future tense! This occurred before Peter was fully formed into the man he was to become! And not only did Peter get scolded and told to "get thee behind me, Satan" is not saying that Peter is Satan, but that Satan still works through his continuing misunderstanding! But that was not the worse of it, as also see Peter denying him three times!

Have you noticed that of all the apostles, Peter was always getting himself in trouble with Our Lord? Peter was the loud mouth, always putting his foot in it so to speak, and when a question was addressed to the chosen twelve, we often saw Peter answer in their place!

Being a retired Navy Commander (O-5) I think I understand leadership traits in a person when I see them, and that is exactly what Jesus saw in Peter! That bumbling loud mouth, always the brunt of Christ's rebukes, was to become the leader of all the apostles!

Would you like to know exactly in scripture where this took place?

Peter, obviously humbled by his betrayal of Our Lord, even while we know that Peter loved Jesus so profoundly, take a good close read of John 21:15-17.

Now, most Protestants see this as nothing more then Christ forgiving Peter for his thrice denial, and indeed, that is included, but it goes beyond that.

He first asks him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more then these"? Of course Peter replies in the affirmative. Then Jesus adds something interesting - "Feed my lambs."

And for a second time, Jesus asks, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter replies, "Yes Lord, you know that I love you[/i]." And Jesus replied, "Tend my sheep."

Yet Jesus continued a third time with the question, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?." And Peter, now distressed, replies, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you" (and I can just see the tears in Peter eyes at all of this!) And finally, Jesus replies, "Feed my sheep."

What "sheep," Singer? Peter does not address this to any other except to Peter, who is to become the very "Shephard of the flock that belongs to Jesus - THE CHURCH!

Look further into Luke 22:31 where Jesus says to Peter, "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat (In other words, but then into great temptation and stress with what is to come) but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers."

Of course, this comes before Peter himself denied Him, but you see the picture Jesus is painting here, that Peter is to be the chief that would lead his brothers, the other 12, that they would indeed, not loose the faith.

And I could go on and on and on, but then you would indeed, get a long message!

I previously said:

If there are other churches that existed during that time, please name
them for me. And by that, I don't mean such titles as "the church at Corinth"
since all we read of is, it belonged to the same mother church, THE CHURCH
as a whole, just as the church at Ephasus belonged.

If the ''church'' that existed at the time was named, please NAME IT FOR ME !!

Actually, I just did, THE CHURCH!

It was the only one around! It was "Christ's Church," which would also qualify as a good title and name for that church, don't you think?

And, don't use "Church of the Living God" as 1 Tim 3:15 portrays for that term
is also "generic" ( ... ...) and is not capitalized, and does not point to a visible
church. And the bible doesn't use the term 'mother church'. And, the bible
doesn't capitalize the word church as you do. And the bible doesn't refer to the
church as "she" as you do. Harlots are shes.

Singer, ship's are affectinately in the feminine "she," out of love and respect, sailors have to the ship they serve on!

And that does not make them harlots. Where, oh where is your mind when that comes to the fore as you consider the feminine "she" anyway?

Singer, capitalized or not, do you deny that Christ established a Church? Did "the church" exist when Christ created it?

I previously said:

What church was it up until the time there was the first split in the church,
about the 9th century, a period of about 800 years?

The caveman's cart existed as a means of transportation long before Henry
Ford put a proper name on his auto. That does not give Henry the right to
claim to be the author of transportation. "If you have an ear to hear, WP........".

Can't answer the question, can you, Singer?

The Old Testament covenant existed before Christianity, or the establishment of the church either, so get busy and answer the question.

Not so fast, Singer, as I need to know how it is that somehow "not having
a church" frees you from the obligations of being a believer in Christ that
you may not do those things He commands you to do! This is incredible!

Neither scripture nor the Holy Spirit in me makes the accusation to join
any church. It only says "forsake not the gathering" and I do not forsake that.
It does not say "forbid not................".

The very creation of the church with authority is not a clue for you that to be the faith believing Christian, following Christ, is not to also join in the very "flock" that Peter is given the helm to lead? It is under your very nose and you avoid it? Again, incredible!

And if He established a church with great authority, is it not encumbant
upon you to find that church and adhere to it?

And IF.....? (Exercise that possibility, WP) IF !!!!

One more time - all He commands you to do, including obedience to
the church which just may excommunicate you from the community
if you don't repent of your sinful ways - perMatthew 18:15-18!

Sorry, WP, it just doesn't name a church. Verse 20 says
"where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst
of them" (Jesus). Does He only come into the "midst" of gathered CAtholics?

Show me those Christians called Methodests, Baptists, Episcopalians, and yes, even Catholics when in those days, there was only one group of Christians belonging to one church - Christians!

Can you find that church today, Singer?

Or are you going to continue to be your "own pope" and be your own congregation with bible in hand? (A bible, by the way, that did not exist in the New Testament form in the very early infant church.)

You still haven't explained why Jesus' followers didn't eat his flesh and
drink his blood when he was right there with them , but yet that
is the policy today of modern Catholics. (Actual Body and Blood). They
couldn't have gotten any more "actual" than having Him there and
available to them...yet they ate bread and wine.

Already explained in another message.

Here is a couple of links that will really test your attention span:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/realp.htm

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/trans.htm

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Almighty and eternal God, you gather
the scattered sheep

and watch over those
you have gathered.

Look kindly on all who follow Jesus,
your Son.

You have marked them
with the seal of one baptism,
now make them one
in the fullness of faith
and unite them in the bond of love.

We ask this through Christ our Lord.

Amen.

 

Folks, we are not saved BY faith, but THROUGH faith.

Faith is not all we need! We need God's grace -- for it is by His grace and His grace alone that we are saved; and His grace is a manifestation of His love. Even our faith is a gift from Him. Our response to the Gospel message is to believe (or not). But both belief and faith must have an object; they don't exist in the clouds floating through the air. They are anchored in an object of that belief and of that faith.

That object, for a Christian, is Christ. Not Peter, not the Pope, not Mary, not Joseph Smith Jr. or Brigham Young, not Mary Baker Eddy or Ellen G. White, not Hinn or Armstrong or an angel. Jesus Christ, and Him alone. He is the author and finisher of our faith and the object of it.

But we are saved THROUGH that faith, not because of it.

All you need is love? Well, that's all you need for obedience to God. But loving and obeying God, as a Christian, will take you places and have you doing things you never thought you would be part of! The command is to love. Love is thus part of obedience, and like Johnv said, love is a decision you make, not an emotion you ride off into a pink sunset on.

God's love saves those who respond with believing. THEN He gives them faith. THEN He gives them the desire to obey and the ability to love.

Is love the greatest? Absolutely. It is in our loving, as a commitment and obedience, that we are truly showing the world the character of God and truly growing to be transformed by the Holy Spirit into the image of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

 

Faith on my part, love on God's part, grace bringing the two together, that combination seems to me to be the minimum for a neopauline soteriology. Our love is both a reflection of God's love and a meet response to it.

As for "how evil can love", evil here is not opposite, ungodly but lesser, imperfect, defective. Therefore God's love is described not as the contrary of "evil man"'s love, but as its augmentative amelioration.

Haruo

 

"Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my father who is in heaven." What specifically was revealed to Peter? That, Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah (Christ). "It is upon this rock that I will build my church." I know of not one Christian church that is founded upon Peter! Do you?

Every Christian church that I know of has Jesus, the Son of God, the Christ (messiah) at its core, or it is not a Christian Church. Are all the Christian churches wrong?

Now I suggest You go back and read that scripture with an open spirit, one that is receptive to the truth of God.

 

Haruo,
When standing before the Judgment Throne of God. Love will not be a consideration whatever, because love is a work of the spirit, and works will have been tested as if by fire prior to the final judgement. The only thing that prevents one from being cast into the lake of fire is faith in the triune Godhead. Those who by their own choice refused to hear and believe, thus have faith, will be cast into the lake of fire. Not my rule, but God's!

 

As I said, when before the Judgement throne of God, the only thing that matters is your faith condition.

The sins of the world are atoned for by Jesus, some 2000 years ago! Sins will not be judged at the final judgment. "Works" are tested by fire. Good works come through the fire in the manner of Gold, Silver, and Precious Stones. Bad works are consumed in the manner of wood, hay, and stubble, leaving only ashes. But the one whose works are consumed is saved as if through fire. That is, devastated.

With no sins charged against one, and works tested, that leaves only the faith condition of the one before the Throne of God. Those who have faith in God (any part of the triune Godhead) are given eternal life with Jesus. Those who have not faith, are cast into the lake of fire.

 

Hogwash! That which was revealed to Peter is that Jesus is the son of God, the Christ. Peter's faith resulting from that revelation is not the Rock upon which Jesus built his church. The Rock is what Peter had faith in, and that is the who and what of Jesus! If your faith is not upon that same rock of who and what Jesus is, then your faith is in question.

 

Yelsew commented on the following quote:

The "..." part of it looks like a fragment from an older post of mine, so I will respond.

Anyway, you said:

"Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my father who is in heaven." What specifically was revealed to Peter? That, Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah (Christ). "It is upon this rock that I will build my church." I know of not one Christian church that is founded upon Peter! Do you?

The problem with this theory is, we first find Jesus changing Simon's name to Peter, which is the masculine Greek for ROCK, and it would indeed, be Kepha in Jesus' native tongue - Aramaic. This results in a sentence that reads, "You are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my church. This is so, since Aramaic has no gender for rock or stone.

Now, all of this bit about Peter's confession is in another sentence, the sentence that preceeds the one where Jesus Changes Simon's name to ROCK.

Therefore, the second occurrance for "ROCK" (kepha in the Aramaic) the very object Jesus says He will build His church upon, can only refer to an occurrance that comes closes to it, and in the same sentence to boot. And that must therefore, grammatically, be the occurrance of the first mention of ROCK, {Kepha again.)

In order to make the second "kepha" the object upon which the church is to be built refer back to Peter's confession is for Jesus to specify this as He spoke those words, "You are Peter and upon your confession I will build my church." But Jesus does not say this, does he?

Furthermore, nowhere does He connect the second kepha with Simon's confession, but in fact, since He changes Simon's name to Peter (ROCK, Kepha), there must be a reason for doing this - to then specify upon who He will build His church!

Why does Jesus change Simon's name to Peter anyway? To emphasize in the same sentence upon who He builds His church!

Every Christian church that I know of has Jesus, the Son of God, the Christ (messiah) at its core, or it is not a Christian Church. Are all the Christian churches wrong?

Good for them! I can rejoice in that they profess Jesus Christ! But error is error even while they may profess Christ! Do you (or your church community) believe in the Eucharist as does the Catholic Church? Both churches cannot be without error - only one can be right on this issue.

And so, for those churches who have bolted from the Barque of Peter, even while, bless their hearts, they believe in and profess Christ, must be in error in one way or another. Christ said there will eventually be "One fold and one shephard," not many folds and shephards, all teaching more or less a different doctrine.

Now I suggest You go back and read that scripture with an open spirit, one that is receptive to the truth of God.

I done this a whole long time ago, about in the year of 1952!

http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/p/wputnam3/My%20Story.htm

You are invited to explore the rest of my web site!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

Be my guest, my friend!

God bless,

PAX

Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.