okay, I just thought he knew what he did, he had compassion, his suffering was a decision of his own.
(maybe I misunderstand, my apologies)
Interesting point, Bolshevik. Certainly, he knew what he did, he had compassion. It seems to me that accepting his suffering was a decision of his own in that he himself said that he laid down his life and no man took it from him, and also that he had at his call legions of angels that he chose not to call on. I'm not sure that relieves the people who inflicted the wounds on him of their responsibility.
Sorry, but being "born again" and brothers joint heirs with Jesus Christ requires belief in Roman 10:9-10. We are all God's children created by Him in His image. THose that would deny this do so, IMO, to justify their behavior toward those they deem as inferior or other wise unfit.
I don't think I meant to imply that is up to me to decide that anyone is inferior or otherwise unfit. I think it is impossible to tell from the outside of a person whether they are born-again or not. It is possible for God to tell me and also it's possible for God to tell me if a person will or won't become born again at some point in the future, but I think there would have to be a good reason for Him to tell me that and a good reason that I would need to know that; otherwise it seems to me that that information is really none of my business.
Hi everyone...I'm coming into this discussion a bit late and am finding it quite interesting.
Shifra welcome back to the Spot! This is quite the thread to open with.
My thoughts on this particular section of post is this...agape as you described it (quite aptly I might add) probably does not have boundries simply because it is of God. But as you also say people do need boundries. I think that Jesus gave those boundries to man when he said:
John 13:34, 35 NIV
34 A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.
Johniam- thanks for reminding me of that verse. Way to bring me back around. But here is a "amok" type of question, Is this a revision of the "Love your neighbor as yourself" or is it a different commandment? It does seem to be isolating "disciples" from the rest of humanity. Any thoughts? Anyone?
I'm not sure about the revision or different question. John may have some definitive thoughts on that. It seems to me that he taught his disciples how to love both by instruction and example, and then appointed them to be his 'deputies' so to speak and teach the rest of humanity how to love by instruction and example. It wasn't available for even Jesus Christ to be in more than one place at one time, but if he taught twelve men and then those twelve men taught twelve more etc. etc., then you have what we see in the book of Acts. Sorry about the triple post, I'm still learning how to do some things.
I guess twelve is a bite-size group of people to teach and impart one's heart to. I once heard someone say that VPW regretted the days of small Way Corps because as he put it 'in the smaller Way Corps, he (VPW) knew when everybody went to the bathroom, but as the size increased it was impossible for him to be as personally involved as he wanted to be'. This is not necessarily meant to be an endorsement of VPW, but in this instance what he said makes good sense.
If Agape means that I have to love the way Jesus did, then count me out. It's those nails being pounded into my hands ... too extreme for this girl.
I think the point is that Jesus Christ went through that so you don't have to. But I know what you mean; I couldn't even stand to watch that part in "The Passion of the Christ".
That's not really what caribousam said. I think that the point cs was trying to make is that you can't really love with agape without having been born again, and having received holy spirit. Agape seems to go beyond loving your neighbor as you would wish yourself to be loved into loving someone when there is absolutely nothing in it for yourself.
Hi Jeaniam,
Yes, you kind of capture what I was trying to say. The main point being - without holy spirit, there is
truly a missing piece, and wholeness of thought, being, action, and motives is not possible without
that missing piece. And "full" agape love is not possible without the h.s.
Non Christians do good things, sometimes really good things, but in a way all is for naught
without the holy spirit within. Sounds harsh, but I think it's biblical. Part of me would like to
say that this isn't so, but the scriptures seem to say that this is the way things are.
Yes, you kind of capture what I was trying to say. The main point being - without holy spirit, there is
truly a missing piece, and wholeness of thought, being, action, and motives is not possible without
that missing piece. And "full" agape love is not possible without the h.s.
Non Christians do good things, sometimes really good things, but in a way all is for naught
without the holy spirit within. Sounds harsh, but I think it's biblical. Part of me would like to
say that this isn't so, but the scriptures seem to say that this is the way things are.
-CS
Hi, Caribou,
Nice to meet you. I agree with the point you were making. Well this has been fun, as well as instructive. Does anyone have any ideas for another thread we could converse about, if we've exhausted this one?
Jeaniam
Oops, I forgot to switch AGAIN. There's never a phone booth around when you need one. Sorry, folks, it's me, not John.
I think, and remember I'm not a theological member of the intelligentsia, that a lot of the controversy and concern arises from TWI doctrine that Jesus Christ is not God, but a totally, absolutely, completely, totally human man. If Jesus Christ is a mere human being, albeiet with "perfect blood" according to TWI doctrine, then obviously I can do every thing any other human being can do, including Him.
Now before you intelligentsia jump all over me with that verse about "and greater than these things shall ye do also," let me say right now that I'm not sure any more what that means, but I will figure it out for myself, thanks anyway.
Now if you believe that Jesus was a man, a man with perfect blood, but just a man, then when you look at His life, you have to realize how far below par we live. We get sicknesses and diseases, which the MOGFODAT clearly stated are a result of sin in our lives. But...Jesus lived a perfect life, totally without sin, so we can too, right? So why don't we? If Jesus performed miracles like feeding the 5000, raising the dead, walking on water, why aren't we?
If Jesus loved perfectly in all ways, and always, then we can too because He is just a man and we are man/woman also. Or can we?
Now in my opinion this is false logic which slapped more hapless twigbots into condemnation than you can imagine.
But then I don't believe that Jesus is just a man any more, either. So I'm free to be saved by His mercy and grace. I'm free to realize I'm not perfect, and will only be perfect when I get to heaven.
Romans 10:9-10 does not address salvation by grace; that's covered elsewhere. And I suspect a lot of people associated with TWI jabbered off the "confess" stuff without acknowledging before God they were sinners, helpless against the wiles of the devil, and NEEDED Jesus Christ to save them. It sure seemed to me that TWI made salvation using only Romans 10:9-10 about as serious as ordering your Big Mac with or without cheese.
I know I am throwing this totally off topic....very sorry.
I still don't accept the trinity. However, there is the verse refering to the child Mary was carrying as a "holy thing." I thought of it today. I also thought, I don't see how Jesus could have had any of Mary's heredity and still be holy, so I have a little trouble with twi version of events also. An enigma.
I think there's only one way we can truly love with agape. Romans 5:5 comes to mind: God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit whom he has given us. Or, as other versions translate it: The love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom we have received.
Renewed mind can't do it. We are human, we are not yet the new creation - we know not yet what we shall be.
I like that phrase, the Love of God has been poured out in our hearts...
Do we believe it?
I think it has to be simple. How can I love those with whom I come in contact in my daily life? I look to do "random acts of kindness" when the opportunity presents itself.
I think, instead of trying to do it ourselves, maybe we need to ask God to open the doors and show us how to do this. I think we may be surprised at what he shows us.
I think, instead of trying to do it ourselves, maybe we need to ask God to open the doors and show us how to do this. I think we may be surprised at what he shows us.
I like that phrase too, 'the Love of God has been poured out in our hearts'. I recently heard a teaching wherein the teacher compared the abundance we receive from God to a flowing stream. Could it be that the Love of God also bears some resemblance to a stream flowing that we can dip into as the needs arise? Many very interesting posts recently; thanks very much for food for thought, W.G., and another spot.
And, Sunesis, apparently once again I underestimated you. Any chance we could start over. Hi, I'm jeaniam; very pleased to make your acquaintance.
TWI's assertion that those outside of the Household could not understand what agape means
And
the assertions here on this thread that if you are not a "born again" Christian you are incapable of exhibiting completely selfless love.
And my conclusion is that they are the same coinage just polished differently. One demands membership in the Household as defined by TWI.
One demands membership in a group called "born again" ( although I, or any one else, would be hard pressed to define just exactly who fits into this group since the standards for membership flutuate depending on which fundamentalist sect you listen too)
TWI maintains that Agape is possible only through "the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation" a sufficiently opaque statement that keeps the debate going about what precisely it means which means that until we understand what it means there is really no way to ascertain if it has happened.
While group two maintains agape is possible outside of the constraints of TWI but only in a group, the definition of which is dependent on which sect of fundamentalist Christianity one espouses, that is similarly narrowly defined.
Both TWI and the "born Again" faction have thus successfully taken the discussion away from how we can recognize agape love in action and thus encourage it to flourish and centered the discussion instead on who is "permitted" to practice same.
Both TWI and the "born Again" faction have thus successfully taken the discussion away from how we can recognize agape love in action and thus encourage it to flourish and centered the discussion instead on who is "permitted" to practice same.
It is not a question of who is 'permitted' to practice agape but rather a recognition of the fact that according to the Bible, anyone who is not born again and therefore does not have the gift of holy spirit doesn't have the ability to practice agape. It may be distasteful to me (as caribousam said) but it does seem to be clear in the Bible.
I also don't believe in the trinity but I am not sure I would describe Jesus as 'just' a man. He was the only begotten Son of God. I heard someone teach that fact conferred on him divinity but not deity. I am not sure we have the ability to live a perfect life just because Jesus was a man and did it nor do I think we have the need to do so because Jesus did it in our place and his perfection covers for our imperfections and he also paid for our healings. I have seen miracles and healings happen in my life; I have had the privilege of being on the giving and the receiving end of miracles and healings; not as often as I would like but enough that I believe they are still available. I don't really know why they are as rare as they seem to be.
Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.
Deut. 6:5: (NIV)
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.
Then of course in the gospels, Jesus repeated the above, well before Pentacost. Yet, we have Romans 5:5. This is an apparent contradiction unless you read precisely what is written in Romans 5:5.
And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
This isn’t talking about a spiritual ability to love. It is God’s love toward us. Compare to I John 3:1.
How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God….
Here’s a commentary from David Guzik.
“b. Every Christian should know what it is like to have the love of God . . . poured out in our hearts - to have a deep inner awareness of God’s love for us.
i. Paul’s logical arguments in Romans are devastating but the Book of Romans doesn’t lack emotion or passionate experiences with God. Paul wants us to think the right thoughts about God, but he also wants us to have the right experience with God - the love of God . . . poured out in our hearts.
ii. God’s love isn’t given to us in a trickle, it is poured out in our hearts. Some Christians live as if it was only a trickle but God wants us to know the outpouring of His love.”
Not to mention, vp liked to over spiritualize and over mystisize everything. And over complicate.
Can't prove it, but I pretty much think the whole agape thing as taught by twi had more to do with vp's skirt chasing than anything. It wasn't sex. It's agape....
The whole born again super special love doctrine--even though it can't be identified or defined or actually seen as so different from those unbelievers-- but they are just showing human love not super special love that we show. We just know it is true and therefore know it makes us better than other humans who aren't like us...
Why would people think that's arrogant? It is just the obvious truth.
The whole born again super special love doctrine--even though it can't be identified or defined or actually seen as so different from those unbelievers-- but they are just showing human love not super special love that we show. We just know it is true and therefore know it makes us better than other humans who aren't like us...
Why would people think that's arrogant? It is just the obvious truth.
Hmmm.
No, it doesn't make one person better than another, and I'm not sure that I know how to put the difference into words. I saw a TV show last night about a man who jumped onto subway tracks to save a complete stranger's life at the risk of his own. Does that fall into the catagory of unselfish love? Certainly. Is that man a born-again Christian? Only God knows the answer to that question. So at what point does phileo rise to agape? In Hebrews 4:12- it says 'For the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.' So it may be that agape is a kind of love that allows us to keep loving when even the best of phileo gives up and can't go any farther. It seems reasonable to assume that to tap into that kind of love, a human being would need God's help. I don't think it's arrogant to believe that we are capable of doing what God says plainly that we can do. It is arrogant to think we do it perfectly without falling short, or think we can do it without God's help, or think that somehow it makes us better than anyone else. It seems to me that what is arrogant is to contradict God.
Thanks for your post (at 3:16) another spot, very clarifying. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the "holy thing" post in the light of Hebrews 2:14-' he also himself likewise took part of the same', which we were taught meant that Jesus took the flesh but not the blood. Hard to grasp.
If I were to add a note to 1 Cor. 13 it would be "Love is not selective". Meaning, it doesn't discriminate between the lover, lov-ee, and who gets the lov-in'. Everyone's up for God's love, the things He does. The rain falls on everyone, the sun shines on everyone. What any person does with it, in it, is theirs to do.
"Shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit given to us" - would be true, as a statement. By the H.S. given to us, God's love is shed abroad. And the forecast calls for rain, to paraphrase Robert Cray.
I still think it's most true to think of 'agape', love, as a way to describe our actions and thoughts, the things we do. The things God does.
Agape isn't so much a quantity of a thing, like a pound of agape, as I understand what the bible says about it. (special today - get some now!)
Agape describes a quality, a way of doing things or thinking. "God is love" is a way of describing how God's nature is overall.
If the question is - could a person use that line of thinking or doing things for wrong, or to abuse someone else?
I think the answer could be "yes", but it wouldn't be love. Ing. It wouldn't be agape-ish to do so.
For instance if I said "you shouldn't think about yourself first, you should think about others. Like me and what I want. Put that first, before what you want and that would be loving"...
That sounds like what Paul's saying, almost. But it isn't. Paul isn't invoking the Love Rule or something, to get what he wants. He's describing behavior that could be towards anyone or anything, at any time.
Love in and of itself doesn't create Patsies for God, or for someone else though. Acting as chapter 13 describes at any given point is in a context, a context of the rest of our lives. Like the "good Samaritan", who lost nothing by doing what he did. He gave and that was that. If the guy he helped came back and sued him later because he got sick at the place the Samaritan left him, would that negate the good the Samaritan did? Not in my mind, it would just mean the guy was an azshole. The moral of the parable wouldn't become "mind your own business", it would be "when you love, sometimes you'll end up helping azsholes".
I finally got curious enough about this subject to really study it. The first thing I found out is agape is used a lot in the Septuagint in the OT. The next thing I looked for is did it at all change at any point. The main thing that changed is Jesus stressed to love not only those who love you, but also those who don’t. That theme continues throughout the NT, both prior to Pentacost and after. I didn’t find a verse that indicated it was some kind of spiritual ability. The vast majority indicate it is a choice and God requests we obey and mature in it.
God is love. Being born again means we are sons of God. God so loved He gave His son to everyone whether they loved Him or not. Likewise Jesus gave his life to all. As God’s sons, God requests we love all also, so that our actions and attitudes are reflective of who we are and who God is. That is the major subject of I John.
Man has always had the emotion of love. God asks for the obedience of unselfishness. To get to the place it’s not important how others treat you, but to make your actions and attitudes proper regardless. It’s along the lines of 2 wrongs don’t make a right. When our behavior is not loving, it is sin. That by itself defines love as an obedience issue rather than a spiritual ability.
The essential difference between some one not born again and some who are, is people who don’t care about God generally don’t care about being obedient. That is of course a generalization, but that is what I John is talking about.
God didn’t send His son only for those who love Him or would believe. Jesus didn’t live his life or die only for those who loved or would love him. In that sense of loving, there is no distinction to love only those who are born again or to decide that if you’re born again you are better than any one else. The Bible only says to be especially good to the household. I believe loving as God loves refers to His example.
The arrogance of twi was we were better, more worthwhile than anyone not in twi. That is the precise opposite of agape. Love doesn’t vaunt itself.
I suppose while I’m at it, I Cor. 13 is easier to understand this way: it isn’t loving to brag, it isn’t loving to be quick tempered, it isn’t loving to promote your self above others, etc.
Well that’s my take on it. For the time being.
Jean, I'm going to start a thread on holy thing in the doctrinal section. I'd be glad to study that with you and anyone else who is interested.
I received a couple of cool e-mails on this subject that I could post if I could figure out how to transfer them from my inbox to this thread. Does anyone out there have any suggestions? I'm pretty computer illiterate. Thanks.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
19
23
28
37
Popular Days
May 31
33
May 30
27
Jun 1
16
May 18
16
Top Posters In This Topic
johniam 19 posts
Bramble 23 posts
pond 28 posts
Jeaniam 37 posts
Popular Days
May 31 2007
33 posts
May 30 2007
27 posts
Jun 1 2007
16 posts
May 18 2007
16 posts
Jeaniam
Interesting point, Bolshevik. Certainly, he knew what he did, he had compassion. It seems to me that accepting his suffering was a decision of his own in that he himself said that he laid down his life and no man took it from him, and also that he had at his call legions of angels that he chose not to call on. I'm not sure that relieves the people who inflicted the wounds on him of their responsibility.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
I don't think I meant to imply that is up to me to decide that anyone is inferior or otherwise unfit. I think it is impossible to tell from the outside of a person whether they are born-again or not. It is possible for God to tell me and also it's possible for God to tell me if a person will or won't become born again at some point in the future, but I think there would have to be a good reason for Him to tell me that and a good reason that I would need to know that; otherwise it seems to me that that information is really none of my business.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
I'm not sure about the revision or different question. John may have some definitive thoughts on that. It seems to me that he taught his disciples how to love both by instruction and example, and then appointed them to be his 'deputies' so to speak and teach the rest of humanity how to love by instruction and example. It wasn't available for even Jesus Christ to be in more than one place at one time, but if he taught twelve men and then those twelve men taught twelve more etc. etc., then you have what we see in the book of Acts. Sorry about the triple post, I'm still learning how to do some things.
I guess twelve is a bite-size group of people to teach and impart one's heart to. I once heard someone say that VPW regretted the days of small Way Corps because as he put it 'in the smaller Way Corps, he (VPW) knew when everybody went to the bathroom, but as the size increased it was impossible for him to be as personally involved as he wanted to be'. This is not necessarily meant to be an endorsement of VPW, but in this instance what he said makes good sense.
Edited by JeaniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Shifra
If Agape means that I have to love the way Jesus did, then count me out. It's those nails being pounded into my hands ... too extreme for this girl.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
I think the point is that Jesus Christ went through that so you don't have to. But I know what you mean; I couldn't even stand to watch that part in "The Passion of the Christ".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
caribousam
Hi Jeaniam,
Yes, you kind of capture what I was trying to say. The main point being - without holy spirit, there is
truly a missing piece, and wholeness of thought, being, action, and motives is not possible without
that missing piece. And "full" agape love is not possible without the h.s.
Non Christians do good things, sometimes really good things, but in a way all is for naught
without the holy spirit within. Sounds harsh, but I think it's biblical. Part of me would like to
say that this isn't so, but the scriptures seem to say that this is the way things are.
-CS
Edited by caribousamLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Hi, Caribou,
Nice to meet you. I agree with the point you were making. Well this has been fun, as well as instructive. Does anyone have any ideas for another thread we could converse about, if we've exhausted this one?
Jeaniam
Oops, I forgot to switch AGAIN. There's never a phone booth around when you need one. Sorry, folks, it's me, not John.
Edited by johniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
I think, and remember I'm not a theological member of the intelligentsia, that a lot of the controversy and concern arises from TWI doctrine that Jesus Christ is not God, but a totally, absolutely, completely, totally human man. If Jesus Christ is a mere human being, albeiet with "perfect blood" according to TWI doctrine, then obviously I can do every thing any other human being can do, including Him.
Now before you intelligentsia jump all over me with that verse about "and greater than these things shall ye do also," let me say right now that I'm not sure any more what that means, but I will figure it out for myself, thanks anyway.
Now if you believe that Jesus was a man, a man with perfect blood, but just a man, then when you look at His life, you have to realize how far below par we live. We get sicknesses and diseases, which the MOGFODAT clearly stated are a result of sin in our lives. But...Jesus lived a perfect life, totally without sin, so we can too, right? So why don't we? If Jesus performed miracles like feeding the 5000, raising the dead, walking on water, why aren't we?
If Jesus loved perfectly in all ways, and always, then we can too because He is just a man and we are man/woman also. Or can we?
Now in my opinion this is false logic which slapped more hapless twigbots into condemnation than you can imagine.
But then I don't believe that Jesus is just a man any more, either. So I'm free to be saved by His mercy and grace. I'm free to realize I'm not perfect, and will only be perfect when I get to heaven.
Romans 10:9-10 does not address salvation by grace; that's covered elsewhere. And I suspect a lot of people associated with TWI jabbered off the "confess" stuff without acknowledging before God they were sinners, helpless against the wiles of the devil, and NEEDED Jesus Christ to save them. It sure seemed to me that TWI made salvation using only Romans 10:9-10 about as serious as ordering your Big Mac with or without cheese.
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
I know I am throwing this totally off topic....very sorry.
I still don't accept the trinity. However, there is the verse refering to the child Mary was carrying as a "holy thing." I thought of it today. I also thought, I don't see how Jesus could have had any of Mary's heredity and still be holy, so I have a little trouble with twi version of events also. An enigma.
Ok. As I was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
I think there's only one way we can truly love with agape. Romans 5:5 comes to mind: God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit whom he has given us. Or, as other versions translate it: The love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom we have received.
Renewed mind can't do it. We are human, we are not yet the new creation - we know not yet what we shall be.
I like that phrase, the Love of God has been poured out in our hearts...
Do we believe it?
I think it has to be simple. How can I love those with whom I come in contact in my daily life? I look to do "random acts of kindness" when the opportunity presents itself.
I think, instead of trying to do it ourselves, maybe we need to ask God to open the doors and show us how to do this. I think we may be surprised at what he shows us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
I like that phrase too, 'the Love of God has been poured out in our hearts'. I recently heard a teaching wherein the teacher compared the abundance we receive from God to a flowing stream. Could it be that the Love of God also bears some resemblance to a stream flowing that we can dip into as the needs arise? Many very interesting posts recently; thanks very much for food for thought, W.G., and another spot.
And, Sunesis, apparently once again I underestimated you. Any chance we could start over. Hi, I'm jeaniam; very pleased to make your acquaintance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Sounds good Jeaniam. Pleased to meet you :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
So now I am trying to see the difference between
TWI's assertion that those outside of the Household could not understand what agape means
And
the assertions here on this thread that if you are not a "born again" Christian you are incapable of exhibiting completely selfless love.
And my conclusion is that they are the same coinage just polished differently. One demands membership in the Household as defined by TWI.
One demands membership in a group called "born again" ( although I, or any one else, would be hard pressed to define just exactly who fits into this group since the standards for membership flutuate depending on which fundamentalist sect you listen too)
TWI maintains that Agape is possible only through "the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation" a sufficiently opaque statement that keeps the debate going about what precisely it means which means that until we understand what it means there is really no way to ascertain if it has happened.
While group two maintains agape is possible outside of the constraints of TWI but only in a group, the definition of which is dependent on which sect of fundamentalist Christianity one espouses, that is similarly narrowly defined.
Both TWI and the "born Again" faction have thus successfully taken the discussion away from how we can recognize agape love in action and thus encourage it to flourish and centered the discussion instead on who is "permitted" to practice same.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
It is not a question of who is 'permitted' to practice agape but rather a recognition of the fact that according to the Bible, anyone who is not born again and therefore does not have the gift of holy spirit doesn't have the ability to practice agape. It may be distasteful to me (as caribousam said) but it does seem to be clear in the Bible.
I also don't believe in the trinity but I am not sure I would describe Jesus as 'just' a man. He was the only begotten Son of God. I heard someone teach that fact conferred on him divinity but not deity. I am not sure we have the ability to live a perfect life just because Jesus was a man and did it nor do I think we have the need to do so because Jesus did it in our place and his perfection covers for our imperfections and he also paid for our healings. I have seen miracles and healings happen in my life; I have had the privilege of being on the giving and the receiving end of miracles and healings; not as often as I would like but enough that I believe they are still available. I don't really know why they are as rare as they seem to be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Lev. 19:18: (NIV)
Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.
Deut. 6:5: (NIV)
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.
Then of course in the gospels, Jesus repeated the above, well before Pentacost. Yet, we have Romans 5:5. This is an apparent contradiction unless you read precisely what is written in Romans 5:5.
And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
This isn’t talking about a spiritual ability to love. It is God’s love toward us. Compare to I John 3:1.
How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God….
Here’s a commentary from David Guzik.
“b. Every Christian should know what it is like to have the love of God . . . poured out in our hearts - to have a deep inner awareness of God’s love for us.
i. Paul’s logical arguments in Romans are devastating but the Book of Romans doesn’t lack emotion or passionate experiences with God. Paul wants us to think the right thoughts about God, but he also wants us to have the right experience with God - the love of God . . . poured out in our hearts.
ii. God’s love isn’t given to us in a trickle, it is poured out in our hearts. Some Christians live as if it was only a trickle but God wants us to know the outpouring of His love.”
Now there’s no contradiction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I agree. Not that they COULD have practiced love, not unlike NORMAL (whatever that is) human beings.
"Religion" seems to bring out the worst in God's "elect". I vote arrogance.
I think we got a strange brew of christian mysticism, mixed with pavlovian abuse. i.e., "Christian" motivational techniques.
all "for your own good". I believe that is where arrogance lifted it's ugly head.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
I agree absolutely.
Not to mention, vp liked to over spiritualize and over mystisize everything. And over complicate.
Can't prove it, but I pretty much think the whole agape thing as taught by twi had more to do with vp's skirt chasing than anything. It wasn't sex. It's agape....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
The whole born again super special love doctrine--even though it can't be identified or defined or actually seen as so different from those unbelievers-- but they are just showing human love not super special love that we show. We just know it is true and therefore know it makes us better than other humans who aren't like us...
Why would people think that's arrogant? It is just the obvious truth.
Hmmm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
No, it doesn't make one person better than another, and I'm not sure that I know how to put the difference into words. I saw a TV show last night about a man who jumped onto subway tracks to save a complete stranger's life at the risk of his own. Does that fall into the catagory of unselfish love? Certainly. Is that man a born-again Christian? Only God knows the answer to that question. So at what point does phileo rise to agape? In Hebrews 4:12- it says 'For the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.' So it may be that agape is a kind of love that allows us to keep loving when even the best of phileo gives up and can't go any farther. It seems reasonable to assume that to tap into that kind of love, a human being would need God's help. I don't think it's arrogant to believe that we are capable of doing what God says plainly that we can do. It is arrogant to think we do it perfectly without falling short, or think we can do it without God's help, or think that somehow it makes us better than anyone else. It seems to me that what is arrogant is to contradict God.
Thanks for your post (at 3:16) another spot, very clarifying. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the "holy thing" post in the light of Hebrews 2:14-' he also himself likewise took part of the same', which we were taught meant that Jesus took the flesh but not the blood. Hard to grasp.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
If I were to add a note to 1 Cor. 13 it would be "Love is not selective". Meaning, it doesn't discriminate between the lover, lov-ee, and who gets the lov-in'. Everyone's up for God's love, the things He does. The rain falls on everyone, the sun shines on everyone. What any person does with it, in it, is theirs to do.
"Shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit given to us" - would be true, as a statement. By the H.S. given to us, God's love is shed abroad. And the forecast calls for rain, to paraphrase Robert Cray.
I still think it's most true to think of 'agape', love, as a way to describe our actions and thoughts, the things we do. The things God does.
Agape isn't so much a quantity of a thing, like a pound of agape, as I understand what the bible says about it. (special today - get some now!)
Agape describes a quality, a way of doing things or thinking. "God is love" is a way of describing how God's nature is overall.
If the question is - could a person use that line of thinking or doing things for wrong, or to abuse someone else?
I think the answer could be "yes", but it wouldn't be love. Ing. It wouldn't be agape-ish to do so.
For instance if I said "you shouldn't think about yourself first, you should think about others. Like me and what I want. Put that first, before what you want and that would be loving"...
That sounds like what Paul's saying, almost. But it isn't. Paul isn't invoking the Love Rule or something, to get what he wants. He's describing behavior that could be towards anyone or anything, at any time.
Love in and of itself doesn't create Patsies for God, or for someone else though. Acting as chapter 13 describes at any given point is in a context, a context of the rest of our lives. Like the "good Samaritan", who lost nothing by doing what he did. He gave and that was that. If the guy he helped came back and sued him later because he got sick at the place the Samaritan left him, would that negate the good the Samaritan did? Not in my mind, it would just mean the guy was an azshole. The moral of the parable wouldn't become "mind your own business", it would be "when you love, sometimes you'll end up helping azsholes".
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
I finally got curious enough about this subject to really study it. The first thing I found out is agape is used a lot in the Septuagint in the OT. The next thing I looked for is did it at all change at any point. The main thing that changed is Jesus stressed to love not only those who love you, but also those who don’t. That theme continues throughout the NT, both prior to Pentacost and after. I didn’t find a verse that indicated it was some kind of spiritual ability. The vast majority indicate it is a choice and God requests we obey and mature in it.
God is love. Being born again means we are sons of God. God so loved He gave His son to everyone whether they loved Him or not. Likewise Jesus gave his life to all. As God’s sons, God requests we love all also, so that our actions and attitudes are reflective of who we are and who God is. That is the major subject of I John.
Man has always had the emotion of love. God asks for the obedience of unselfishness. To get to the place it’s not important how others treat you, but to make your actions and attitudes proper regardless. It’s along the lines of 2 wrongs don’t make a right. When our behavior is not loving, it is sin. That by itself defines love as an obedience issue rather than a spiritual ability.
The essential difference between some one not born again and some who are, is people who don’t care about God generally don’t care about being obedient. That is of course a generalization, but that is what I John is talking about.
God didn’t send His son only for those who love Him or would believe. Jesus didn’t live his life or die only for those who loved or would love him. In that sense of loving, there is no distinction to love only those who are born again or to decide that if you’re born again you are better than any one else. The Bible only says to be especially good to the household. I believe loving as God loves refers to His example.
The arrogance of twi was we were better, more worthwhile than anyone not in twi. That is the precise opposite of agape. Love doesn’t vaunt itself.
I suppose while I’m at it, I Cor. 13 is easier to understand this way: it isn’t loving to brag, it isn’t loving to be quick tempered, it isn’t loving to promote your self above others, etc.
Well that’s my take on it. For the time being.
Jean, I'm going to start a thread on holy thing in the doctrinal section. I'd be glad to study that with you and anyone else who is interested.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
The only thing I could add is if it is REALLY love, the response makes no difference, whether they are grateful or not, if they reciprocate or not.
Or even if they are trying to scam you, and you see it coming a mile away.
Or even if they believe differently.
I kinda feel like the love thing- you're on a mission..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
I received a couple of cool e-mails on this subject that I could post if I could figure out how to transfer them from my inbox to this thread. Does anyone out there have any suggestions? I'm pretty computer illiterate. Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.