Unconditional love verses from God to us the people
- Thread starter homwardbound
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
If God loves both conditionally and unconditionally at the same time and in the same sense, that constitutes a genuine contradiction, not merely an apparent one. Jesus clearly contradicted himself if the nature of God's love is both! And you know this in your own self-deceived heart because you have never reconciled specifically Jn 14:21; 15:10 and 16:27 with your "unconditional" love verses, so called. You have meticulously avoided these three passages specifically.
Do you even know how the Law of Non-Contradiction reads?
Do you even know how the Law of Non-Contradiction reads?
In Paul's Sermon on Salvation:
1. Romans 1:16 says the Gospel reveals that salvation/election (s/e) or eternal life (John 3:16) is for “everyone who believes”, both Jew and Gentile.
2. Romans 1:17 describes s/e as “righteousness from God” that is by faith “from first to last” or from creation until the end.
3. Romans 2:4 teaches that God’s kindness or patience with sinners is meant to lead them toward repentance, which implies that sinners are able to repent because of God’s leading.
4. Romans 2:5 warns that those who do not repent but instead stubbornly resist God’s leading are storing up wrath against themselves for the day when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed, which implies that God enables sinners to repent–or not (cf. Deut. 30:19).
5. Romans 2:6 affirms what is called karma by saying that “God will give to each person according to what he has done”, which (in Gal. 6:7-9) is called reaping what a person sows.
6. Romans 2:7 speaks of the need for “persistence in doing good” and seeking glory, honor and immortality in order to receive s/e or eternal life, which echoes what Jesus commanded (in Matt. 7:7) and connects with the doctrine of perseverance (cf. Heb. 10:36 & Jam. 1:3-4).
7. Romans 2:11 teaches that “God does not show favoritism” (cf. Eph. 6:9, Col. 3:25, 1Pet. 1:17), which is how God judges people justly, so the fact that some sinners ignore God’s Gospel indicates that His will or leading is resistible because of MFW.
8. Romans 2:15 teaches that sinful souls have a conscience or awareness of “the requirements of the law”, which may be combined with Romans 1:20 to teach that God’s power and moral nature or will may be perceived via creation and conscience (called natural revelation), thus those unfamiliar with God’s Word in Scripture have no good reason for resisting divine leading and choosing atheism/evil.
9. Romans 3:20-21 states the law makes souls conscious of sin and that “the Law and Prophets testify” or prepare the way for the new revelation of righteousness from God apart from the Law, which takes up where Romans 1:17 left off.
10. Romans 3:22a says that “righteousness from God” or s/e comes through faith “in Jesus Christ” (cf. Eph. 2:8), a phrase Paul used eleven times in Ephesians 1:3-14 to indicate s/e.
11. Romans 3:22b says that God’s righteousness is given “to all who believe—there is no difference”” signifying that all sinners may believe or be s/e (cf. 1Tim. 2:3-4, John 3:16, Tit. 2:11), because there is no favoritism (#7).
12. Romans 3:23 teaches that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”, meaning that no one can be good enough to earn salvation because of their own merit.
13. Romans 3:24 says sinners “are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (via faith per v.22, cf. 3:27-28); s/e is free because Christ paid the price/cost.
14. Romans 3:25a explains redemption as being “a sacrifice of atonement” for those who have faith in Christ’s work of dying in their place.
15. Romans 3:25b further explains that God demonstrated his just patience (#3) or forbearance in leaving unpunished those sins committed before the revealing of the Gospel (foreshadowed in Gen. 22:8 & 13), implying that sinners had/have the opportunity to believe and be s/e thereby demonstrating God’s justice/not showing favoritism (#11).
16. Romans 3:26 continues to emphasize divine justice by declaring it three ways (“justice…, just…, justifies”), which justness is synonymous with righteousness (2Thes. 1:5-6, Heb. 6:10).
17. Romans 4:1-25 presents Abraham as a Gentile who became the physical father of the Jews and the spiritual father of all who choose to have faith in God/Christ.
18. Romans 5:1 echoes Eph. 2:8 by describing s/e as justification through faith, Eph. 1:5 & 7 by using the phrase “through Jesus Christ”, and Eph. 2:14 by describing s/e as having peace with God.
1. Romans 1:16 says the Gospel reveals that salvation/election (s/e) or eternal life (John 3:16) is for “everyone who believes”, both Jew and Gentile.
2. Romans 1:17 describes s/e as “righteousness from God” that is by faith “from first to last” or from creation until the end.
3. Romans 2:4 teaches that God’s kindness or patience with sinners is meant to lead them toward repentance, which implies that sinners are able to repent because of God’s leading.
4. Romans 2:5 warns that those who do not repent but instead stubbornly resist God’s leading are storing up wrath against themselves for the day when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed, which implies that God enables sinners to repent–or not (cf. Deut. 30:19).
5. Romans 2:6 affirms what is called karma by saying that “God will give to each person according to what he has done”, which (in Gal. 6:7-9) is called reaping what a person sows.
6. Romans 2:7 speaks of the need for “persistence in doing good” and seeking glory, honor and immortality in order to receive s/e or eternal life, which echoes what Jesus commanded (in Matt. 7:7) and connects with the doctrine of perseverance (cf. Heb. 10:36 & Jam. 1:3-4).
7. Romans 2:11 teaches that “God does not show favoritism” (cf. Eph. 6:9, Col. 3:25, 1Pet. 1:17), which is how God judges people justly, so the fact that some sinners ignore God’s Gospel indicates that His will or leading is resistible because of MFW.
8. Romans 2:15 teaches that sinful souls have a conscience or awareness of “the requirements of the law”, which may be combined with Romans 1:20 to teach that God’s power and moral nature or will may be perceived via creation and conscience (called natural revelation), thus those unfamiliar with God’s Word in Scripture have no good reason for resisting divine leading and choosing atheism/evil.
9. Romans 3:20-21 states the law makes souls conscious of sin and that “the Law and Prophets testify” or prepare the way for the new revelation of righteousness from God apart from the Law, which takes up where Romans 1:17 left off.
10. Romans 3:22a says that “righteousness from God” or s/e comes through faith “in Jesus Christ” (cf. Eph. 2:8), a phrase Paul used eleven times in Ephesians 1:3-14 to indicate s/e.
11. Romans 3:22b says that God’s righteousness is given “to all who believe—there is no difference”” signifying that all sinners may believe or be s/e (cf. 1Tim. 2:3-4, John 3:16, Tit. 2:11), because there is no favoritism (#7).
12. Romans 3:23 teaches that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”, meaning that no one can be good enough to earn salvation because of their own merit.
13. Romans 3:24 says sinners “are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (via faith per v.22, cf. 3:27-28); s/e is free because Christ paid the price/cost.
14. Romans 3:25a explains redemption as being “a sacrifice of atonement” for those who have faith in Christ’s work of dying in their place.
15. Romans 3:25b further explains that God demonstrated his just patience (#3) or forbearance in leaving unpunished those sins committed before the revealing of the Gospel (foreshadowed in Gen. 22:8 & 13), implying that sinners had/have the opportunity to believe and be s/e thereby demonstrating God’s justice/not showing favoritism (#11).
16. Romans 3:26 continues to emphasize divine justice by declaring it three ways (“justice…, just…, justifies”), which justness is synonymous with righteousness (2Thes. 1:5-6, Heb. 6:10).
17. Romans 4:1-25 presents Abraham as a Gentile who became the physical father of the Jews and the spiritual father of all who choose to have faith in God/Christ.
18. Romans 5:1 echoes Eph. 2:8 by describing s/e as justification through faith, Eph. 1:5 & 7 by using the phrase “through Jesus Christ”, and Eph. 2:14 by describing s/e as having peace with God.
Coming from reading brightfame's new thread, does rom 5:18 teach that christ died for all men without except? led me to a thought that I'm sure is not coincidental in happening to find being touched on here, the state of being "perfect," which I think does well to arbitrate? the difference between all that Christ died for and those that are saved. Lucifer was created perfect and so, I assume, was 'saved' at one time until, shall we call it an imperfection was found in him.
* I wrote this in immediate response, but a commercial break delayed my reply 1 hr 13 mins, and now I see exactly where the site broke for commercial. Luckily, I saved it in its entirety so I could pick the thought up again.
Coming from reading brightfame's new thread, does rom 5:18 teach that christ died for all men without except? led me to a thought that I'm sure is not coincidental in happening to find being touched on here, the state of being "perfect," which I think does well to arbitrate? the difference between all that Christ died for and those that are saved. Lucifer was created perfect and so, I assume, was 'saved' at one time until, shall we call it an imperfection was found in him.
And that in turn generated a consideration of what might have been, exactly, the flaw that proved so fatal. He certainly must've believed that he was perfect but, I think, that he no longer believed that he was 'made' perfect which would have implied an adequate acknowledgement of the Source of his perfection and so his delusional notion that he could 'rise above' the source of all things and assume the position as his own creator.
Having only just now dawned on me, this idea is very much new but I think worth contemplating wherein I could reach the conclusion to the referenced question. I've lately suspected the truth as having something to do with, "Yes, Christ died for all men without exception, and all were made perfect without exception (by One Man)." Just as in the (first) beginning, except this time it is not the one eating of the forbidden tree that renders all fallen as (...and might have its being forbidden had something to do with the serpent being found there?) as it is, this new thing, that refusing to eat of this revealed Tree of Life that One ate from, perhaps, in a similar way as in the beginning, ultimately renders one imperfect.
I hope my thoughts don't seem too much garbled. I presented this idea, to you especially, because I'm confident you would offer it a fair hearing, as well as an honest opinion toward the degree of its possibility.
* I wrote this in immediate response, but a commercial break delayed my reply 1 hr 13 mins, and now I see exactly where the site broke for commercial. Luckily, I saved it in its entirety so I could pick the thought up again.
Coming from reading brightfame's new thread, does rom 5:18 teach that christ died for all men without except? led me to a thought that I'm sure is not coincidental in happening to find being touched on here, the state of being "perfect," which I think does well to arbitrate? the difference between all that Christ died for and those that are saved. Lucifer was created perfect and so, I assume, was 'saved' at one time until, shall we call it an imperfection was found in him.
And that in turn generated a consideration of what might have been, exactly, the flaw that proved so fatal. He certainly must've believed that he was perfect but, I think, that he no longer believed that he was 'made' perfect which would have implied an adequate acknowledgement of the Source of his perfection and so his delusional notion that he could 'rise above' the source of all things and assume the position as his own creator.
Having only just now dawned on me, this idea is very much new but I think worth contemplating wherein I could reach the conclusion to the referenced question. I've lately suspected the truth as having something to do with, "Yes, Christ died for all men without exception, and all were made perfect without exception (by One Man)." Just as in the (first) beginning, except this time it is not the one eating of the forbidden tree that renders all fallen as (...and might have its being forbidden had something to do with the serpent being found there?) as it is, this new thing, that refusing to eat of this revealed Tree of Life that One ate from, perhaps, in a similar way as in the beginning, ultimately renders one imperfect.
I hope my thoughts don't seem too much garbled. I presented this idea, to you especially, because I'm confident you would offer it a fair hearing, as well as an honest opinion toward the degree of its possibility.
No it is not! You need to explain to us HOW God's dual nature of love (conditional and unconditional) do not violate the Law of Non-contradiction. How can God at once and in the same sense love some people conditionally and others unconditionally?
Moreover, you have another serious problem to address: God's immutability! If the nature of God's love is not self-contradictory as you seem to think, then this must mean that he changes his nature, which is something He cannot do! For if God could change what He is in his essence, then He is not a perfect being; for any change from one form of love to another would imply that one of those forms must be imperfect. If God can change his nature, then the change must be for the better or the worse, implying an imperfect God. But what is eternally perfect cannot change!
Lastly, you have painted yourself right into a corner when you admitted that the Father loves the Son conditionally. And this brings us to your third problem: You need to explain why the Father's love for his Son differs so radically from His love for mere mortals, most especially because Christ is just as human as we are, and is in fact the Last Adam and Second Man.
You have a lot of explaining to do; but you won't be able to do it because the more you talk the deeper you'll sink into the muck and mire of your false gospel under the weight of your lies.
Moreover, you have another serious problem to address: God's immutability! If the nature of God's love is not self-contradictory as you seem to think, then this must mean that he changes his nature, which is something He cannot do! For if God could change what He is in his essence, then He is not a perfect being; for any change from one form of love to another would imply that one of those forms must be imperfect. If God can change his nature, then the change must be for the better or the worse, implying an imperfect God. But what is eternally perfect cannot change!
Lastly, you have painted yourself right into a corner when you admitted that the Father loves the Son conditionally. And this brings us to your third problem: You need to explain why the Father's love for his Son differs so radically from His love for mere mortals, most especially because Christ is just as human as we are, and is in fact the Last Adam and Second Man.
You have a lot of explaining to do; but you won't be able to do it because the more you talk the deeper you'll sink into the muck and mire of your false gospel under the weight of your lies.
Coming from reading brightfame's new thread, does rom 5:18 teach that christ died for all men without except? led me to a thought that I'm sure is not coincidental in happening to find being touched on here, the state of being "perfect," which I think does well to arbitrate? the difference between all that Christ died for and those that are saved. Lucifer was created perfect and so, I assume, was 'saved' at one time until, shall we call it an imperfection was found in him.
* I wrote this in immediate response, but a commercial break delayed my reply 1 hr 13 mins, and now I see exactly where the site broke for commercial. Luckily, I saved it in its entirety so I could pick the thought up again.
Coming from reading brightfame's new thread, does rom 5:18 teach that christ died for all men without except? led me to a thought that I'm sure is not coincidental in happening to find being touched on here, the state of being "perfect," which I think does well to arbitrate? the difference between all that Christ died for and those that are saved. Lucifer was created perfect and so, I assume, was 'saved' at one time until, shall we call it an imperfection was found in him.
And that in turn generated a consideration of what might have been, exactly, the flaw that proved so fatal. He certainly must've believed that he was perfect but, I think, that he no longer believed that he was 'made' perfect which would have implied an adequate acknowledgement of the Source of his perfection and so his delusional notion that he could 'rise above' the source of all things and assume the position as his own creator.
Having only just now dawned on me, this idea is very much new but I think worth contemplating wherein I could reach the conclusion to the referenced question. I've lately suspected the truth as having something to do with, "Yes, Christ died for all men without exception, and all were made perfect without exception (by One Man)." Just as in the (first) beginning, except this time it is not the one eating of the forbidden tree that renders all fallen as (...and might have its being forbidden had something to do with the serpent being found there?) as it is, this new thing, that refusing to eat of this revealed Tree of Life that One ate from, perhaps, in a similar way as in the beginning, ultimately renders one imperfect.
I hope my thoughts don't seem too much garbled. I presented this idea, to you especially, because I'm confident you would offer it a fair hearing, as well as an honest opinion toward the degree of its possibility.
* I wrote this in immediate response, but a commercial break delayed my reply 1 hr 13 mins, and now I see exactly where the site broke for commercial. Luckily, I saved it in its entirety so I could pick the thought up again.
Coming from reading brightfame's new thread, does rom 5:18 teach that christ died for all men without except? led me to a thought that I'm sure is not coincidental in happening to find being touched on here, the state of being "perfect," which I think does well to arbitrate? the difference between all that Christ died for and those that are saved. Lucifer was created perfect and so, I assume, was 'saved' at one time until, shall we call it an imperfection was found in him.
And that in turn generated a consideration of what might have been, exactly, the flaw that proved so fatal. He certainly must've believed that he was perfect but, I think, that he no longer believed that he was 'made' perfect which would have implied an adequate acknowledgement of the Source of his perfection and so his delusional notion that he could 'rise above' the source of all things and assume the position as his own creator.
Having only just now dawned on me, this idea is very much new but I think worth contemplating wherein I could reach the conclusion to the referenced question. I've lately suspected the truth as having something to do with, "Yes, Christ died for all men without exception, and all were made perfect without exception (by One Man)." Just as in the (first) beginning, except this time it is not the one eating of the forbidden tree that renders all fallen as (...and might have its being forbidden had something to do with the serpent being found there?) as it is, this new thing, that refusing to eat of this revealed Tree of Life that One ate from, perhaps, in a similar way as in the beginning, ultimately renders one imperfect.
I hope my thoughts don't seem too much garbled. I presented this idea, to you especially, because I'm confident you would offer it a fair hearing, as well as an honest opinion toward the degree of its possibility.
Just my 2-1/2 cents worth...
Good evening, Mz. Mem. I will certainly let you and Studier hash out your premise and your interesting questions and ideas; but I see a flaw in your premise that I'd like to bring to your attention. God created everything "very good"! But does "very good" equate to perfection? If the angels and A&E were created perfect, then this immediately implies that they would be as unable to change as the Creator is also unable to change. What is perfect simply cannot change; for any change would be from better to worse or vice versa. The difference between the devil and God is that Lucifer, like A&E, had the capacity to sin; whereas God does not! God cannot sin. And the reason He can't is his immutable character and nature. To be "perfect" means, among other things, to be pure and total lacking in no essential detail. Obviously, God's free moral agents were lacking something essential, otherwise they like the Creator would not have been able to sin. To be sure, all God's moral agents were created innocent but innocence isn't synonymous with perfection either, especially because God intentionally created his moral agents with the capacity to sin.
Just my 2-1/2 cents worth...
Just my 2-1/2 cents worth...
Coming from reading brightfame's new thread, does rom 5:18 teach that christ died for all men without except? led me to a thought that I'm sure is not coincidental in happening to find being touched on here, the state of being "perfect," which I think does well to arbitrate? the difference between all that Christ died for and those that are saved. Lucifer was created perfect and so, I assume, was 'saved' at one time until, shall we call it an imperfection was found in him.
* I wrote this in immediate response, but a commercial break delayed my reply 1 hr 13 mins, and now I see exactly where the site broke for commercial. Luckily, I saved it in its entirety so I could pick the thought up again.
Coming from reading brightfame's new thread, does rom 5:18 teach that christ died for all men without except? led me to a thought that I'm sure is not coincidental in happening to find being touched on here, the state of being "perfect," which I think does well to arbitrate? the difference between all that Christ died for and those that are saved. Lucifer was created perfect and so, I assume, was 'saved' at one time until, shall we call it an imperfection was found in him.
And that in turn generated a consideration of what might have been, exactly, the flaw that proved so fatal. He certainly must've believed that he was perfect but, I think, that he no longer believed that he was 'made' perfect which would have implied an adequate acknowledgement of the Source of his perfection and so his delusional notion that he could 'rise above' the source of all things and assume the position as his own creator.
Having only just now dawned on me, this idea is very much new but I think worth contemplating wherein I could reach the conclusion to the referenced question. I've lately suspected the truth as having something to do with, "Yes, Christ died for all men without exception, and all were made perfect without exception (by One Man)." Just as in the (first) beginning, except this time it is not the one eating of the forbidden tree that renders all fallen as (...and might have its being forbidden had something to do with the serpent being found there?) as it is, this new thing, that refusing to eat of this revealed Tree of Life that One ate from, perhaps, in a similar way as in the beginning, ultimately renders one imperfect.
I hope my thoughts don't seem too much garbled. I presented this idea, to you especially, because I'm confident you would offer it a fair hearing, as well as an honest opinion toward the degree of its possibility.
* I wrote this in immediate response, but a commercial break delayed my reply 1 hr 13 mins, and now I see exactly where the site broke for commercial. Luckily, I saved it in its entirety so I could pick the thought up again.
Coming from reading brightfame's new thread, does rom 5:18 teach that christ died for all men without except? led me to a thought that I'm sure is not coincidental in happening to find being touched on here, the state of being "perfect," which I think does well to arbitrate? the difference between all that Christ died for and those that are saved. Lucifer was created perfect and so, I assume, was 'saved' at one time until, shall we call it an imperfection was found in him.
And that in turn generated a consideration of what might have been, exactly, the flaw that proved so fatal. He certainly must've believed that he was perfect but, I think, that he no longer believed that he was 'made' perfect which would have implied an adequate acknowledgement of the Source of his perfection and so his delusional notion that he could 'rise above' the source of all things and assume the position as his own creator.
Having only just now dawned on me, this idea is very much new but I think worth contemplating wherein I could reach the conclusion to the referenced question. I've lately suspected the truth as having something to do with, "Yes, Christ died for all men without exception, and all were made perfect without exception (by One Man)." Just as in the (first) beginning, except this time it is not the one eating of the forbidden tree that renders all fallen as (...and might have its being forbidden had something to do with the serpent being found there?) as it is, this new thing, that refusing to eat of this revealed Tree of Life that One ate from, perhaps, in a similar way as in the beginning, ultimately renders one imperfect.
I hope my thoughts don't seem too much garbled. I presented this idea, to you especially, because I'm confident you would offer it a fair hearing, as well as an honest opinion toward the degree of its possibility.
Regarding what you're saying, the 'already and not yet' concept from Scripture also comes to mind in the sense of we're already raised and seated with Christ, but not yet there (Eph2). And in the same conceptual mode switching back to perfection, Heb10:14 comes to mind.
So, yes, I think things having to do with perfection are well worth contemplating especially because of this eschatological reality we exist in in Christ the one who has been perfected Heb5:9. We exist in His perfection and are being conformed to His likeness Rom8:29 - already & not yet. So, viewed from the already, I contemplate along with your thoughts.
Re: Rom5:18, most all of this reformed input we're getting here IMO is just detrimental to proper understanding and has to be viewed from the 'on the other hand' perspective. IOW it teaches us what not to think.
There is most certainly the counter-thought that Rom5:18 means precisely what it says - that what Jesus did instituted the new humanity for all and replaced the old race in Adam. Rom5:17 sets the condition of receipt of the grace gift.
So, if we again take this back to perfection, His perfection is there for the taking/receiving and the perfect in Christ in Spirit will be pursuing perfection. And in-line with what I think you're saying, will be well aware of how we were made perfect and apart from Him would never have been perfect. We will have an appreciation to say the least for what we were saved from and saved to. In part I think at some point along the way to perfection/maturity (Heb5) and beyond to perfection/arriving at the resurrection (Phil3) we do get a glimpse of what we're leaving and on the other hand what we're heading towards and already have in Him.
I hope I've understood you correctly and have answered as such.
Interesting contemplations...
I have noted many corners such as this one, and I am more concerned about harmonizing apparently contradictory Scripture
than many on CC including you, but you reject my explanations in #20, 33, 56, 75, etc.
Regarding your question: "How can God at once and in the same sense love some people conditionally and others unconditionally?"
A - The few verses that indicate conditional love have a different sense or meaning, namely "forgiveness" or "oneness".
Thus, God's nature does not change. God loves the sinless Son because They are One, and God becomes One with repentant sinners
who believe = reflect His love and are therefore forgiven.
than many on CC including you, but you reject my explanations in #20, 33, 56, 75, etc.
Regarding your question: "How can God at once and in the same sense love some people conditionally and others unconditionally?"
A - The few verses that indicate conditional love have a different sense or meaning, namely "forgiveness" or "oneness".
Thus, God's nature does not change. God loves the sinless Son because They are One, and God becomes One with repentant sinners
who believe = reflect His love and are therefore forgiven.
So...since by your own admission you (and the rest of us) have not attained to experiential perfection in this "already" eschatological state then this must mean that we nonetheless have attained to perfection in another sense of the "already", i.e. positionally -- that is to say by virtue of us being united with Christ by the Holy Spirit and being imputed with Christ's perfect righteousness, which is strictly of God's doing (1Cor 1:30). Therefore, existential perfection will only be attained at the resurrection -- in the eschatological "not yet". The resurrection of the just involves far more than just obtaining a new body or even a radically new kind of body (i.e. spiritual)! Man will finally attain to to the completeness of his Creator when he receives his new nature -- a nature that will literally hate all that is evil and love only what is good all the time under all circumstances -- just as our Creator and Redeemer himself does! All redeemed mankind will finally be empowered to always perfectly obey Christ's command to be "perfect" as His Father is (Mat 5:48); and this perfection most certainly would entail being as holy as God himself is, for without existential holiness no one will see God (Heb 12:14; Lev 11:45; 19:2; 1Cor 1:2; Eph 1:4; 1Pet 1:15-16; Rev 22:11).