Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Reverend?

Rate this topic


DaveW
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Even in first person, it is proper to say: "I loved Mary (or appropriate female name) so much that I married her." It does not imply that you no longer love her.

​Which relates to something that happened in the past.  The person saying that may have loved Mary when he married her, but you wouldn't know whether he loves her now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Rev Bob

Just because the Father "hath loved" Jesus, does that mean He no longer does?

​By itself, it says nothing about what's going on now--it only tells us of something that happened in the past.  You're missing the point entirely.  The point was that John 3:16 does NOT say that Jesus loves satanists.  (And BTW, a satanist is defined as anyone who's not a true Christian.  Matthew 12:30)

Edited by RevBob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

God absolutely DID love the world at the time of Noah, and the flood was a result of that love. How so, you might ask? Because His love for the world saw the only was it could continue, due to the scale of wickedness therein, was to purge the wickedness and all it had effected, so it might continue on. The world had become so rotten, so infected with compromise, that only one person, Noah, found grace in God's eyes, only ONE man still followed Him. Whom He loves, He chasteneth. 

​So He killed all those satanists out of love?  Is it somewhere in the Christian Bible where God says that He loved all those satanists He killed in the flood?  I must've missed those verses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

​Again, I think you've completely missed the point. I'm trying to tell you that you're taking these passages out of context and are passing over the plain meaning in favor of your preconceived notions. If you were really taking the context to its fullest extent, you would see Jesus was talking directly to Nicodemus about what it means to be born-again and why it is necessary; not making a grand statement about the timeline of God's love. That one little phrase you're stuck on is a statement about Jesus coming to earth and taking on bodily form, which was an action that occurred in the past respective to when Jesus was speaking. That is why it's a past tense statement. In order to arrive at the conclusion that God had love for the world only in that brief moment in time you have to bring that conclusion to the table before even reading the passage.

What I'm saying is that you're committed to this idea that Jesus hates all non-Christians before you even examine John 3:16 and you're forcing this idea into the text. That's why you have to hang your argument on this past/present tense nonsense. Your bias toward this concept is highlighted by the fact you only apply it in this one instance where it isn't even merited and shows that you don't read the Bible in a consistent and humble fashion. If you did, you could only come to the conclusion that Jesus still hates you personally as I explained in my first post. You have yet to respond to, so I'll ask you directly: in light of Romans 5:8, how can you say that Jesus doesn't hate you?

In response to your last question, it doesn't even make sense, but is a good example of a begging-the-question fallacy. First of all, if you were consistent in the way you applied the language, you'd realize that the statement in John 3:16 is entirely in the 3rd person ("God", "He", "His", "the world"). What you've given in your example statements is a 1st person ("I") statement to a 2nd person entity ("you"). The statements aren't even comparable. A better comparison would be to say something like, "The man loved his son so much that fed him so that he might live another day." That statement doesn't say anything about whether or not the man still loves his son or that the son is still alive at all. In order to say anything about the man's current relationship with his son you have to make an assumption. It doesn't logically make sense to say that the man stopped loving his son after dinner. However, given that the man loved his son enough to provide food, there is no reason to think he would not continue loving his son.

​Great post, very frustrating topic though as it doesn't seem to be "sinking in".  I suppose that's why your post wasn't replied to since it's hard to debate the 1st and 3rd person comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

​So He killed all those satanists out of love?  Is it somewhere in the Christian Bible where God says that He loved all those satanists He killed in the flood?  I must've missed those verses.

​The Bible says that God waited with longsuffering (1 Peter 3:20)and endured 120 years (Genesis 6:3) while Noah was building the ark.The Bible also says that "Noah was a preacher of righteousness" (2 Peter 2:5) and if he was indeed a "preacher", that means he preached.  And if he preached "righteousness", like the Bible says, that means he preached love because all righteousness, all virtue. all charity, all holiness and goodness comes from love, because "God is love" the Bible says (1 John 4:8). They had plenty of time to repent.

 

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

​By itself, it says nothing about what's going on now--it only tells us of something that happened in the past.  You're missing the point entirely.  The point was that John 3:16 does NOT say that Jesus loves satanists. 

It doesn't say Jesus doesn't "Satanists" either. I'll refer to my previous post about how you're inserting a presupposition on the passage. In order to infer anything from the passage, you have to read it in context which can only logically conclude an enduring love.

And BTW, a satanist is defined as anyone who's not a true Christian.  Matthew 12:30

​Are you defining your own terms now? According to every dictionary I find, a satanist is one who actively worships Satan, which is not found in that passage at all. Again, you've taken it out of context to support what you want to think rather than taking what it says to shape what you think. More shoddy analysis.

"A text out of context becomes a proof text for a pretext"

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 22 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...