Both Camps Limit The...

[russell55]

But the truth has no saving power unless an atonement has been made on their behalf.

It's not simply the truth as an objective thing that has saving power, but receiving the love of the truth. And an atonement has been made for everyone who receives the love of the truth.

Editted in --> Notice that scripture does not state in the passage in question - "because they received not the love of the truth, that [is able to save]." but it states 'that they might be saved.' I believe in the inspiration of the Word.

Actually, the phrase you are quoting just says, "for to be saved", or "so to be saved" or "in order to be saved" or something more like that.

 

[Amy.G]

It's not simply the truth as an objective thing that has saving power, but receiving the love of the truth. And an atonement has been made for everyone who receives the love of the truth.




Actually, the phrase you are quoting just says, "for to be saved", or "so to be saved" or "in order to be saved" or something more like that.

One can receive the "truth" through various means like God's word, the spoken word, ect. But, how does one receive the "love"of the truth unless God is the one who gives it? You cannot manifest a "love" of the truth within yourself can you? Wouldn't that have to come from God?

 

[canadyjd]

Editted in --> Notice that scripture does not state in the passage in question - "because they received not the love of the truth, that [is able to save]." but it states 'that they might be saved.' I believe in the inspiration of the Word and if God wanted to say they could not be saved, He would have said just that. Yet instead God goes to great lengths not only to state the love of the Truth they rejected could have saved them, but also states their condemnation is based on their choice, and that they were not unilaterally condemned until AFTER they chose to reject the truth.

The translation "might be saved" makes it sound as if those who do receieve the love of the truth might (or might not) be saved based on that event. Perhaps the old King James English used "might be" to convey the reality of "would be" or "the result being"...salvation.

You appear to want to use the phrase "they might be saved" to mean everyone gets a chance to be saved, or everyone has been given a chance to respond to the truth.

Do you believe God would give a standard by which someone must be saved, even if not even one person on the planet could reach that standard without assistance?

peace to youraying:

 

[russell55]

One can receive the "truth" through various means like God's word, the spoken word, ect. But, how does one receive the "love"of the truth unless God is the one who gives it? You cannot manifest a "love" of the truth within yourself can you? Wouldn't that have to come from God?

I think you are right that a love of the truth is something that is given by God. I might quibble with the notion that we can't manifest a love of the truth within ourselves: I think we manifest it within ourselves, but it doesn't originate within ourselves.

 

[Amy.G]

I think you are right that a love of the truth is something that is given by God. I might quibble with the notion that we can't manifest a love of the truth within ourselves: I think we manifest it within ourselves, but it doesn't originate within ourselves.

That's what I meant. It doesn't originate in ourselves.

 

[Allan]

It's not simply the truth as an objective thing that has saving power, but receiving the love of the truth. And an atonement has been made for everyone who receives the love of the truth.

I know that and it is why I stated, repeatedly, that unless one is atoned for the truth can do nothing for you since it is not FOR you.

The hearing the truth, who were not atoned for, would no bearing on their condemnation much less their salvation. But scripture states that it does.

As an aside: if you are implying the 'received the love of the truth' is that God gives it to us, then I implore you to look at the Greek regarding the word 'received'. The term 'received' is not in the Passive voice (meaning God does this to or in them) but is in the Middle Deponent which is almost always used in the Active voice (meaning the subject such as 'they' is the doer). It was 'THEIR' choice NOT to receive.

Actually, the phrase you are quoting just says, "for to be saved", or "so to be saved" or "in order to be saved" or something more like that.

I have already quoted it that way as well. All of the terms mean the same thing, because they convey the same idea that recieving/believing the truth saves, and rejection of it condemns. There is NTHER exigetical way to understand the verses set forth.

 

[Allan]

One can receive the "truth" through various means like God's word, the spoken word, ect. But, how does one receive the "love"of the truth unless God is the one who gives it? You cannot manifest a "love" of the truth within yourself can you? Wouldn't that have to come from God?

No Amy.

God reveals truth, but we are accountable for what we do with it.
As I stated to Russell:

The term 'received' is not in the Passive voice (meaning God does this to or in them) but is in the Middle Deponent which is almost always used in the Active voice (meaning the subject such as 'they' is the doer).

For it to mean something God placed in you, you would have to say that you would not take to yourself the Love God put in you to have for it. That would make NO sense.

Now if 'received' was in the passive voice, it WOULD mean it is something that God must give them. What the phrase is doing is showing the importance of the object rejected. What we believe we take to heart and it is dear to us. If Christ truly died for our sins while we were in absolute rebellion, that by Gods grace we throug faith might be saved (the truth they rejected) then that is a very dear truth to our heart and soul, nay our very being.

 

[Allan]

That's what I meant. It doesn't originate in ourselves.

Love does not originate in ourselves??

The truth of God does NOT originate in ourselves, but love DOES originate within us.

That is why God must reveal truth to us, that we receive the truth in Love.

 

[Allan]

The translation "might be saved" makes it sound as if those who do receieve the love of the truth might (or might not) be saved based on that event. Perhaps the old King James English used "might be" to convey the reality of "would be" or "the result being"...salvation.

I use it because it does not change a thing regarding the conversation that is already in progress as I have already discussed and shown.

You appear to want to use the phrase "they might be saved" to mean everyone gets a chance to be saved, or everyone has been given a chance to respond to the truth.

Everyone does have a chance regarding what they do the truth already revealed them (fi you are meaning people who have never heard the gospel), as to whether or not God will send someone to bring the full truth/Christ. And for those already in earshot, they to must still choose what they will do the with truth that is revealed to them. Just requoting scripture.

Do you believe God would give a standard by which someone must be saved, even if not even one person on the planet could reach that standard without assistance?

Yes, He did.
It is called righteousness.

But He sent His Son into the World, NOT to condemn the world but that the world through Him might be saved
And He is turn sent forth His Spirit to convict the World of Sin, His righteousness, and the Judgment to come.
Because He is the propitiation of our sins, and not ours only but the sins of the WHole World.
Why? For God so loved the World that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life.

 

[Amy.G]

God reveals truth, but we are accountable for what we do with it..

I was referring to the "love" of truth. Love originates in God, not us.

As I stated to Russell:

For it to mean something God placed in you, you would have to say that you would not take to yourself the Love God put in you to have for it. That would make NO sense.

Sorry, but that makes no sense to me. I don't understand your point. :laugh:

 

[Amy.G]

Love does not originate in ourselves??

The truth of God does NOT originate in ourselves, but love DOES originate within us.

That is why God must reveal truth to us, that we receive the truth in Love.

No, love originates in God.

We love because God first loved us. God is love.

 

[Allan]

I was referring to the "love" of truth. Love originates in God, not us.

Sorry, but that makes no sense to me. I don't understand your point. :laugh:

Ok, so the unsaved can not 'love'?
Is that your contention?

The other simply means that the Greek does not support Russell's version of God giving us love to love the truth. It is something that the person is doing.

 

[Allan]

No, love originates in God.

We love because God first loved us. God is love.

We love Him because He first loved us. But please show scripture that states God gave us love to love Him back.

In its simplist form it simply means we love God now because we know He loved us first by preparing a way of salvaiton.

Love originates in God in the sense that we would have no love for Him if He did not by Grace prove His love for us. NOT that He must give us love to love Him back.

 

[Amy.G]

We love Him because He first loved us. But please show scripture that states God gave us love to love Him back.

In its simplist form it simply means we love God now because we know He loved us first by preparing a way of salvaiton.

Love originates in God in the sense that we would have no love for Him if He did not by Grace prove His love for us. NOT that He must give us love to love Him back.

I don't know of anyone who loves someone just on the basis that the other person loved them. I love my husband, but it's not because he loves me.

I will gladly give God the glory for the love of truth because I believe He is the One who put it in my heart.

 

[Allan]

I don't know of anyone who loves someone just on the basis that the other person loved them. I love my husband, but it's not because he loves me.

I will gladly give God the glory for the love of truth because I believe He is the One who put it in my heart.

Who said anything about not giving God the glory??

Do be so quick to be self-righteous.

I merely asked, do the unsaved love?
The answer is Yes.
Remember Love is not an emotion it is a desicion though emotions do play a part, emotions are not Love.

God through the truth reveals His love toward me, and I can either accept that which will cause me to love the truth, or I can reject His Love which will cause me not to love the truth.

If you believe you God made you love Him, then that is fine.
I will maintain that we can accept His loving grace or reject it since that is what I see throughout the scripture.

 

[Amy.G]

Who said anything about not giving God the glory??

Do be so quick to be self-righteous.

I merely asked, do the unsaved love?
The answer is Yes.
Remember Love is not an emotion it is a desicion though emotions do play a part, emotions are not Love.

God through the truth reveals His love toward me, and I can either accept that which will cause me to love the truth, or I can reject His Love which will cause me not to love the truth.

If you believe you God made you love Him, then that is fine.
I will maintain that we can accept His loving grace or reject it since that is what I see throughout the scripture.

I am not being self-righteous by giving God glory. That doesn't even make sense.

I never said God "made" me love Him. I only said love originates with God.

 

[Allan]

I am not being self-righteous by giving God glory. That doesn't even make sense.

I never said God "made" me love Him. I only said love originates with God.

It was how you said it, as though I did not give God the glory.
If I mispoke then I deeply appologize.

What do you mean 'love' originates with God, if even the unsaved can love?

 

[Amy.G]

It was how you said it, as though I did not give God the glory.
If I mispoke then I deeply appologize.

What do you mean 'love' originates with God, if even the unsaved can love?

When I said I give God the glory, it was in response to this that you said:

Originally Posted by Allan
Love does not originate in ourselves??

The truth of God does NOT originate in ourselves, but love DOES originate within us.
That is why God must reveal truth to us, that we receive the truth in Love.

Even the unsaved have a conscience, but it does not originate in themselves. It is given to all by God. The capacity to love is also given by God, because love originates in Him because He is love.

But not all have a love for the truth (spiritual truth). No one seeks God. The desire to seek God must come from God and the love of truth must come from God or else we would never seek Him.

 

[russell55]

I know that and it is why I stated, repeatedly, that unless one is atoned for the truth can do nothing for you since it is not FOR you.

I don't know what you mean by this.

The hearing the truth, who were not atoned for, would no bearing on their condemnation much less their salvation. But scripture states that it does.

Hearing the truth doesn't have any bearing on their salvation because they don't receive the love of the truth. Wherever there is welcoming of the love for the truth, there is salvation, yes. But they don't welcome the love of the truth and they remain unsaved. Since they remain unsaved, how can it be said that hearing the truth has bearing on their salvation?

On the other hand, not believing the truth is grounds for judgment. So of course, hearing the truth has bearing on their condemnation. Would they be condemned had they never heard the truth? Of course. But hearing the truth, and refusing to believe it, increases their judgment.

As an aside: if you are implying the 'received the love of the truth' is that God gives it to us, then I implore you to look at the Greek regarding the word 'received'. The term 'received' is not in the Passive voice (meaning God does this to or in them) but is in the Middle Deponent which is almost always used in the Active voice (meaning the subject such as 'they' is the doer). It was 'THEIR' choice NOT to receive.

I understand this and agree with it, more or less. It was their own attitude that kept them from welcoming the love of the truth.

 

[russell55]

Love does not originate in ourselves??

The truth of God does NOT originate in ourselves, but love DOES originate within us.

Allan, the very point you make, that they receive (or welcome, which is a better term, because it avoids the active/passive ambiguity in the word receive) the love of the truth proves that the love of the truth doesn't originate in themselves. If they welcome it, then it is not intrinsic to them. It is not one of their natural characteristics.