sin and the sinner

Just a question...why would Christ teach us to love our enemies, if the Father doesn't love His?

 

First, we aren't God. God didn't reveal His Word for His sake but for ours.

Second, we don't know who will believe; God does.

Third, we are to be characterized as those who love which God is.

Fourth, God has many enemies, do you really believe that He was saying to love everyone indiscriminately? What about satan and demons?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by preacher:
Just a question...why would Christ teach us to love our enemies, if the Father doesn't love His?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hmmm...this is a good question

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Fourth, God has many enemies, do you really believe that He was saying to love everyone indiscriminately? What about satan and demons? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see where points 1-3 address the question, and the fourth seems to basically discount the concept entirely. I'd like to hear the opinions of others on this one.

 

Glory bound, we are commanded to do many things that God isn't. He is the only One who has the right to not love someone. We have been forgiven so much, we must love others.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PreachtheWord:
Glory bound, we are commanded to do many things that God isn't. He is the only One who has the right to not love someone. We have been forgiven so much, we must love others. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did Jesus command us to love people that He Himself did not love? This is a new concept for me . . . doesn't that seem somewhat hypocritical?

 

Well, if Glorybound is okay with your responses, then, hey, I'll just shutup about hot dialogue.

I wonder about that verse that says, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance". (2 Pe. 3:9) This verse seems to say that God's desire to save is all-inclusive, not confined to the elect. I have trouble, then, reconciling this verse to the notion that God hates all but the elect. While He may not love the unregenerate as much as He does His own children, this verse suggests that He has at least some concern for them. Hmmm.....

 

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

Uh huh. I wasn't hoping to blind side you with this verse. Just curious about your thinking, that's all. Thanks for the link.

In addition to the verse in my last post there is a similar one in 1 Ti.2:4 "(God) will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." Seems even more clear than the one in 1 Peter that God has some concern for non-elect sinners. Anyway, I'll go and check out your link now.

God bless!


[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: aiki ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, who do you think Peter is talking to? Was he referring to EVERY SINGLE individual in existence, that will come into existence, has ever been in existence? Or was he talking to the saved, ELECT of God. I think the scripture speaks for itself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm starting to get just a little tired of having this method of scripture interpretation tossed about all the time. I think it should be considered, but not to the extent that it has been used here.

After all, he was talking to PEOPLE. Does that mean his words didn't apply to anyone outside of that little group? Did he state that his words were "only for the ELECT?" If you only use this criteria, what's there to say that these words could even apply to Christians who were not in attendance?

Have you ever addressed a group with a subject that would also apply to others outside of the group? Does this mean that ALL of the epistles apply ONLY to the ELECT? There's nothing there for anyone else?

Finally, I find that stating a viewpoint, and following it up with a line such as "I think the scripture speaks for itself" comes across as arrogant. There are those who do not share our views, and I don't think it adds anything to the discussion to tack these statements on the end of our arguments.

While I appreciate the response, and the detail provided, the tone seems to imply "How silly to ask such a question - if you would take the time to read like the rest of us then you'd know better than to ask".

Some of us are intriqued by the differing viewpoints expressed here. We will be discouraged from asking further questions if they are responded to with an air of arrogance.

That is just my impression - I'm sure it was not intended. I'm certainly not saying that it was. But in this forum, the written word is all we have (plus a few emoticons ).

 

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

I'm not in disagreement with the doctrine of election. And I know that it is "God who gives us repentance to the acknowledging of the truth" (2 Ti. 2:25) and that "no man can come to (Christ as Saviour) except the Father who has sent (Christ) draw him...". (Jn. 6:44) I am just not as persuaded as you are about God's hatred of sinners.

Are you a teacher of some sort professionally? You adopt a rather didactic, almost patronizing tone when you answer questions, which is why I ask.

Wow! John Gill is master of avoiding the use of a period. I got breathless just reading his stuff! He makes some excellent points, though. Thanks again for the link.

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: aiki ]

 

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

See what I mean by this form of comunication being misunderstood?

James:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I really don't understand where you get that I am being arrogant. I really don't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was trying to indicate that in certain cases your responses could be taken as being arrogant. Not that you ARE arrogant. I never intended in any way, shape, or form to say that you were arrogant. I never had relations with that woman . . . Oops! I got carried away!

I am not kidding when I said that I appreciate your detailed posts - some people would just give a quick reply and let it go at that. It's obvious that you do care about what you believe, and want to share that. That's to be commended. There are too few Christians who seek to share their knowledge and experience with others.

In this form of communications, the written word doesn't always come across as intended - in fact that's probably the case most of the time. But when I read someone who states that the opposing view is foolish, then that basically indicates anyone holding the opposing view is foolish. I don't think this is you intention.

So - I'm not calling you names - and I do appreciate the discussion. It's interesting. I don't share all of your stated views, but I do some of them. I know the discussions on election can get rather long, and I'm not interested in getting tangled up in that "tarbaby" issue now. Maybe one of these days.

 

Watch it... I'm going to throw a monkey wrench into the whole works. Can some tell me why that anytime someone sees the word saved they think it applies to eternal salvation?... Does it always?... Aiki brought up this scripture... I Timothy 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

All men speaking of the elect of God being saved not eternally but from untruth. One of the greatest sins when Jesus Christ came into the world was the sin of unbelief.
The elect of God who by last count were as the sands of the sea and the stars of the sky that is your elect brethren were already Gods children. Though they were as God children then is no different today as all Gods children need to be delivered from error and untruth.

If these spoken of here were not Gods children then how can they lead these types of lives. Unless your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees ye shall in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven. Brought to this realization of truth that the only one that could stand in your room and stead was Jesus Christ... Just my thoughts... Brother Glen

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tyndale1946:
Watch it... I'm going to throw a monkey wrench into the whole works. Can some tell me why that anytime someone sees the word saved they think it applies to eternal salvation<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Monkey wrench!!! Duck!!

Beats me. It's like why some people see the words "all men" and "the world" and they think it applies only to a chosen few.

You guys are just too sophisticated for me. I'm just an elementary reader. I'm still stuck in the old school of simply believing what I read as I read it.

Maybe someone else can answer your question, Brother Glen . . . and return your monkey wrench!

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Glory Bound ]

 

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

I’m sorry, but you can’t separate the sin from the sinner… Paul said that he was nothing but a sinner… Does anyone here actually think that they can go though this life, sinless? If so, the bible (not me) says that you’re a liar and know not the truth…. The only way that God separates those that believe in him, from as vile a person as you can imagine, is the Blood of Christ….

Once you’re saved, God no longer sees you in a sinful condition, which in fact you are…. Why? Because Christ was made sin for us, who knew no sin, that we could become the sons of God…

Ask yourself this question, why did God forsake Christ while he was upon the cross? It was because that God couldn’t look upon sin… Christ, for the first time in eternity, was separated from God, the Father….

Christ bore those infirmities so that God wouldn’t (actually, couldn’t) see us in our sinful condition, but he would only see the blood applied to everyone that believes….

IMO, that’s how that God separates the sin from the sinner…. Peace… Gary

 

I agree with that and add I will be a sinner until I die but there is a Spirit that will return to God when I die that can't sin!... Brother Glen