The Lone Wolf wrote:
1] In one place you say that it is not wrong to tell everybody that God loves them, but

2] then you say that God does not love everybody. So by telling someone who may not be one of God's elect that God loves them are you in essence lying to them.

3] Once a person comes to saving faith, then they can know, hear and understand of God's love for them because they are His own.

2] God does not love everybody but telling the reprobate about His love, wont make a blind difference to the unsaved designated for hell.

3] Coming to saving faith is the work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore human verbal communication whether given or received, does not change the elect unto salvation or reprobation.
God can do that by Himself.

quote wrote:
I do not understand your hostility!

No you don’t leave it at the point of God making His own decision about

In evangelizing....

The suggestion that if you tell “sinners” that God loves them, that they will become worse sinners is ridiculous. You cant get worse than the natural state of unsaved, unbeliever, reprobate. There are two groups of people on earth, 1] The called and elect, 2] those who are NOT.

God’s love is for His flock. John 10:27.
The rest are guilty as charged and will be punished. (V26)

quote wrote:
....do you believe the Scriptures teach that God loves everybody?

_________________________

Contender wrote:
Do you want to possibly lie to someone and tell them God loves them when He may not?

As for whom God love's, that is entirely and only within His heart, and is extended to whom He wants to.

Contender and "quote"
You are the ones who are trying to "direct" the love of God.

_________________

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, WHILE WE WERE YET sinners, Christ died for us.

Now check the title of this survey thread.

At what point do YOU decide that the person YOU are talking to is Christian or not as the case may be?

Remember YOU guys are the ones seeking to put limits on God's love here.

I leave it at the point of God making His own decision about "whom" His love is delivered to.

The Scripture is directed to ALL of God's chosen.
YOU don't know who THEY all are.

Contender wrote:
We are mere mortals that do not know the hearts of people and must do as God exhorts us in the Scriptures. However, God is not governed with the exact same standards He gives to us as His creatures...........

Ok Contender [and quote];

Since you say that you cant read hearts, (I suppose I'll have to take your word on that), then when you teach Bible and purposely avoid the word "love" being used in evangelism, in case you convert the sinner?? Or that some sinner will inadvertantly find out that God IS Love, (Ssshh)?

You just keep teaching the Wrath to come plus hell, and all who don't receive the truth will get there???

On the other hand
Are you concerned that telling the "sinner" that God loves them might have a positive effect??? (Cant have that can we) Alternatively do you think that NOT telling them is going to allow them to remain unsaved???

To know/receive the Truth is a work of the Holy Spirit. (John 16:13)

The Lone Wolf wrote:
Not meant to disagree with you, but would you also agree that in the context of the passages you cited, John is writing specifically to those who are already believers. Is he not writing to the elect of God of His love for them?

1] Can you read hearts?

2] Do you differentiate between the sinner and the sinner? (There are none righteous no not one).

3] Which part of the Word of God is "unsuitable" for sinners being evangelised.
We must always remember who is really doing the work when "using" Scripture - The Holy Spirit.

See this for the heretical "additions" of the papal antichrists teachings.

[URL=http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=lloydjones]]]The Satanic Deceit of the Roman Catholic Church[/URL]

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth HIS LOVE toward us, in that, while we were yet SINNERS, Christ died for us

1John 4:10 Herein is love, NOT that we loved God, but that HE loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

# And if we preach the Word to the world then it says

XIX. Of the Church.
"The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of *ROME* hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith."

XXII. Of Purgatory.
"The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God."

rob wrote:
Perhaps the Episcopalians & Presbyterians have read these scriptures also...without the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

This guy is playing games with words and The Word. Clearly he cannot receive the truth. But what he is suggesting is to make different laws for different sinful activities among men. Thus "sanctifying" the act by removing the law.

Putting the word "rapist/rape" into his quote above could legalise rape.

Michael Hranek wrote:
So what is God's revealed will?

Michael Hranek wrote:
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.

Matt 7.21
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Now Michael, did these guys "believe on Jesus" - Note how they called Him "Lord, Lord" - and "did things in His Name"(good works?)

SO what else is required?

"then will I profess unto them, **I NEVER KNEW YOU**"

Thus......
4 "According as HE HATH CHOSEN us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having PREDESTINATED US unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of HIS WILL"

Mike wrote:
but how then could Jesus be tempted in every way?
Hebrews 4:15
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

I don't believe for a second that Jesus COULD sin, or could have sinned when He walked among us.

Note in the verse you quoted above the last words "yet without sin." This is crucial to the question on temptation.
Clearly WE can be tempted - but CAN refuse to accept the tempting. Therefore temptation of itself does not necessary imply a sinful act.

Jesus was tempted "as we are" and accepted none of the temptations.

When we are tempted sin can play a part in our response to the temptation, but again this does not necessarily mean that we will sin/act.

Ro 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

JD wrote:
Remember, Jesus Christ was born a man but was not at enmity with God. Why? Because he never sinned.

All "dust" can support life.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

"Liberal"
Dictionary 1756 (Johnson's)
Definitions =
1. Not mean
2. Not low in birth
3. Becoming a gentleman
4. Munificent
5. Generous
6. Bountiful
7. Gross
8. Licentious
9. Free to excess
(These are also reflected in Webster's 1828 Dic)

By the 1940's the word had become.
Blackies Dic.(British)
1. Generous
2. Ample
3. Profuse
4. Favourable to reform/progress
5. Not too literal or strict
6. Free
7. One who advocates greater political freedom

Mike
Here is an interesting one for you.
"Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others." [Ambrose Bierce, "Devil's Dictionary," 1911]

Also Webster's 1913 Dic has

6. Free to excess; regardless of law or moral restraint; licentious. Most like a liberal villain." Shak.

7. Not bound by orthodox tenets or established forms in political or religious philosophy; independent in opinion; not conservative; friendly to great freedom in the constitution or administration of government....etc!

"Disagreements about the Bible"

Surely not!!

Why they should turn to SermonAudio where they can find so much agreement on the comments board.