The Good News/The Bad News

[JLB]

JLB,

I'm asking you to do some exegesis of the word that leads to the translation as "unloving". Which Greek word is used for "love" and what kind of love is it?

Oz

Im asking you a question.



without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
Romans 1:31


Are you attempting to convince me that the word “unloving“, in this verse, somehow means “loving” by some measure of “explanation“?



JLB

 

[OzSpen]

The context.

You still made contradictory statements.

 

[JLB]

What caused you to be blinded to the fact that the word, "unloving", includes the negative of "love". However, which word for "love" in "unloving" was used?

Im not blinded.

Please don’t curse me.



JLB

 

[JLB]

They are still contradictory statements.

What’s a contradictory statement?


Unloving is associated with these other words:


unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;



I think we can all find common ground in reading the context and associating the word “unloving” with these other words, and come away with the conclusion that unloving is not something God wants us to be, and would be the opposite of loving.


This way we are not saying to each other, you are wrong, you are blind, you are making contradictory statements, because you are not studying the commentaries that I am.


By agreeing on the simplicity of God’s word we can find unity and strength.





JLB

 

[OzSpen]

Im asking you a question.

without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
Romans 1:31

Are you attempting to convince me that the word “unloving” somehow means loving by some measure of “explanation“?

JLB

JLB,

I'm asking you to learn how to do exegesis of the word "unloving" in Rom 1:31. Some other translations use the words, heartless, show no kindness, no love, etc.

How do we discern the meaning of this word that is based on one of the NT Greek words for love?

Yes, JLB, "love" as "unloving" is in Rom 1:31 and your two statements were contradictory.

Oz

 

[JLB]

JLB,

I'm asking you to learn how to do exegesis of the word "unloving" in Rom 1:31. Some other translations use the words, heartless, show no kindness, no love, etc.

How do we discern the meaning of this word that is based on one of the NT Greek words for love?

Yes, JLB, "love" as "unloving" is in Rom 1:31 and your two statements were contradictory.

Oz

So we agree that unloving is the opposite of loving?

 

[stovebolts]

Man was definitely responsible for Christ's murder (the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another).
That being said, Christ let them do it. John 10:18, Acts 5:30
Maybe semantics

Or perspective. Was Jesus murdered, or did he lay his own life down.

 

[stovebolts]

Of course I never said we are to raise the English language above the original language.

What I am saying is, when the bible defines for us what a word means, then to refer to comnentaries to validate a different definition is a recipe for division.

Believe and faith are two different words and should not be used interchanably.


JLB

Correct. But showing how the two words are related in the Greek is not redefining the word. It’s expanding ones understanding of the word and at the same time it allows us to better hear the original intent.

 

[OzSpen]

So we agree that unloving is the opposite of loving?

What kind of loving? There are 4 main Greek words used for loving. Which one is used here?

 

[JLB]

Correct. But showing how the two words are related in the Greek is not redefining the word. It’s expanding ones understanding of the word and at the same time it allows us to better hear the original intent.

Ok.


However, if a persons understanding is expanded to
come to the conclusion that faith and believe are used interchangeably then, that can be a problem.

Here is the post, #206, from the discussion I was having with FF, that began the dialog of the definition of the the words faith and believe.

Agreed. But this does not address the crux of the discussion. WHY DOES ONE BELIEVE?

Postulate: God is the cause of your faith

1. If one believes there is a gift inside [because God caused him to believe] but doesn’t put forth the effort to open it, will one be saved? This never happens per John 6:39
2. If one believes there is a gift inside [because God caused him to believe] but does put forth the effort to open it, will one be saved? Always, per John 6:39. The cause is God and the effect (result) is your believing and things associated with believing.

Postulate: The individual is the cause of his faith

1. If one does not believe there is a gift inside [because that person did not believe] will one be saved? This is the default/starting position (unless you believe in Double Predestination) called the depravity of man. He will not be saved. NO ONE SEEKS GOD
2. If one does believe there is a gift inside [because that person believes he is the cause of his belief] will one be saved? Maybe. There is a problem with this statement as it relies upon a false premise: that the cause of faith is the individual. Evidence of this was given in previous posts above that clearly defines WORK and that if Man is the cause of his faith then it is a WORK. Since salvation by works contradicts Scripture, one can conclude the premise is false. Also, NO ONE SEEKS GOD, John 1:12-13, yahda, yahda, yahda .... But it is still possible for a person to believe (I would say incorrectly believe) that he believes he is the cause of his faith ... in that case the person may and may no be correct. If he is saved it is because God caused him to believe and he just has his theology wrong (IMO). If he is not saved then God did not cause him to believe, so his belief is not salvific.

The book of James is another can of worms (topic).
Even Luther didn't care for the book of James.
Anyways....
James is about works that will justify believers before man, not God. (this is not exegesis 101 ...)

So, if you mean:

1. Was Abraham justified to men because of his works, the answer is YES or
2. Was Abraham justified to God because of his works, the answer is NO.

Here FF makes the statement ....

WHY DOES ONE BELIEVE?

Postulate: God is the cause of your faith

1. If one believes there is a gift inside [because God caused him to believe]

Faith comes to us when God speaks to us.


Believing is our part, what we must do or not do, in response to God speaking to us. Thus believe (obey) is the action we must take or not take, that will result in being saved or not being saved.


Faith is not God causing us to believe, (obey).


By lumping these two words together into one meaning, we obscure what the process of salvation is.


In this way, we are unclear about James and Paul, thinking they contradict each other.




JLB

 

[PeterJens]

What kind of loving? There are 4 main Greek words used for loving. Which one is used here?

I hope you do not mind me making a point here.
Words describe something else, a kind of objectivity on the subject in question.
Words come with context and implied meaning to the speaker which may be different from the listener.
The object being described is always being described in part, as words are particular and not all encompassing.

In the religious biblical context, unloving is meant as the antithesis of who God is.
So you could say something as the opposite of love, like hate of another, or as a passive stepping back and doing nothing while another suffers. That is unloving, as in not responding to an obvious need, as if it does not exist.
So the priests and teachers of the law passed by on the other side of the road to the man wounded and bleeding in the road in need of help. A lack of love, is also something that can be understood by people who actually feel love and see real need, which creates a loving response.

In my discussions with others I have been struck by how many are totally shut down to love in their hearts.
Jesus's focus is very simple. God is love, open, clear, giving without restraint. To meet Him is to be confronted with something as sinners we have shut out. On that final day, either ones heart is open in praise and worship or one is lost.

Our words are in the end just reflections of this reality or its absence.
This is hard for sinful man to face, everything springs from our hearts and whether we have met the Lord and been cleansed or not.

God bless you

 

[stovebolts]

Ok.


However, if a persons understanding is expanded to
come to the conclusion that faith and believe are used interchangeably then, that can be a problem.

Here is the post, #206, from the discussion I was having with FF, that began the dialog of the definition of the the words faith and believe.





Here FF makes the statement ....

WHY DOES ONE BELIEVE?

Postulate: God is the cause of your faith

1. If one believes there is a gift inside [because God caused him to believe]

Faith comes to us when God speaks to us.


Believing is our part, what we must do or not do, in response to God speaking to us. Thus believe (obey) is the action we must take or not take, that will result in being saved or not being saved.


Faith is not God causing us to believe, (obey).


By lumping these two words together into one meaning, we obscure what the process of salvation is.


In this way, we are unclear about James and Paul, thinking they contradict each other.




JLB

The conversation between you and FF is not the same conversation between you and OzSpen .

I believe this all started with pst 280 here.

The Good News/The Bad News

I feel that the whole "pride" issue is a strawman argument. It is a distraction from the simpler issue of whether or not someone has taken the information at hand and reacted with love or with hate. If that choice is not our own, then neither is the choice to reject it. God doesn't force us to...

christianforums.net

What Spencer has shown in that post is irrefutable. The fact that faith and belief are related in the Greek cannot be denied. Furthermore, just like faith and belief are different words in English, Spencer has shown their Greek equivalences. In short, even the Greek separates the two. In summary, Spencer is not, nor has he claimEd the two words carry the exact same meaning and are interchangeable. This is not to say that the two words are not related or hold a common understanding.

understand?

 

[JLB]

In short, even the Greek separates the two.

Yes.


They are different words.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

What kind of loving? There are 4 main Greek words used for loving. Which one is used here?

The verse could read "no love".
So it doesn't matter which love is spoken of because no love is in these people.

 

[JLB]

This is not to say that the two words are not related or hold a common understanding.

I agree. They are related.


Its takes believing to activate faith: faith finds its full expression through believing.


They are related as a man and woman are both human but different. Together they are fruitful. Together they can reproduce.

They are indeed related, yet they are different.


Both are involved in bringing forth new life, both have their role, both are needed, yet their functions are different.



JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

Ah, that's interesting. Muslims by definition don't believe Jesus is God. The term shirk in Islam is used to refer to idolatry or polytheism, which means deification, or worship of deity, gods, or anything other than Allāh. As opposed to polytheism, Islam preaches strict monotheism embedded in tawḥīd (oneness of God). https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+muslim+shirk ... Its not possible for a muslim to commit shirk.
Thus, if you contend that "Some Muslims are Saved" the following must be true:
1) You don't have to believe Jesus is God to be saved
2) You don't have to worship Christ to be saved
3) You believe Allah and the Christian God are one and the same (or it is possible to worship another God and be saved.

Do you still contend that a muslim can be saved?
Which combination of (1), (2) or (3) is true?

If you don't answer, I will understand.

Why not answer?
What's to understand?

Muslims, by definition, do not believe that Jesus is God.
Correct.

Some Muslims DO, but are afraid to say so because they will be disowned by their family
or
killed.

It's not up to you or me to know who is saved and who is not.

One who has not heard of God cannot choose to serve what he does not know. Example: I cannot send greetings or serve the Emperor of the planet Krypton if I don't know him or what he wants. To think I can is irrational.

I find Calvinism to be irrational.
I wish you could view it from the outside in.

It seems from your statement that you know about Krypton
and you know it has an Emporer.
Do you like that emporer?

Men know there is a God. Paul says this in both Romans 1 and 2. I think you don't like those verses.
They may be theists, or deists, or atheists...but they know.
It's up to them to decide if they care to worship God or not.

Romans 1:19-20
19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

The above clearly states that man is without excuse because God has made Himself be known to him.



Romans 2:13-16
13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.


Not everyone knows the law,,,,but it can still be written on their hearts.
Their conscience bearing witness, and accusing or defending them on the day of judgemen THROUGH JESUS CHRIST.

I believe you just don't care for those two passages....
Remember, there is no conflict in the bible.
If we find conflict,,,it is WE that do not understand.

 

[GodsGrace]

THIS ALL DEPENDS ON HOW WE LOOK AT IT. like you i dont agree with calvinism. then again i dont agree with the doctrine of the apostolic pentecostal aka oneness doctrine/ i dont agree with the catholic doctrine salvation through water baptism or going before man with confusion. what we are dealing with is interpretation .just like the age old debate eternal security vs no eternal security . i have studied this for years both side have valid points.. i cant answer your question. we disagree with it stand by what we know

Stand by what we know.
I agree to that.

I do want to say that Catholics believe a person also has to believe in Jesus to be saved....
they are not automatically saved because they are baptized.
Along with belief, they do state that baptism is necessary.
(I don't agree with a lot of Catholic doctrine either).

 

[GodsGrace]

These two statements of yours are contradictory. Which is it, or neither?

Both my statements are correct.

1. Some Muslims are saved, or can be Christian. (I explained in my previous post to you).
2. If one does not believe the Trinity, he most probably is not Christian.
If a person does not believe the Trinity, he cannot believe Jesus is God.

 

[GodsGrace]

You misread my post. I did not comment one way or another as to whether Christ's death of planned.

Everything that occurs down to the electrons circling an atom was ordained (planned/predestined) by God in eternity.
Therefore, God planned for Judas to betray Christ, planned for Herod, planned for Pilot, yahda, yahda, yahda
Acts 2:23, Acts 4:27-28, Eph. 1:11 ...

I didn't misread your post.
I stated exactly what you're stating above.

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

Where in the biblical text is the nature of grace defined?

Dr Google helped me locate the following:

​

Early Church Fathers (ECF) on eternal security:

• What Early Church Fathers Said about Eternal Security - Todd ...​

• What did the early church fathers have to say about “eternal security” or “assurance of salvation”

​

ECF on predestination:

• There is a very interesting article by Jacques More titled, "The Early Church Fathers and Predestination." Its first paragraph stated:

• This article has a comprehensive list of the early church fathers and direct quotes from their writings regarding predestination: "Did the Early Church Fathers Teach Calvinistic Doctrines?"

​

ECF on doing good works:

• 
  Salvation from the Perspective of the Early Church Fathers ..​

• Early Church Fathers on Faith and Works - Practical Apologetics​

That should get you and other posters thinking.

Uh oh. There's a problem. They were early Bible teachers. Get it? Bible teachers.


Oz

Why you hittin' yer head?
Teachers are good.

There's a 10 book collection of the writings of the ECFs.
Besides being just too much to read...it's also very costly.
I use the net for this.....
I'm very interested in what THEY believed.
So far, I haven't found anything to disagree with, but I haven't
read everything they wrote either.

David Bercot (bersew) did study them in full and has a great series
on YouTube. It's called WHAT THE EARLY CHRISTIAND BELIEVED ABOUT.......(fill in the blank).

Here is one on salvation: