How We Can Tell If We Possess The Agape of God

[soberxp]

When it rained, you wanted go to outside,and the rain stopped suddenly

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I've never ever heard someone use agape without the word love with it. If you quit blowin' at the fur and get to the hide, what's you're point? And before you start, no I don't believe in OSAS. But I have many friends that do and I love and respect them in the Lord.

He does not understand what agape is. That’s his first problem

 

[Phoneman-777]

Here’s an idea 💡: What if you do (have a license)? Say that Jesus’ blood actually covers/takes away all sin (truly it does, but we are treating it as a hypothetical) and no matter how much you sin you will not be condemned to Hell for your sin. Does that make you want to go out and sin all you want? Does that make you want to forsake God and His righteous ways of love and peace, that you may entertain sin and it’s deathly consequences?

No. Why? You are a new creation in Christ Jesus, with new desires, a new heart, and a changed mind through the renewing of your mind as the Lord leads you into all truth. For you to sin it is like a fish out of water; it doesn’t belong. No longer a slave of sin, but of righteousness.

Exactly.....a new creature in Christ Jesus needs a OSAS License to Sin about as much as an ex-heroin addict needs to carry around a syringe --- he doesn't.

So, even with a “license to sin” you have no interest in taking up that offer because that is no longer who you are. It’s as if you hated broccoli 🥦 and I placed in front of you a bowl filled to the brim with it and said, “Eat until you are satisfied.” Firstly, you do not desire it but secondly if you ate it, it would not satisfy you. Much like sin, that broccoli might be covered in cheese, and for a moment you may enjoy it’s savor but quickly be reminded of it’s true taste. You don’t like it.
A license to sin does not incentivize the righteous to sin. As scripture says, “Do not be deceived, the righteous commit righteousness.” Grace simply allows growth, maturity. It permits a person to fall and then rise. It makes room for error and correction

So, an obese man who manages to become trim and fit is no longer tempted by a bowl of ice cream? And a "OSAS (Once Skinny Always Skinny) License to Eat Whatever" would not be an incentive to stock his freezer with it?

Can you see how God’s grace towards our sin then is not dismissive but rather corrective? Have you heard of consequence? We may yet choose to sin but we taste it’s bitterness and are reminded that we don’t like it. We much prefer righteousness and this is where no condemnation comes into play. “You learned your lesson, now repent. Change your way, change your thinking. You are righteous now.”

You keep pointing out how grace applies to the Just Man in your arguments against my position concerning the Presumptuous Man, which thing you may not realize is a classic "Straw Man". The JUST MAN who falls 7 times and rises again doesn't need a OSAS License to Sin - its the invention by presumptuous "Christians" who want to hold onto Jesus and sinful habits. When will the OSAS crowd realize that the OSAS License to Sin makes provision for presumptuous sin "just in case we do it", when anyone attempting to read their Bible with their eyes open can see we are not to "make no provision for the flesh"? (Romans 13:14 KJV)

 

[Phoneman-777]

If a implies not b, then b implies not a ( where a is the statement: a person wallows in sin and b is the statement: the person is a Christian.).
If a implies not b, then b implies not a If a person wallows in sin,
then the person is not a Christian

The contrapositive of the statement " a implies not b is b implies not a." In logic, if a conditional statement is true, then so is its contrapositive. Both " If a person wallows in sin, then he is not a Christian" and " If a person is a Christian, then he does not wallow in sin) are both true.

You are saying that " if a implies not b is true, then b implies a" . In other words: If a person who wallows in sin is not a Christian, then a person who is a Christian can wallow in sin. Very Illogical.

I never said "b implies a"...YOU claim I did.

A Christian cannot wallow in sin, but a former Christian can not only wallow in it, but sit and church waving his arms giving every appearance that he is still Christian ("former Christian" being a person who was a Christian but withdrew his surrendered will from the Lord and returned it to his former master, Satan).

 

[Phoneman-777]

I've never ever heard someone use agape without the word love with it. If you quit blowin' at the fur and get to the hide, what's you're point? And before you start, no I don't believe in OSAS. But I have many friends that do and I love and respect them in the Lord.

I think you need to re-read the OP again, because we're past the hide and down to the meat of the issue of OSAS.

But, I can save you the trouble: just find us one verse where the wicked are shown to partake of "agape" love and I'll concede that the "many" of Matthew 24:12 KJV are the wicked whose fate is contrasted with they who "endure to the end" and are "saved" --

otherwise, OSAS must admit these "many" are Saints (because the wicked cannot partake of "agape") whose agape in them grows cold and leaves them in a worse spiritual condition than the lukewarm Laodicean saints rejected by Jesus, in contrast to those in verse 13 who "shall endure to the end" and will be "saved".

 

[Phoneman-777]

Cannot see what relevance that has to do with what I asked you.

I think I've been STUNNINGLY clear. You came in with both guns blazing, hurling provocative insults and cuss words and I told you that religio-political discussions are no place for such emotional unstable state of mind, and that I'd be happy to discuss things when you calmed down.

BTW, as a near 6' tall, red blooded veteran of a foreign war, toxic-masculinity ridden, staunch Conservative Christian man who never hits the gym, I'd say I'm far from being "your little snowflake" (BTW, I took this for a girl who wanted to see my tattoo, which I got in my BC days)

 

[kaylagrl]

I think you need to re-read the OP again, because we're past the hide and down to the meat of the issue of OSAS.

But, I can save you the trouble: just find us one verse where the wicked are shown to partake of "agape" love and I'll concede that the "many" of Matthew 24:12 KJV are the wicked whose fate is contrasted with they who "endure to the end" and are "saved" --

otherwise, OSAS must admit these "many" are Saints (because the wicked cannot partake of "agape") whose agape in them grows cold and leaves them in a worse spiritual condition than the lukewarm Laodicean saints rejected by Jesus, in contrast to those in verse 13 who "shall endure to the end" and will be "saved".

Ah, well I don't argue OSAS here. I have people here I respect. I may make a point if I'm in conversation, but I don't argue it. I'm Pentecostal and I've been called everything here because of that. So I don't see the point of attacking others because of what they believe. Not gonna change one mind.

 

[Phoneman-777]

i realize you reject God's words, but do you so quickly forget them, also?

Not surprised at this conclusion, considering some of your other flawed realizations, like OSAS being Biblical.

in John 13:34-35 God Himself equivocates 'agapao' ((the Greek root word, grammatically a verb 'to love')) with 'agape' ((the derived grammatical noun form of agapao)).

There you go again, trying to make "agapao" and "agape" equal in emphasis and degree, when no where in Scripture do we see "agape" attributed to the wicked, right?

"agapao": "to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly"

"agape" : "affection or benevolence; specially (plural) a love-FEAST—(feast of) charity(-ably), dear, love.

Your false equivalence of "agapao" to "agape" which obliterates the vast degree of distinction between the two is no different than making a trip to McDonalds "to eat" the same as a "thanksgiving feast".

it's only your human tradition that, for the sake of seeking to condemn God's servants...

Let's be clear: the "many" of Matthew 24:12 KJV are no longer God's servants - and neither are those who trust in a OSAS License to Sin, confessing and forsaking their sins as the former heroin addict forsakes his needle.

...that insists there is a ideological difference in meaning between the substance and the carrying out of that substance. God Himself disagrees with you.
-- and we can find many places where the lost express agape towards the things of the world, e.g. they love ((put agape into action)) darkness rather than light, John 3:19

similarly you love darkness rather than light on this subject -- we all see that evidenced extremely clearly here.
but just because you reject the Word of God, do not feign ignorance in order to continue to avoid the simple, relevant, obvious question regarding Matthew 24: endure to the end in what and how?

Here's why you can't find "agape" anywhere in Scripture attributed to the wicked:

"Agape love does not come naturally to us. Because of our fallen nature, we are incapable of producing such a love. If we are to love as God loves, that love—that agape—can only come from its Source. This is the love that “has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us” when we became His children (Romans 5:5; cf. Galatians 5:22). “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters” (1 John 3:16). Because of God’s love toward us, we are able to love one another."

https://www.gotquestions.org/agape-love.html

 

[Phoneman-777]

Ah, well I don't argue OSAS here. I have people here I respect. I may make a point if I'm in conversation, but I don't argue it. I'm Pentecostal and I've been called everything here because of that. So I don't see the point of attacking others because of what they believe. Not gonna change one mind.

God's Word never returns unto Him void

Our goal should not be to change anyone's mind: only the Holy Spirit can "lead us and guide us into all truth", which by implication means those needing to be led into truth must be led out of error, and for this cause, we present the truth, that those willing to be led may be convicted (John 7:17 KJV).

 

[BillG]

I think I've been STUNNINGLY clear. You came in with both guns blazing, hurling provocative insults and cuss words and I told you that religio-political discussions are no place for such emotional unstable state of mind, and that I'd be happy to discuss things when you calmed down.

BTW, as a near 6' tall, red blooded veteran of a foreign war, toxic-masculinity ridden, staunch Conservative Christian man who never hits the gym, I'd say I'm far from being "your little snowflake" (BTW, I took this for a girl who wanted to see my tattoo, which I got in my BC days)

You have not been stunningly clear at all, you have not even had the curtesy to answer me directly what I asked you to.

Let's put that aside.

So you say I used cuss words.
So what cuss words did I use. Words is plural.
So therefore I used more than one based on what you are saying.

If memory serves me I used one word that you called filthy.
Yet why do you consider the word s**t a cuss words?

Would it have been better if I used the word dung?
Many mentiones of this word in the Bible, and what is dung?


Just for the minute let's put aside so called attacks because you are just as guilty of doing what you have accused me off and others.

Your thread you started was how do we know we have Agape love?
Yet your op attacked OSAS.
Now if I genuinely believed you wanted to discuss this then I would have been very happy to discuss this even as a OSAS believer.

Been on this forum for a while and a few timew posted about the restoration of Peter.
2 times Jesus asks Peter "Do you AGAPE me" he repsonds twice with "I PHILEO you"
3rd time Jesus asks "Do you Phileo me? Peter gets upset and says "Yes I Phileo you"

Jesus says "Feed my sheep"

Peter died for his faith and he moved from Phileo to Agape.
That is what we should all seek to be like.
And this greasy gracer that you think I am and others on here seek to grow in love for people. Moving towards AGAPE.

The thing is you assume all on here who believe in OSAS use it as a license to sin even when they tell they don't, even when they tell you that they are not OSAS.

Just like I did when I told you that if I did meet someone who did they could sin all they want (which I did on one occasion) I would go through Romans 5:8 and they rejected that then I would shake the dust of my sandals and walk away (but leave the door open)

I cannot recall you ever responding to that.

Just so know I am not emotionally unstable as you have stated.
I just hate being accused of something or being something that I'm not.
I also don't like it when I ask a specific question that has not been answered.
And being honest you have fell foul of that.
As I said when you answered my question with "Did you see my response to @posthuman? That had no relevance to my question to you.

Anyway I have digressed a little from what's considered a cuss word and what I have digressed to is to explain what I perceive what you are saying and your motive.

Nice tattoo by the way.
Always wanted to get myself but not done so.

I have skinny arms am 5 feet and 7.5 inches tall and have black belt in karate.

If I wanted to get a tattoo what would you recommend?

 

[posthuman]

Not surprised at this conclusion, considering some of your other flawed realizations, like OSAS being Biblical.
There you go again, trying to make "agapao" and "agape" equal in emphasis and degree, when no where in Scripture do we see "agape" attributed to the wicked, right?

"agapao": "to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly"

"agape" : "affection or benevolence; specially (plural) a love-FEAST—(feast of) charity(-ably), dear, love.

Your false equivalence of "agapao" to "agape" which obliterates the vast degree of distinction between the two is no different than making a trip to McDonalds "to eat" the same as a "thanksgiving feast".
Let's be clear: the "many" of Matthew 24:12 KJV are no longer God's servants - and neither are those who trust in a OSAS License to Sin, confessing and forsaking their sins as the former heroin addict forsakes his needle.
Here's why you can't find "agape" anywhere in Scripture attributed to the wicked:

"Agape love does not come naturally to us. Because of our fallen nature, we are incapable of producing such a love. If we are to love as God loves, that love—that agape—can only come from its Source. This is the love that “has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us” when we became His children (Romans 5:5; cf. Galatians 5:22). “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters” (1 John 3:16). Because of God’s love toward us, we are able to love one another."

https://www.gotquestions.org/agape-love.html

uh huh so you reject the words of Jesus, w/e, old news.
all you want to do is damn believers.
everyone following this conversation is already very clear on that.
but we still got one very important, lingering question you've spent a day and half ducking:

• what do "you intend to" endure in, and how do "you intend to" do so?

 

[Phoneman-777]

I'm not going to respond to any more of your leading questions.

There are basically only 3 schools of eschatological thought, with each having subtle differences that are not extreme enough to warrant breaking them into smaller pieces:

Protestant Historicism
Jesuit Preterism
Jesuit Futurism

Protestant Historicism says "prophecy parallel history from the day of the prophet down to the end of time." As a result of the preaching of this during the Protestant Reformation in the early 16th century, the crisis in the Papacy which it caused brought about the "Counter Reformation" from which these two ideas emerged several decades later:

Jesuit Preterism says end times prophecy was fulfilled in the first century.

Jesuit Futurism says God had nothing to say to the church eschatologically throughout church history, and only applies to those on Earth during the "last seven years of tribulation".

Which school of thought matches most closely to your beliefs?

 

[Dino246]

There are basically only 3 schools of eschatological thought, with each having subtle differences that are not extreme enough to warrant breaking them into smaller pieces:

Protestant Historicism
Jesuit Preterism
Jesuit Futurism

Protestant Historicism says "prophecy parallel history from the day of the prophet down to the end of time." As a result of the preaching of this during the Protestant Reformation in the early 16th century, the crisis in the Papacy which it caused brought about the "Counter Reformation" from which these two ideas emerged several decades later:

Jesuit Preterism says end times prophecy was fulfilled in the first century.

Jesuit Futurism says God had nothing to say to the church eschatologically throughout church history, and only applies to those on Earth during the "last seven years of tribulation".

Which school of thought matches most closely to your beliefs?

Read again the post to which you responded. Keep reading it until you understand it.

 

[Phoneman-777]

You have not been stunningly clear at all, you have not even had the curtesy to answer me directly what I asked you to.

Let's put that aside.

So you say I used cuss words.
So what cuss words did I use. Words is plural.
So therefore I used more than one based on what you are saying.

If memory serves me I used one word that you called filthy.
Yet why do you consider the word s**t a cuss words?

Would it have been better if I used the word dung?
Many mentiones of this word in the Bible, and what is dung?

Look, we're both dudes and Christians, and I'm sure you hate it as much as I do when we bust our butt and another dude comes over to try and "mommy" us LOL. With that: You said the S word twice, so "words" meaning "frequency of use". If we're Christians at all, we should know that the only way the world knows that we've "come out from among them" is if our words and actions are different from them.

Just for the minute let's put aside so called attacks because you are just as guilty of doing what you have accused me off and others.

I only attack false ideas and criticize theological positions, not people, though I'll admit we saints can be among the most stubborn.

Your thread you started was how do we know we have Agape love? Yet your op attacked OSAS. Now if I genuinely believed you wanted to discuss this then I would have been very happy to discuss this even as a OSAS believer. Been on this forum for a while and a few times posted about the restoration of Peter. 2 times Jesus asks Peter "Do you AGAPE me" he repsonds twice with "I PHILEO you"
3rd time Jesus asks "Do you Phileo me? Peter gets upset and says "Yes I Phileo you" Jesus says "Feed my sheep"
Peter died for his faith and he moved from Phileo to Agape. That is what we should all seek to be like.

At least Peter was being honest. He understood the depth, breadth, width, and height of "agape", which can in no way be made the same as "agapao" - yet, he knew this kind of love is necessary for heavenly citizenship.

And this greasy gracer that you think I am and others on here seek to grow in love for peopl. Moving towards AGAPE.

Did you read in the OP where I wrote how we can know we have "agape"? 1 John 5:2-3 KJV. What you present, while informative, is not really the point of this OP, obviously.

The thing is you assume all on here who believe in OSAS use it as a license to sin even when they tell they don't, even when they tell you that they are not OSAS.

I never said "all" who believe in OSAS use it as a license to sin - but that OSAS by definition IS the same thing as a license to sin, which is unBiblical - it's a means of obtaining by dead faith that which can only be obtained by living faith: eternal life.

Just like I did when I told you that if I did meet someone who did they could sin all they want (which I did on one occasion) I would go through Romans 5:8 and they rejected that then I would shake the dust of my sandals and walk away (but leave the door open) I cannot recall you ever responding to that.

I think I did. I said when it comes to presumptuous sin, "all you want" can vary in degree from "limitless" to "just one time". It is both Scripture and my position that no amount of presumptuous "want" is covered by God's grace nor by a OSAS License to Sin.

Just so know I am not emotionally unstable as you have stated.
I just hate being accused of something or being something that I'm not. I also don't like it when I ask a specific question that has not been answered. And being honest you have fell foul of that. As I said when you answered my question with "Did you see my response to @posthuman? That had no relevance to my question to you.

Look, everyone including me has a bit of emotional instability from time to time. All I'm saying is that if we find ourselves in a state of "stinkin' thinkin", we need to seek God to regain thought control, lest any pagan "seeker" in audience of us be turned off by unChristlike displays.

Anyway I have digressed a little from what's considered a cuss word and what I have digressed to is to explain what I perceive what you are saying and your motive.

Nice tattoo by the way.
Always wanted to get myself but not done so.

I have skinny arms am 5 feet and 7.5 inches tall and have black belt in karate.

If I wanted to get a tattoo what would you recommend?

Thanks. I trained in a bit of hand to hand in the Navy boot camp, but now I'm a soldier - in the Army of the Lord. As for me, wouldn't get a tattoo at all for two reasons: I don't believe God any more approves of us defacing His property any more than I would approve of one of my friends returning my truck "customized" with a new dent, and the practice of bodily defacing is rooted in occultism I think the only things in Scripture that allow for it are circumcision and elective permanent slave status.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Read again the post to which you responded. Keep reading it until you understand it.

There's nothing "loaded" about a question that asks, "Which most closely corresponds to your thinking", to which the answer could range from any to none, right or wrong?

 

[Phoneman-777]

uh huh so you reject the words of Jesus, w/e, old news.
all you want to do is damn believers.
everyone following this conversation is already very clear on that.
but we still got one very important, lingering question you've spent a day and half ducking:

• what do "you intend to" endure in, and how do "you intend to" do so?

I'll answer it when I get back from a "FEAST" of two or three bread crumbs in the same manner you claim the wicked possess "agape" when they "agapao".

 

[BillG]

Look, we're both dudes and Christians, and I'm sure you hate it as much as I do when we bust our butt and another dude comes over to try and "mommy" us LOL. With that: You said the S word twice, so "words" meaning "frequency of use". If we're Christians at all, we should know that the only way the world knows that we've "come out from among them" is if our words and actions are different from them.

Ok you clarified words.
I read you as saying I used two cuss words but not one cuss word used twice.
However I do not consider the s word a swear/cuss word.
I was raised up with that word as part of normal speak.
Mainly used as an expression to say something is rubbish along with other meanings.
I appreciate you find it offensive and will not use it any time responding to you.
However do we acknowledge that the concept of the word s is used in the Bible that being dung which is basically fecal matter.
Based on my research into this it's used in the OT/NT.

Is it different from replacing the s word with sugar? Common over here.

As for me actions count more than words.

Would be very interested to know why you consider the s word a cuss word.

 

[BillG]

I only attack false ideas and criticize theological positions, not people, though I'll admit we saints can be among the most stubborn.

The thing here is that when we attack false ideas it can come across as attacking the person. The approach to criticize and discuss is the position we should always take.

 

[Dino246]

There's nothing "loaded" about a question that asks, "Which most closely corresponds to your thinking", to which the answer could range from any to none, right or wrong?

There most definitely is, when the options are heavily loaded.

 

[BillG]

I think I did. I said when it comes to presumptuous sin, "all you want" can vary in degree from "limitless" to "just one time". It is both Scripture and my position that no amount of presumptuous "want" is covered by God's grace nor by a OSAS

Can't recall the response but no worries.
You know my stance on this.
If a person who claims to be a believer and believes it gives them a license to sin and do not accept correction then walk away, but leave rhe door open.

Such an attitude is abhorrent and detestable and tramples on the precious blood of Jesus that was shed for us on the cross.

One has to ask the question though can it be reversed.
Can one who believes we are saved by our works and not faith balance off sin with works?

It's ok because I sinned less than the good works I did so I'm ok.

Either way the point is that no one should want to sin but when they do they acknowledge it and ask the Holy Spirit for help.

All sin is presumtious regardless of premeditated or lack of self will.