₦airaland Forum

udatso:
Let's see what the Bible says
“As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love” (John 15:9-10).

He loved them before the call to obey meaning they did not fulfill any condition to be loved. Of course if they rebelled He will still love them and call them but He wont force them, they would be forsaking Him and the love HE has for them!

The parable of the prodigal son comes up here. The prodigal left the comfort of the father's house and suffered (a consequence). There is a consequence if we make the wrong choices!

Am I wrong? Did not Peter deny Him? Did not Peter and the rest forsake Him to go and fish? Did they drown for not being obedient? Didnt He LOVINGLY attend to their need and even prepared breakfast for them?

But let's say after all this they still rejected Him, well there is NO middle ground! Choosing evil is just by rejecting good. And the consequence of our choices are part of the package.

If we obey His commands, we will remain in His love. By implication, if we do not obey His commands we will not remain in his love. Again we see that God loves those who obey the teachings and commands of the Lord Jesus and they will remain in God’s love as they obey his commands, just as Jesus did.

So why are you trying to deny this point that is so obvious in the Bible?

See, if they do not obey it will mean they forsake His love. If He had said, keep my commands so that I can continue loving you that will have being a different issue.

Now consider:

13 [Now] before the Passover Feast began, Jesus knew (was fully aware) that the time had come for Him to leave this world and return to the Father. And as He had loved those who were His own in the world, He loved them to the last and to the highest degree.

2 So [it was] during supper, Satan having already put the thought of betraying Jesus in the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son,
John 13:1,2

He loved them even when one of them had planned to betray Him and He knew! He loved them even when they were all going to forsake Him at the period of trial and one was even going to curse and swear that he never knew Him, and He knew!!!

Scholar8200:
He loved them before the call to obey meaning they did not fulfill any condition to be loved. Of course if they rebelled He will still love them and call them but He wont force them, they would be forsaking Him and the love HE has for them!

I think this is no longer a debate as I have stated earlier in two of my previous post below . I don't like you dragging us back

udatso:
I don't know how long I am going to keep repeating this to you. I have proved it that there isn't unconditional lovein the Bible. You can chose to accept it or deny it.

There are many more of this

If Allah hates you, would probably be destroyed or never existed Etc but He is giving you the chance to repent so He can forgive you your sins. This love is conditional, if you die without accepting the conditions, you won't get any love but punishment .
In Islam we don't shy in telling you the reality. Despite all the verses in the Bible showing God's love is conditional, you choose to reject it and keep screaming God's love is unconditional. The choice is yours

And

udatso:
This is equally what I told malvisguy too. Am glad we agree on this

God loves everyone at the initial stage(on earth) but there are things that you would do that would affect this love even though it's not His fault . If it was a thing of malice, no non believer would be on the surface of the earth. But instead He gives us the time to repent and come back to Himand obey Him. That's where the condition comes in which is to be satisfied in this world and the result announced in the hereafter. In the after life there would be those who retained His love and those who Lost His love.

In summary: Him allowing us to live our life, giving us time to repent is His Love , His punishing the unrepentant is His wrath and not love .

The difference here is our conclusions. I concluded that if we refuse to do as God commanded we will face His wrath (hate, the effect of no love) hence punishment , no? . You on the other hand still see the the punishment as Love.

The parable of the prodigal son comes up here. The prodigal left the comfort of the father's house and suffered (a consequence). There is a consequence if we make the wrong choices!

Yes. That consequence is God's wrath in the afterlife. And I'd God's wrath for His chosen( those He Loves) ?

Am I wrong? Did not Peter deny Him? Did not Peter and the rest forsake Him to go and fish? Did they drown for not being obedient? Didnt He LOVINGLY attend to their need and even prepared breakfast for them?

I would appreciate it if you don't keep dragging us back. I have already addressed this in the post below

In summary: Him allowing us to live our life without destroying us even after we have offended him, giving us time to repent is His Love. His punishing the unrepentant in the hereafter is His wrath and not love .

So I really don't see why you are rejecting this simple truth.

But let's say after all this they still rejected Him, well there is NO middle ground! Choosing evil is just by rejecting good. And the consequence of our choices are part of the package.

Yes, therefore those who reject God face his Wrath not love. Why can't you accept this?

See, if they do not obey it will mean they forsake His love. If He had said, keep my commands so that I can continue loving you that will have being a different issue.

Except of course that's exactly what happened.
See it here

udatso:
“As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love” (John 15:9-10).

If we obey His commands, we will remain in His love. By implication, if we do not obey His commands we will not remain in his love. Again we see that God loves those who obey the teachings and commands of the Lord Jesus and they will remain in God’s love as they obey his commands, just as Jesus did.

So why are you trying to deny this point that is so obvious in the Bible?

Now consider:

13 [Now] before the Passover Feast began, Jesus knew (was fully aware) that the time had come for Him to leave this world and return to the Father. And as He had loved those who were His own in the world, He loved them to the last and to the highest degree.

2 So [it was] during supper, Satan having already put the thought of betraying Jesus in the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son,
John 13:1,2

He loved them even when one of them had planned to betray Him and He knew! He loved them even when they were all going to forsake Him at the period of trial and one was even going to curse and swear that he never knew Him, and He knew!!!

I have already addressed this. It's true even before/ as /after we disobey Him, he knows but he doesn't punish us yet giving us time to repent. Eventually when such a person dies and didn't do as asked by God, he receives punishment. Hence wrath

Scholar8200:
That's not correct. Was the quote from Deuteronomy of God's love given after the people had obeyed God or before?

Which part is wrong here?

The covenant was a derivative of God's promise to Abraham, no more, no less.

What's definition of covenant?

God did not make a covenant with them hoping that they would obey so that He can love them??!!! That's absurd!

God loved them based on the abarahamic covenant. But God now outlines what would make this convent void hence the conditions

Besides, does a man love his wife because she said 'I do'' or before she said "I do" ?

I am sure by now you must have learnt that using humans love to describe God's love doesn't work out for you. You tried it in the judge son example, it didn't work. You equally tried it in the father son Going Out example and it didn't work too.

Now did God hate all others since He did not make a covenant with them? Job, for example was not an Israelite and he was greatly blessed by God!

The issue of fate if those God didn't make covenant with is a different issue. Let's tackle one problem at a time

udatso:
Which part is wrong here?

The ,''obey me and I will love you'' part! Deuteronomy 7:7 refutes that view.

What's definition of covenant?

An agreement wherein each plays his role. This was necessary in God's dealing with them because He never forces His benefits on us. Their keeping to the covenant was an indication that they were still interested in being joined to Him and His purposes for them.

God loved them based on the abarahamic covenant. But God now outlines what would make this convent void hence the conditions

God loved them because that is His nature.

On what basis then did God love Abraham, or Enoch, or Job, or the ante-deluvian world whom He warned severally before sending the flood? (LOVE delays judgement deserved to the point that it will be injustice to delay it any longer! Meanwhile, LOVE does all possible to make the offender repent!)

The promise to Abraham was never made void by the Mosaic covenant. In fact the New Covenant is still based on God's Promise to Abraham!

I am sure by now you must have learnt that using humans love to describe God's love doesn't work out for you. You tried it in the judge son example, it didn't work. You equally tried it in the father son Going Out example and it didn't work too.

That's still your opinion! Even the Bible uses the known to illustrate the spiritual eg the Parables of Jesus!.

Scholar8200:
The ,''obey me and I will love you'' part! Deuteronomy 7:7 refutes that view.

Okay. Let me rephrase. The "obey me and I will continue to love you" is that wrong too?

An agreement wherein each plays his role. This was necessary in God's dealing with them because He never forces His benefits on us. Their keeping to the covenant was an indication that they were still interested in being joined to Him and His purposes for them.

You forgot to add, if either refuses to play his role, the agreement becomes null and void

God loved them because that is His nature.

On what basis then did God love Abraham, or Enoch, or Job, or the ante-deluvian world whom He warned severally before sending the flood? (LOVE delays judgement deserved to the point that it will be injustice to delay it any longer! Meanwhile, LOVE does all possible to make the offender repent!)

Deut. 4:37,

And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought thee out in his sight with his mighty power out of Egypt;

It's pointed out here as well as deut 7 that the Lord's treatment of Israel is based on His love for their fathers [Abraham, Isaac, Jacob]. A little later the Lord expresses His love for Israel as a nation,

The promise to Abraham was never made void by the Mosaic covenant. In fact the New Covenant is still based on God's Promise to Abraham!

True

That's still your opinion! Even the Bible uses the known to illustrate the spiritual eg the Parables of Jesus!.

I can't force you to see the difference.

I noticed you ignored the questions I asked in my replies.

udatso:
Okay. Let me rephrase. The "obey me and I will continue to love you" is that wrong too?

Now since He loved them before they started obeying Him, His call to obedience is because if they did otherwise, He may warn them of the consequences of their choice and delay same but not forever lest it becomes injustice. At such time, He gives them up ,in love, to the consequences of their choices which He had attempted to shield them from. I said HE does that in love because HE expects that will bring them, not to destruction, but to repentance.

The Bible is replete with such examples of Israel's rebellion and repentance. A good example is the quote from 2 Chronicles 34:15 earlier in this thread.

You forgot to add, if either refuses to play his role, the agreement becomes null and void

No, it only begets a broken covenant with room for a restoration if there is repentance on the part of the defaulting party. Only God Who initiated the OT had the power to disannull it and He made it clear He would in Jeremiah 31:31.

Deut. 4:37,

And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought thee out in his sight with his mighty power out of Egypt;

It's pointed out here as well as deut 7 that the Lord's treatment of Israel is based on His love for their fathers [Abraham, Isaac, Jacob]. A little later the Lord expresses His love for Israel as a nation,

And those fathers had neither covenant nor laws to obey to earn that love. They simply responded to the overtures (which many rejected Romans 1:21-23) of God's Love and walked with Him by faith.

True

I can't force you to see the difference.

I noticed you ignored the questions I asked in my replies.

Kindly re-quote them.

Scholar8200:
Now since He loved them before they started obeying Him, His call to obedience is because if they did otherwise, He may warn them of the consequences of their choice and delay same but not forever lest it becomes injustice. At such time, He gives them up ,in love, to the consequences of their choices which He had attempted to shield them from. I said HE does that in love because HE expects that will bring them, not to destruction, but to repentance.

And at the end, the disobedient ones would not be rewarded with love. Do you deny this?

The Bible is replete with such examples of Israel's rebellion and repentance. A good example is the quote from 2 Chronicles 34:15 earlier in this thread.

No, it only begets a broken covenant with room for a restoration if there is repentance on the part of the defaulting party. Only God Who initiated the OT had the power to disannull it and He made it clear He would in Jeremiah 31:31.

And when there's no repentance, No love for the unrepentant. That's the conclusion you are avoiding

And those fathers had neither covenant nor laws to obey to earn that love. They simply responded to the overtures (which many rejected Romans 1:21-23) of God's Love and walked with Him by faith.

The point is covenant or no covenant, the unrepentant would earn his wrath in the afterlife. Again, do you disagree with this?

Kindly re-quote them.

No time necessary, I have asked them again in this reply