How We Can Tell If We Possess The Agape of God

If you are willing to die for a person would be a good starting question

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." - John 15:13

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

Great idea. Let's take a look:
But does not your OP do exactly that?

At the core of your argument the OP twisted an eschatological discourse (The Olivet discourse=Matthew 24) into a soteriological debate; Jesus is speaking of the desolations that Jerusalem will undergo during the days of vengeance (there are hundreds of OT references about this). Through righteousness, those who trust in God's faithfulness will be delivered (saved) from these horrible events:

Again...he (Jacob= The remnant of Israel) will be saved from it ("it" = the time of distress=the day of vengeance=when Jerusalem undergoes desolations).

To clarify, you decided to open up a discussion on Matthew 24:12-13.
If you have contextual evidence that Jesus intended to convey a soteriological meaning/that this salvation is from hell, rather than from the events of this passage, please inform us.

P.S.

wrong ...we are new creatures, reborn, fashioned in Christ's image ... you believe in trying to tame the old creature with laws

First, what I'm saying about Matthew 24:12 KJV is not conjecture; it's a fully Biblical, hermeneutical conclusion. No where in Scripture is "agape" attributed to the wicked, period. What is attributed to the wicked is "agapao" (John 3:19 KJV) --- from which "agape" is derived -- and some here have desperately attempted to make these two words equal in order to establish that the wicked can possess and practice "agape"; an extrapolation so ludicrous it's possibly never been heard of until now. It's no different than evolutionists claiming cyclic change within an organism (micro-evolution) can be extrapolated to "prove" an amoeba can eventually change into an elephant (macro-evolution).

Others who recognize how nonsensical that idea is admit these "many" are Saints, but deny Jesus' clear contrast of the fates of those in verse 12 and 13 - the one "saved" and the other obviously not saved. If Jesus didn't mean that, what purpose does His statement serve? Why would he say, "My children, because of iniquity, some of you will continue to be on fire while some of you will fizzle, but you're all still going to heaven" but then turn around and tell the Laodiceans that He will reject anyone who's "lukewarm"?

Secondly, this thread is about about "agape" - more specifically, the "agape' of those in Matthew 24:12, but there are several examples of Saints that will not make it to heaven in the OT and NT. Would you like to discuss them?

You do realize that entire Doctoral Theses have been written on the analysis of just a single verse, right? Are you going to overthrow a history of theological practice by claiming they, too, had an ax to grind?

And, again, how much time did Jesus spend talking about Spiritual salvation and Physical Salvation? The answer is 3 1/2 years to ZERO. He told the church of Smyrna to be faithful to death, and get a crown of life. But, somehow you think He's talking about "physical, bodily" salvation in Matthew 24, when it's not the body that is a problem for Jesus -- He can resurrect them, make them, recreate them, make dead arms and legs work again, etc.....it's our stubborn will, our rebellious heart that has been giving Him fits.

OSAS does not believe that

I do not need to be mad at you. I actually feel sorry for you. Because your pride is so deep you can not figure out your mistake.. And you will not repent of your continuous slander against me and those like me who you continue to bear false witness against.

Basically. You hurt your own testimony every time you do it. so yeah. I feel sorry for you

As I stated in my last post, all three persons of the Trinity are involved in the salvation of a person. A transformation of the heart occurs accompanied with a new motivation for living. That motivation is confidently exhibited by that agape love for God and People, and the desire to do the Father's will. To go counter OSAS is to deny the power of the Holy Spirit of God for He holds together those who are in the body of Christ. That could be dangerous.
Unfortunately, people can believe with just their head, or fear of going to hell , but once the above transformation occurs, you belong to God and are part of His family in a state of being similar to Jesus because His Spirit is in us and we are under His yoke. He steers us and strengthens us to do the Father's will. A true believer puts faith in God above his life on this earth.

In case you are not already doing this, please read my entire responses before responding to just part of it. I noticed that you haven't responded to the Scriptural defense against your personal interpretation of the passage:

Concerning those who took the Word of God out of context, yes (2 Pet 3:16; Jam 3:1). The length of an explanation does not increase its legitimacy. So whether it's a syllogism, sermon, or thesis, every conclusion should be consistent within its own context. To be clear, my aim is not to disregard the position you are arguing for. Rather, I am defending the text you are using to justify it. I happen to disagree with the position, but the purpose of my responses is aimed at the meaning of what Jesus said in Matthew 24:12-13. So I hope you don't see my response as an argument against your soteriological position. I'm merely pointing out that you should use a passage that actually is about the subject you are bringing up.
Did you know the Bible says "there is no God"?. (With Conext= "The fool says in his heart 'there is no God'"). In short, your OP does the same. So I encourage you to go and find a passage that (in context) affirms your position.
Yeah...I kind of already addressed this in sharing a few references to the future events Jesus is telling them about. I even provided verses that emphasize the salvation aspect. This does not refer to a personal self-effort at endurance that results in one’s eternal salvation, but to physical deliverance of those who trust in Jesus during the Tribulation. They will enter the kingdom in physical bodies.
Never said it was a problem. Jesus is making a statement of fact: "people's love will grow cold...the one who endures to the end will be delivered".
The end of what?: "the end of the age' (Matt 24:3) which consummates in the Tribulation (AKA the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy, which is why we are told to understand Daniel's prophesies concerning these things...so that we don't twist the meaning of this passage (Matt 24:15-16).

Any man that can't say with utmost certainty that we're not now nor ever will be at liberty to worship the devil in place of God is not one with whom I wish to discuss anything theologically. Thanks for sharing.

Y'know, the thing about you OSAS folks is that you're experts at noncommital. You won't condemn Historicism but the Jesuits ain't wrong, either. We aren't at liberty to break the Ten Commandments but we aren't obligated to keep them. No prob, it's a free country.

Where in the world did you get that idea? It's you OSAS folks that complain God's Ten Commandments are too grievous, which is what the old man of sin would say, not the new man in Christ Jesus...

Y'know why a bridegroom can stand at the altar anxious to publicly vow marital fidelity to his bride while a single, promiscuous man watching the whole affair recoils in horror at such an idea as "too grievous" a limitation?


Love for God is shown in keeping His commandments by those who find them anything but grievous, while those who make 10,000 excuses for why "we can't keep the Ten Commandments" demonstrate their hatred for the idea of faithfulness to only God no less than the man who can't wait to seduce one of the bridesmaids after the ceremony.

You believe in showing faith without works, which is dead faith: you believe faith is demonstrated by boldly sinning and then obnoxiously insisting God's grace will cover it...which faith is in vain, just like that OSAS woman my dad once spoke with not long after the 1997 Halle-Bopp comet event:

He told her if her "faith" in what she deemed was "God's Word" was so strong, then why spend one more second down here on this miserable planet when she could take a gun, shoot her family then herself, then they could all be with Jesus in heaven.....then he reminded her that Applewhite and the rest of those people in the Heaven's Gate cult believed Jesus was in a spaceship traveling in the tail of that comet, and they acted on their faith.

(Of course, my dad wasn't trying to convince her to harm herself or her family, but only demonstrate how full of bulldookey she was...as well as anyone else who believes they can break "thou shalt not kill" and still go to heaven.)

No it isn't. To advocate OSAS is to deny our God-given free will choice to surrender to God and then remain surrendered or withdraw it.

Good gravy, do Christians not realize the marriage institution was established to teach the human family something about the kind of intimate relationship God desires to have with us? Only two things came out of Eden: marriage and the Sabbath, and the secular world is attacking the one while the church is attacking the other.

Show me the marriage where the one loses free will to withdraw their affections from the other and I'll run circles around any of you arguing for OSAS in the face of those "deluded conditionalists".

Says the one who keeps asking about whether the "many" are saved or not, when the answer to that question is so plain in the OP, a blind man can see it.
Claiming a verse is taken out of context or tortured for the purpose of establishing an unBiblical conclusion doesn't make it's so. People claim the Earth is flat, too.
And I already told you that Jesus spent 3 1/2 years preaching spiritual salvation, 3 1/2 years telling us not to worry what man may do to us, and ZERO, NADA, ZILCH, NOT talking about physical salvation. The "many" are Saints who are going to fail to endure to the end and be lost, in Jesus' contrast to those who will be saved, and anyone not deluded with OSAS readily recognizes the contrast Jesus is making.
My goodness, you truly are a well-indoctrinated Jesuit Futurist who knows nothing of the Protestant Reformation, nothing of Protestant Historicism, and has no idea that for over 300 years, the Protestant church taught EXCLUSIVELY against Jesuit Futurism and Jesuit Preterism until just over 100 years ago, when Jesuit Futurism began to infect the non-Catholic world.

Try this: Come back from your NOON 1 hour lunch break at 3:00 PM, and when your boss angrily demands to know where you were for the last two hours, tell him you were only gone for the 1 hour, but that there was a "2 hour gap" between 12:59 and 1:00 PM. That's exactly the redonkulous argument Jesuit "Left Behind" Futurists make when they argue a 490 year prophecy is actually "483 years plus 2 thousand+ years and counting..."

@Phoneman-777 Are you saved?

Let me put it this way: I'm a Saint who plans to "endure to the end" and be saved (Matthew 24:12-13 KJV), unlike the Saints of Matthew 24:12 KJV who allow iniquity to kill their agape cold and dead, leaving them unable to endure to the end, and wind up lost.

Would you like to add anything concerning the OP topic instead of concerning yourself with things that are none of your business?

and thus lies your big theological error-

you see God as a employer who hires ( saves) you, and as long as you do your job ( good works) , don't lay out of work, be late, or go over on your break and lunchtime ( don't sin), then you always have a job.

but if you mess up enough, get lazy and slack, then the employer ( God ) will fire you ( take away your salvation and burn you forever in the lake of fire).

there is so much wrong with that view of God and salvation , and so much human based thinking, i am not qualified to try to correct it....


you need a major renewing of your mind..

Much of this is very off-topic. Can we just stick to the Bible?
If you are a man of the Word, show yourself approved; respond to the Scriptures I have presented by agreeing or conceding. If you concede, then demonstrate the correct context that I am somehow missing with these OT references.
I assumed the Bible would be sufficient common ground for us.
If you cannot do that, perhaps I will seek to establish common ground with you another way before I consider going off on these tangents you've brought up.

What is your understanding of the purpose of this conversation (Matthew 24-The Olivet discourse)? A brief summary would be great.