Both Camps Limit The...

[webdog]

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.

Love is not a natural characteristic of humanity? Wow. Jesus even said the unrighteous, when their son asks for bread they do not offer them a rock, "they love the darkness rather than light...", etc. The unrighteous and righteous love the same. The object of that love is where they differ.

 

[russell55]

Love is not a natural characteristic of humanity? Wow. Jesus even said the unrighteous, when their son asks for bread they do not offer them a rock, "they love the darkness rather than light...", etc. The unrighteous and righteous love the same. The object of that love is where they differ.

If my statement had been that love (in general) wasn't a natural characteristic of humanity, you might have a point.

But what I said was that "love of the truth doesn't originate in themselves. If they welcome it, then it is not intrinsic to them. It [and by that I'm referring back to love of the truth] is not one of their natural characteristics."

And your response makes my point perfectly. The unrighteous "love darkness rather than light." As it pertains to truth vs. falsehood or darkness vs. light as an object of our love, love of the truth or love of the light isn't a natural characteristic.

 

[belvedere]

Maybe the idea that love originates in God comes from 1 John 4:7.

1 John 4:7 Dear friends, let us love one another, because love is from God, and everyone who loves has been born of God (A) and knows God.
(HCSB)

 

[Allan]

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.

There is no ambiguity between 'active' or 'passive'. One is subject is the doer of an action and the other is the suject being the recipient of the action being done. It is not a fuzzy distinction in my opinion. Are you meaning 'welcome' as in an open door type invitation or that I choose whom I will 'welcome'?

Umm... Love is not a feeling, it is a choice of and in action form while simultaniously being setting it above all other like things. So to 'love the truth' is to chose that truth above all others and act upon it.


Thus 'God is Love', is not that God is a feeling (I'm sure you agree) but that God is the epitome of what Love (agape) IS.

 

[Allan]

Maybe the idea that love originates in God comes from 1 John 4:7.

1 John 4:7 Dear friends, let us love one another, because love is from God, and everyone who loves has been born of God (A) and knows God.
(HCSB)

Ok smart guy :laugh: j/k (for those who don't know I attend his church on Sun. and he is my Sun. Sch. Teach , and a good one too)
Yes, I assumed that is where it came from, I just was curious if it was obtained from somewhere else.

However, the next verse states "he that does not love, does not know God because God is love".
So does that mean that only the saved can love and the unsaved who do not know God can not love?

No. This love is speaking of our actions toward one another within the context of the surrounding passages. It is referencing how we relate toward one another and is something that is only ascribable to believers because of the manner in which we behave toward one another. It is being more about others and putting them first rather than self.

So what we have the passage of 2 Thes 2 is it stating they refused to love (put it ahead of all) the truth and so be saved, unlike us who have known (like they did) and believed the love of the truth (which is the Love that God has for us):

1Jo 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

 

[Allan]

ANYWAY - that is another thread since it is taking on a life of its own (regarding 'love') - This one is about both groups limiting atonement, of which I stated the non-cals do not limit the Atonement but the limiting is placed on the redemption it procures which comes through faith.

And what I was stating is that unless atonement is made for the non-believer, the gospel could not save them even if they believed it. Thus it can not be stated honestly of the gospel truth that it can save them who rejected it. Yet that is what it states in every translation including every Greek Manuscript I can look at.

and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson


NLT - 2Th 2:10 - He will use every kind of wicked deception to fool those who are on their way to destruction because they refuse to believe the truth that would save them.
New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust


NIV - 2Th 2:10 - and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society


ESV - 2Th 2:10 - and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles


NASB - 2Th 2:10 - and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.
New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation


RSV - 2Th 2:10 - and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.


ASV - 2Th 2:10 - and with all deceit of unrighteousness for them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
American Standard Version 1901 Info


Young - 2Th 2:10 - and in all deceitfulness of the unrighteousness in those perishing, because the love of the truth they did not receive for their being saved,
Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info


Darby - 2Th 2:10 - and in all deceit of unrighteousness to them that perish, because they have not received the love of the truth that they might be saved.
J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info


Webster - 2Th 2:10 - And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
Noah Webster Version 1833 Info


HNV - 2Th 2:10 - and with all deception of wickedness for those who are being lost, because they didn't receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

There is no other way of seeing the scripture If they are condemned for rejecting the truth, then LOGIC DEMANDS as does the scripture, the opposite is true. Thus to believe the truth one can be saved, and in order for the truth save them an atomement had to be made for them.

So again: if a person is condemned for 'rejecting' the truth as the rest of the passages clearly state, then it follows there was something about the truth could change that verdict. So if the verdict could be changed due to the truth they were given then that truth was for them. But that truth could not have been for them unless a Christ died on their behalf and been made a propitiation for them too. Otherwise it can not be called the truth since the truth is gospel message of salvation, and it could not have condemned them if it also could not have saved them.

 

[belvedere]

No, I agree with you about 1 John 4:7, Allan. I was just saying that one could use this verse to make the argument. Talk to ya later...:wavey:

 

[Allan]

No, I agree with you about 1 John 4:7, Allan. I was just saying that one could use this verse to make the argument. Talk to ya later...:wavey:

I figured, but the majority of the stuff I wrote was merely an elaboration to others. See later brother.:thumbs:

 

[russell55]

There is no ambiguity between 'active' or 'passive'.

I meant the ambiguity in the English word receive. It can be either active or passive and you can't necessarily tell the difference. The word welcome makes it clearer that the verb there is active.

Umm... Love is not a feeling, it is a choice of and in action form while simultaniously being setting it above all other like things. So to 'love the truth' is to chose that truth above all others and act upon it.

Love can be lots of things. Yes it includes actions and choices, but it also includes desires. To love God includes desiring him and treasuring him, and out of the desiring or treasuring come actions of worship and obedience. To love the truth includes treasuring or valuing or desiring the truth, and out of that love comes obedience to the truth. The actions and choices of love come out of the desires of love.

 

[Allan]

I meant the ambiguity in the English word receive. It can be either active or passive and you can't necessarily tell the difference. The word welcome makes it clearer that the verb there is active.

Ok, now I see what you are saying.

Love can be lots of things. Yes it includes actions and choices, but it also includes desires. To love God includes desiring him and treasuring him, and out of the desiring or treasuring come actions of worship and obedience. To love the truth includes treasuring or valuing or desiring the truth, and out of that love comes obedience to the truth. The actions and choices of love come out of the desires of love.

Not true at all, where did you get that from? We can have no loving desire until we have first chosen to love, and that is point even regarding love in scripture. 1 Cor 13 - Choice must first come before desire and afterward choice follows the desire due to the first cause.

I agree with the rest because I stated the same thing:

Love is not a feeling, it is a choice of and in action form while simultaniously being setting it above all other like things. So to 'love the truth' is to chose that truth above all others and act upon it.

However, though love is connected at times with emotion, emotions are not love. Love is our actions in spite of our emotions at times.

I have gone to church not really desiring to be there because of lack of sleep, emotionally tired, et... but does that mean I stopped loving Him? No.

 

[Winman]

Allan, you just posted a response in the thread titled "Another Calvinistic Error", but it is about the atonement. Did you mean to post it here?

 

[Allan]

Allan, you just posted a response in the thread titled "Another Calvinistic Error", but it is about the atonement. Did you mean to post it here?

No, it is where it should be :wavey:

 

[kyredneck]

I assume there's something in this thread from 2007 that Allan wants us to take note of..... if so, why not go ahead and point it out? Give us an update or a synopsis.

 

[Allan]

I assume there's something in this thread from 2007 that Allan wants us to take note of..... if so, why not go ahead and point it out?

Allan didn't bring it up, Winman thought (for some reason I am unaware of) that I was meaning to post in this thread. I advised Win that the post I made in another thread was exactly where I wanted it to put it and that this thread was not it.

 

[kyredneck]

Allan didn't bring it up, Winman thought (for some reason I am unaware of) that I was meaning to post in this thread. I advised Win that the post I made in another thread was exactly where I wanted it to put it and that this thread was not it.

10-4 Allan. Thanks for clarifying.