Why is Calvinism surging?

[Jarthur001]

James, Election has never been a contention and has been around long before the Calvinistic Paradigm was systematized and one which all Non-Cals have agreed and still do!

However the election to which you are assigning is not the same election they contend. Yes, both agree that God elected before all things according to His good pleasure and purpose.

HOWEVER, the distinction with regard to that election is disctinct but not with regard to truth but mechanics AND THAT is what I HAVE BEEN SAYING.

They are the same in with regard to the truth of the 'when and how' but not the why!

Both views of election is bound up in our views of Atonement.

Allan,


Most all of them clearly state..."not based on fore-seen faith"....or something like that.

You got copies of them...read them. Even SBC changed...and this is the point of the OP. They seem to be changing back to what their 1st creed read.

Other then the Freewill Baptist Creed, I could sign all of them. Things have changed over the last 100 years,,,and we are seeing them go back to where they once were.

 

[Jarthur001]

James, Election has never been a contention with regard to it's fact and that is was done by soley by God for His purposes and pleasure. The difference between the two groups was with regard to the 'why' NOT the 'When and How'.

However the election to which you are assigning is not the same election they contend. Yes, both agree that God elected before all things according to His good pleasure and purpose.

HOWEVER, the distinction with regard to that election is disctinct but not with regard to the truth that it happened but rather the mechanics AND THAT is what I HAVE BEEN SAYING.

So we will see them declare the same truth about election with regard to 'when and the how' but they seperate (when defined) on the 'why'.

They are the same in with regard to the truth of the 'when and how' but not the why!

Both views of election is bound up in our views of Atonement.

I said from the begining Allan...

Please show me just one Baptist creed before 1872 that did not include election as viewed by all Calvinist.

You have not...and that was the point. You can have the last word...I'm done.

 

[Allan]

I said from the begining Allan...

Please show me just one Baptist creed before 1872 that did not include election as viewed by all Calvinist.

You have not...and that was the point. You can have the last word...I'm done.

I'm not asking for the last word James, I am and have been saying the Calvinistic veiw of election is much the same as what the Non-Cal have always held even before Calvinism defined itself more specifically through it's confessions. BUT there IS a distiction OF that election with regard as to the question of 'why'. But the why is more secondary and so not as important.

And Yes I DID show you different confessions and still you don't accept that they are similar but still distinctly different in ONE aspect, the why (if it speaks to it)

 

[Allan]

Allan,


Most all of them clearly state..."not based on fore-seen faith"....or something like that.

You got copies of them...read them. Even SBC changed...and this is the point of the OP. They seem to be changing back to what their 1st creed read.

Other then the Freewill Baptist Creed, I could sign all of them. Things have changed over the last 100 years,,,and we are seeing them go back to where they once were.

I disagree that things are going back to where they once were, much less back to those early confessions. I think they are just balancing out

In fact I see nothing and no one saying anything in like manner but you.

Anyway brother - it was fun disagreeing with you again , Have a good evening James. I'm out.

 

[Rippon]

I'm not asking for the last word James, I am and have been saying the Calvinistic veiw of election is much the same as what the Non-Cal have always held even before Calvinism defined itself more specifically through it's confessions. BUT there IS a distiction OF that election with regard as to the question of 'why'. But the why is more secondary and so not as important.

And Yes I DID show you different confessions and still you don't accept that they are similar but still distinctly different in ONE aspect, the why (if it speaks to it)

The Calvinistic view of election is much the same as what the Non-Cals have always held even before Calvinism was systematized ?!

That's as absurd as saying that 100% of all born-again believers throughout Church History have believed in Particular Redemption ( now Limited Atonement is another matter ) . Wait , you believe this too !

Where do you come up with this stuff ? You haven't bought Skypair's manual , have you ?

 

[Allan]

The Calvinistic view of election is much the same as what the Non-Cals have always held even before Calvinism was systematized ?!

That's as absurd as saying that 100% of all born-again believers throughout Church History have believed in Particular Redemption ( now Limited Atonement is another matter ) . Wait , you believe this too !

Where do you come up with this stuff ? You haven't bought Skypair's manual , have you ?

You confirm more and more, very little Christian character at all in yourself.

I still pray for your repentance, Rippon. May God grant it to you.

 

[Rippon]

You need to change your broken record . Try another tune .

Again , election is and has been taught very differently among the two quite divergent camps . Would you care to document your absurdity -- that there is no appreciable difference ? Of course if you can cite any evidence showing similar views then , and only then -- I will eat my hat . Try comparing Clarke ( the anti-Calvinist ) and Matthew Henry for example and see how far apart they are .

 

[Allan]

Please show me just one Baptist creed before 1872 that did not include election as viewed by all Calvinist.

Rippon doesn't believe you James, that the Genernal Baptists held the view of election as much the same or your contention of exactly the same as Calvinists.

Though I state they were fundamentally the same and only secondarily different (the why), he states they were not the same, but you say they were. He requests you please document your absurdity. He states there IS an appreicialbe difference and that they taught very differently among the divergent camps, therefore they had to believe differently about election.

 

[Jarthur001]

Rippon doesn't believe you James, that the Genernal Baptists held the view of election as much the same or your contention of exactly the same as Calvinists.

Though I state they were fundamentally the same and only secondarily different (the why), he states they were not the same, but you say they were. He requests you please document your absurdity. He states there IS an appreicialbe difference and that they taught very differently among the divergent camps, therefore they had to believe differently about election.

Allan,

Why do you try to twist things around? That is nothing but hogwash!!!

I have put to much time on this one subject not to get anywhere. At times I get tried of going around with you, because at times you will not listen. I said I was done for this reason. Forgive me as I post one more time. Please listen.

Rippon said that the non-Calvinist and Calvinist view on election is not the same!!!

I agree, they are not the same, they never have been the same, they never will be the same, not in the pass, not today, not tomorrow, never, ever ever will they ever be the same. End of story. They cannot, for one view places God as the picker, and the other view places man as the picker. I know many feel God gave over the choice to man, but they still do not see, it i man that becomes the picker

I said...Genernal Baptists had the same view of election up until 1890 as the other Baptist. I followed up and proved this to be true. They all (all that I have read) state election is not based on anything man does, nor on God foreknowing who will believe. That is a Calvinist view Allan. It is not a non-Calvinist view. Sorry you had to hear that, but it is the truth. I have given two dates 1890 and 1870, because the change started in 1870. That is to long a story to get into.

Allan, I'm sorry to hurt your feelings, but that is the cold hard truth. Baptist were Calvinist to some degree all the way to 1890. They all agreed on the MAIN point that being election. Then SOME changed their views. Did I show you the 1st SBC statement on election? And for that matter, you need to read the 1st few statements by SBC on mans depravity. That changed as well.

As I said before Genernal Baptists took issue with Calvinist view of the atonement. Now I can understand that. I disagree with them, for you know how I see it. If you read those early creeds you will find a 3 or 4 point Calvinist view. Genernal Baptists of that day were not non-Calvinist, for they believe the main point where the line is drawn. That line is...Election. If you do not believe election is by God, you are not a Calvinist. ELECTION IS BY GOD. ......is the view of a Calvinist..3 points...4 points...and 5 points.

 

[Allan]

Allan,

Why do you try to twist things around? That is nothing but hogwash!!!

I have put to much time on this one subject not to get anywhere. At times I get tried of going around with you, because at times you will not listen. I said I was done for this reason. Forgive me as I post one more time. Please listen.

Rippon said that the non-Calvinist and Calvinist view on election is not the same!!!

Yep, and that includes ALL NON-CALs, INCLUDING those before your 1890 date.

I agree, they are not the same, they never have been the same, they never will be the same, not in the pass, not today, not tomorrow, never, ever ever will they ever be the same. End of story.

And THAT is what I HAVE BEEN SAYING !! :BangHead:
They are SIMILAR to those of Calvinistic view (even BEFORE 1890) but distinctly DIFFERENT.

The view a person or group has on the Atonement typically determines their view of the 'why' God elected. But as to the when it happened and how it came about (By God, according to the counsil of God, for the purpose and pleasure OF God) is the same as the Calvinists EVEN NOW.

I said...Genernal Baptists had the same view of election up until 1890 as the other Baptist. I followed up and proved this to be true.

Wrong, because any view of general Atonement seperates them automatically.
And I SHOWED here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1157045&postcount=135
where there are many General Confessions that dissagree with you INCLUDING the Somerset Confession using your own quote! So no, you proved nothing of the sort. And are still in contention with Rippons point of those BEFORE 1890

They all (all that I have read) state election is not based on anything man does, nor on God foreknowing who will believe. That is a Calvinist view Allan. It is not a non-Calvinist view. Sorry you had to hear that, but it is the truth. I have given two dates 1890 and 1870, because the change started in 1870. That is to long a story to get into.

Look again.

Allan, I'm sorry to hurt your feelings, but that is the cold hard truth.

You haven't hurt my feelings but you also haven't proved anything so no truth has been set forth as of yet except (with presumption) of what I gave.

Baptist were Calvinist to some degree all the way to 1890. They all agreed on the MAIN point that being election. Then SOME changed their views. Did I show you the 1st SBC statement on election? And for that matter, you need to read the 1st few statements by SBC on mans depravity. That changed as well.

So if you veiw Election as a Calvinist you must be a Calvinist even if you deny irrestable grace, total depravity, and the rest? Give it up.
Election has ALWAYS been that God chose HOW He would save and When it was determined and through out Baptist history ALL mainline views have agreed. They differed in the secondary 'why' aspect.

 

[Jarthur001]

They differed in the secondary 'why' aspect.

From a non-calvinist view of election....

Please tell why.

 

[Allan]

From a non-calvinist view of election....

Please tell why.

Why?
It is a secondary aspect ONLY in light of mechanics of election. Election is the fact of God chosing/electing to Himself a people whereby we as a people had no say in the matter as to the method (faith) and the means (gospel) of salvation. Therefore man contributed nothing to his election nor did God seek mans input. He determined salvation was to be through faith that it might be by grace and all those of faith (future) were known to Him (at that time). And that it was done from the foundation of the world for His own purpose, plan, and good pleasure.

That is election, is it not?

So the 'why' is secondary with regard to the mechanics of election but is synonymously primary as to the reason of and for election.
Why did God elect a people from those who rebelled and now were enemies at best with God? Because He loved some of them? Did He love His plan and purpose more than His creation? If His election WAS based on love, then what was it that God loved of some and not others that He would pass them over and not save them?

That is what I have been taught as a Non-Cal through both SBC and Independant Baptist Churches I was apart of growing up and in school. As I have always stated - God decrees in conjunction with His knowledge.

BUT.. to get back to the OP ... Do you think the rise of Calvinism is do to a Calvinistic understanding of election?

 

[HankD]

I think it's interesting that the overwhelming majority voted that Calvinism is surging because it's Biblical.

Then it's an unusual surge because none of the following phrases are found in the Bible:

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistable Grace
Perseverance of the Saints

along with "The Sovereignty of God".

Not that any of these concepts are or are not necessarily true.

But what did we do for 15 centuries before Calvin showed up?

21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;
22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, (or Calvin), or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;
23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.

​

HankD

 

[Jarthur001]

Why?
It is a secondary aspect ONLY in light of mechanics of election. Election is the fact of God chosing/electing to Himself a people whereby we as a people had no say in the matter as to the method (faith) and the means (gospel) of salvation. Therefore man contributed nothing to his election nor did God seek mans input. He determined salvation was to be through faith that it might be by grace and all those of faith (future) were known to Him (at that time). And that it was done from the foundation of the world for His own purpose, plan, and good pleasure.

That is election, is it not?

So the 'why' is secondary with regard to the mechanics of election but is synonymously primary as to the reason of and for election.
Why did God elect a people from those who rebelled and now were enemies at best with God? Because He loved some of them? Did He love His plan and purpose more than His creation? If His election WAS based on love, then what was it that God loved of some and not others that He would pass them over and not save them?

That is what I have been taught as a Non-Cal through both SBC and Independant Baptist Churches I was apart of growing up and in school. As I have always stated - God decrees in conjunction with His knowledge.

BUT.. to get back to the OP ... Do you think the rise of Calvinism is do to a Calvinistic understanding of election?

In other words...you would disagree with this...(knowing the key word)

God knowing they WILL believe the truth and what He knows they will do He predestines or decrees that their choice to BE... for accepting or rejecting.

 

[Allan]

In other words...you would disagree with this...(knowing the key word)

God knowing they WILL believe the truth and what He knows they will do He predestines or decrees that their choice to BE... for accepting or rejecting.

No, I don't.

That God decreed His determined will to be and knew those of (later) Faith, in no way differs here (an earlier quote of mine) from what I just posted in this thread.

1. God still determined that salvation was to be through faith. Man didn't get any say.
2. God still determimed who would be saved (those of faith) and man didn't get any say.
3. God did not seek man's input (what He should do, where, why, and how).
4. Therefore man contributed nothing TO his election in the above sense.

 

[Jarthur001]

No, I don't.

That God knew those of Faith and decreed His will to be, in no way differs here (an earlier quote of mine) from what I just posted in this thread.

1. God still determined that salvation was to be through faith. Man didn't get any say.
2. God still determimed who would be saved (those of faith) and man didn't get any say.
3. God did not seek man's input (what He should do, where, why, and how).
4. Therefore man contributed nothing TO his election in the above sense.

And this would be the point Allan...so take note.

Calvinist WOULD disagree. Got it??

God knowing they WILL believe the truth and what He knows they will do He predestines or decrees that their choice to BE... for accepting or rejecting.

Your statement in quotes above...we do not agree with. The creeds before 1890 do not agree with that quote

So...we do not agree on election.

as rippon has said...

as I have said...

:BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead:

 

[Allan]

And this would be the point Allan...so take note.

Calvinist WOULD disagree. Got it??

No. What did you disagree with in post which stated God determined it all and man had no input.

Your statement in quotes above...we do not agree with. The creeds before 1890 do not agree with that quote

Please elaborate what they disagree with since nothing you have set forth stands in contrast to what I set forth. God did not elect 'based on foreseen faith'. God determined and man didn't get any say. So I'm curious, to what are you against in those statements?
Do you affirm that God did not know who those of faith are to be?

So...we do not agree on election.

You haven't said WHY we are supposedly disagreeing about election and haven't shown where any confession set forth by either of us why my statements woud violate what is set forth in them. :BangHead:

Just curious though James, would you sign off on this statement:

Election is the fact of God chosing/electing to Himself a people whereby we as a people had no say in the matter as to the method (faith) and the means (gospel) of salvation. Therefore man contributed nothing to his election nor did God seek mans input. He determined salvation was to be through faith that it might be by grace and all those of faith (future) were known to Him (at that time). And that it was done from the foundation of the world for His own purpose, plan, and good pleasure.

For the sake of argument, it seems likely that you would have considered the statement, but (presumably) since you knew it was a non-Cal writting it you needed clarification and asked 'But why'?

as rippon has said...

Incorrect. You and Rippon are NOT saying the same thing. He stated:

Again , election is and has been taught very differently among the two quite divergent camps

Note if you will that there is at no time in Rippons post were these two groups EVER agreed on election

as I have said...

You stated they did up till 1890 and therefore you two are in disagreement, period. Now if Rippon wants to state that the General Baptist did in fact believe election in the same manner as the Calvinist BEFORE 1890, THEN you have your advocate and the burden is upon you to prove it.

 

[Jarthur001]

No. What did you disagree with in post which stated God determined it all and man had no input.


Please elaborate what they disagree with since nothing you have set forth stands in contrast to what I set forth. God did not elect 'based on foreseen faith'. God determined and man didn't get any say. So I'm curious, to what are you against in those statements?

Your statement...

God knowing they WILL believe the truth and what He knows they will do He predestines or decrees that their choice to BE... for accepting or rejecting.

My Statement...

God knows because God choose who He would open their eyes to the truth, not as you said above based on who believes, but based on who he chooses, and this choice is decreed by Him.

You statement is based on "they that believe" and what He "knew they will do".
My statement is based in Gods choice alone. He know for He caused it. Get it?

Do you affirm that God did not know who those of faith are to be?

don't be silly. He know because he choose. You say He choose because of who believes. Get it?

You haven't said WHY we are supposedly disagreeing about election and haven't shown where any confession set forth by either of us why my statements would violate what is set forth in them. :BangHead:

You mean other then the 1000s times I have said it before?

Just curious though James, would you sign off on this statement:

For the sake of argument, it seems likely that you would have considered the statement, but (presumably) since you knew it was a non-Cal writting it you needed clarification and asked 'But why'?

You are saying this is a non-Calvinist statement. I say it is a Calvinist statement. It is clear it is not the same as your statement. Notice it is based on GOD, not what man does. Election is not based on who believes...this statement clearly says this.

Election is the fact of God chosing/electing to Himself a people whereby we as a people had no say in the matter as to the method (faith) and the means (gospel) of salvation. Therefore man contributed nothing to his election nor did God seek mans input. He determined salvation was to be through faith that it might be by grace and all those of faith (future) were known to Him (at that time). And that it was done from the foundation of the world for His own purpose, plan, and good pleasure.

SO..I could agree with this statement. It is not worded the way I would word it. But it says nothing wrong. I would say it in a stronger way. But it says nothing about foreknowing is the base of election...which is what parts the two sides

Incorrect. You and Rippon are NOT saying the same thing. He stated:

Again , election is and has been taught very differently among the two quite divergent camps

Hello Allan,

Wake up man. Look...call it non-Calvinist if you want. In the end, it is a Calvinist statement. For countless times over....all Baptist creeds before 1890, no matter who wrote them, shared a Calvinist view on election. Your statement does not cut it and is not Calvinist. You feel General Baptists is non-Calvinist. They were non-calvinist on the atonement, that is clear to see from their creeds. However....now get this....please write it don't....this is key......ALLAN>>>please look at this>>>>>> On election the General Baptists were Calvinist!!!!<<<<<<<please look at this.

Non-calvinist and Calvinist do not agree on election. never have...never will.

General Baptists do.....for they WERE Calvinist before 1890, other then the atonement. Get it?

Things changed. Got it?

Your statement on election would not fly back then.....by General Baptists or Particular Baptist. Particular stood for Particular Atonement. General stood for General Atonement. ELECTION WAS THE SAME WITHIN BAPTIST!!!!!!!!!

This made them 4 point Calvinist!!!! Get it?

So...why did Rippon say both sides never agreed? Why do I agree with him?

Because non-calvinist never agreed on election. But the other side was outside of Baptist. Wesley was NOT BAPTIST. You wrote a Wesley type of statement on election.

Nowadays....many baptist DO AGREE with your statement now. But this was not the case before 1890. Get it?

I don't know how else to say it Allan.

 

[Allan]

You statement is based on "they that believe" and what He "knew they will do".
My statement is based in Gods choice alone. He know for He caused it. Get it?

:BangHead: Again, Agian, and Again, you NOT listening your just regurgitating!!

My statement NOT ONCE said God chose them BECAUSE they would beleive, but that God chose salvation to be THROUGH FAITH and knew all those of faith.

Election is not based on mans choice to have faith and that is why God chose them. Election is based solely on fact of God's choice that salvation woud be through faith, and at the same time knew all who would be. YOUR NOT GETTING IT. God didn't look down time to find out and then say 'that's a good idea'. God chose to save through faith, and knew all who would believe.

don't be silly. He know because he choose. You say He choose because of who believes. Get it?

WRONG! You not listening. He chose that salvation is to be through faith, and thereby (with regard to HIS choice) chose all them who would be of Faith. His choice is not because man will choose, but because He has chosen how and therefore whom He will save.

You are saying this is a non-Calvinist statement. I say it is a Calvinist statement.

So you would consider me a Calvinist and other non-Cals, calvinists?

It is clear it is not the same as your statement. Notice it is based on GOD, not what man does. Election is not based on who believes...this statement clearly says this.

No James, AGAIN your not listening to the multitude of posts I have set forth. THIS IS MY STATEMENT, and the same I have been taught by others of my theological beliefs.

SO..I could agree with this statement. It is not worded the way I would word it. But it says nothing wrong.

So you agree with MY STATEMENT

But it says nothing about foreknowing is the base of election...which is what parts the two sides

Again, your not listening. I don't know of anyone who states the BASIS of election is that God knew who would believe. What God decreed was in conjunction with His knowledge. It was God soveriegn right to choose that salvation was to be through faith while simultaniously knowing all those of faith.

Hello Allan,

Wake up man. Look...call it non-Calvinist if you want. In the end, it is a Calvinist statement. For countless times over....all Baptist creeds before 1890, no matter who wrote them, shared a Calvinist view on election.

LOL, as I have stated and shown, we share an almost identical and biblical view of election but the not the EXACT SAME view of election. Were we disagree, is not something scripture outright declares.

Your statement does not cut it and is not Calvinist.

Huh??? You JUST stated IT DID CUT IT earlier by stating :

SO..I could agree with this statement.

You feel General Baptists is non-Calvinist. They were non-calvinist on the atonement, that is clear to see from their creeds. However....now get this....please write it don't....this is key......ALLAN>>>please look at this>>>>>> On election the General Baptists were Calvinist!!!!<<<<<<<please look at this.

They were Non-Cal (in the larger sense) and more specifically Arminian, most even denied the Perseverance of the Saints. But ours and their views of election have not changed. You just don't agree that God's knowledge and decree were simultanious. God chose it to be of faith, not because he knew what man would believe but that it was His choice in how to bring forth salvation and knew at the same time all who would believe.

Non-calvinist and Calvinist do not agree on election. never have...never will.

You appear to agree with my statement. Maybe we're the exception to the rule

General Baptists do.....for they WERE Calvinist before 1890, other then the atonement. Get it?

WRONG. General Baptist were for the majority - ARMINIAN!
They were more like 2 or maybe 3 point Calvinistic at best.
I can not find ONE sourse that states the General Baptists were Calvinists or 4 point Calvinists - other than from you.
Wiki- states:

Baptists were first identified by the name General Baptists in 17th century England. They were called General Baptists because they believed in a general atonement — holding that the death of Christ made salvation possible for any persons who voluntarily exercise faith in Christ. These churches were Arminian in tendency and held the possibility of falling from grace.
...
"Many of the Particular Baptists also effectively sat out of the revival, being especially sceptical of Wesley due to his Arminianism" [1]. Wesley's Arminianism posed no problems for General Baptists.

From Spurgeon.com under the 'Hall of Church History, The Baptist'.
Here : http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/baptist.htm

Baptists in the twentieth century have predominantly leaned toward the more Arminian theology of the General Baptists,

Or here, "A Primer on Baptist History"
The True Baptist Trail
by Chris Traffanstedt

Early Baptists
General Baptists

This group came to be known as General Baptists because they believed in a “general” atonement.4 The General Baptists also had a distinct belief that Christians could face the possibility of “falling from grace”. The two primary founders of the General Baptist movement were John Smyth and Thomas Helwys. ...
Now we turn our attention to Thomas Helwys. He had a somewhat rocky relationship with Smyth, but after Smyth began moving away from the General Baptist belief, Helwys carried on the Baptist beginnings. Helwys led his small group to England in 1611 and this was considered to be the first Baptist Church on English soil. This group held to believer’s baptism, they rejected Calvinism for a free will position (which included falling from grace), and they allowed each church to elect its officers, both elders and deacons.6 By 1624, there were five known General Baptist churches and by 1650 they numbered at least 47.7 Even though some might see the modern-day Baptist movement in this group, we must understand that the beliefs of this group are far from the reformed heritage that shaped modern-day Baptist belief.

In all quotes above - emphasis mine

So the General Baptists are not considered part of the Reformed heritage, at least according to one partially reliable (wiki) and two Reformed sourses.
General Baptists DID NOT only have a problem with the Reformed position of Atonement but did in fact tend toward many Arminian views. But since they were not specifically Arminian, that would bring them into a very real Non-Cal position (depending on the specific beliefs of the churches).

This made them 4 point Calvinist!!!! Get it?

You need to recheck your history, seriously.

So...why did Rippon say both sides never agreed? Why do I agree with him?

Because non-calvinist never agreed on election. But the other side was outside of Baptist. Wesley was NOT BAPTIST. You wrote a Wesley type of statement on election.

Uh, the FACT is, the General Baptist ACCEPTED Wesley and his teaching very readily when the Particulars did not. Why? Because his views were similar and very much the same as their own!

 

[Allan]

James,

To continue this is really pointless right now since we are going round robin and it has taken the thread WAY OFF COURSE

I applogize Martin and to others for that.

It has been good and fun while frustrating to me. But I expect that somewhat from our debates. Have good evening James. May our Lord continue to richly bless you according to His purpose and Love.