"Love...is not self-seeking" 1 Cor. 13:5

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

After some time shouldn't their status of living go up if you love them with the same enthusiasm as you love yourself?

---

You only have so much income, right? How can you maintain your love of self and simultaneously put the same energy into equally loving the example of that family above? You can't....

So what should logically happen is for you to down-size your self-interests to make sure their needs were at least equivalent your own desires. That's at lest loving your neighbor with same self-love that you love yourself.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

So what should logically happen is for you to down-size your self-interests to make sure their needs were at least equivalent your own desires. That's at lest loving your neighbor with same self-love that you love yourself.

---

Ah...but your nature will prompt you to move next door to someone who has what you already have. That way no goodies would be lost....

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

We fear that if we follow Jesus in this, and really devote ourselves to pursuing the happiness of others, then our own desire for happiness will always be preempted. The neighbor's claim on my time and energy and creativity will always take priority. So the command to love my neighbor as I love myself really feels like a threat to my own self-love. Therefore something must give and in this world what gives is living for our neighbors as we do ourselves.

Rob

---

I think I am seeing a picture, as I read your posts on this issue, Robert. I see the absence of boundaries, and the concept that if we love others as Christ did, that everything we have, and all our attention and energy, will be focused on others. That was not true of Christ, by the way. Nor should it be true of us. Christ had His own identity, and had well-defined boundaries. For example, study the His dialogue with the Jews in John 8. He set aside private time, as well. And, He had His own space, away from the crowd.

The fact remains that we are individuals, with our own identity, which we need to maintain and keep healthy, in order to effectively minister to others. Jesus did that, and we need to do it as well.

David Koot

[Robert]

Quote:

---

David Koot said:

The fact remains that we are individuals, with our own identity, which we need to maintain and keep healthy, in order to effectively minister to others. Jesus did that, and we need to do it as well.

David Koot

---

And Jesus was homeless, yet He effectively ministered to others. In fact He lived only for others...something not true of yourself!

Rob

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

And Jesus was homeless, yet He effectively ministered to others. In fact He lived only for others

---

Jesus also maintained His own identity and guarded His personal boundaries. Were you aware of that, Robert?

Quote:

---

...something not true of yourself!

Rob

---

That type of comment is not appropriate, nor are you in any position to know either way. Avoid the personal attacks, and stick to the issues.

David Koot

[Robert]

Quote:

---

David Koot said:

I think I am seeing a picture...

---

I doubt it....

Again, let me restate what I have already stated:

If one really loved his neighbor as he naturally loves himself, his neighbors would have at least his wealth divided!

However, if one lived in a world with no selfishness his neighbors would reciprocate that action. Imagine the consequences - you living for others only and they living for you. A glimpse of this was seen in the early church:

Acts 4:32 Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common....34 There was not a needy person among them, [why?] for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold 35 and laid it at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need.

Please note the result of reflecting this agape among the believers:

1] There was not a needy person among them

2] as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them

So those who "had" lands before this appearance of agape within the early church, down-sized. This brought up the poor amongst the congregation. Now they had all things in common. There were no rich and no poor....The wealth was equally shared because they were experiencing God's agape love.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

If one really loved his neighbor as he naturally loves himself, his neighbors would have at least his wealth divided!

However, if one lived in a world with no selfishness his neighbors would reciprocate that action. Imagine the consequences - you living for others only and they living for you.

---

Without a doubt, someone who is experiencing the love of Christ will share his or her possessions with other who are in need. His priorities will be quite different than those of someone who is 'of the world.' I would not venture to suggest any specific formula or percentage. That is something for the Holy Spirit to direct.

Doing so would not leave such a person destitute, for a couple of reasons: firstly, his or her recognition of the importance of being a good steward, and, secondly, the Scriptural fact that as a person gives, God blesses him abundantly, more than replacing what he or she gives in Christ's name.

David Koot

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

Acts 4:32 Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul,

and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common.

...

---

With this in mind let's examine an EGW statement:

-BC- ChS

-TI- Christian Service

-CN- 14

-CT- Religious Liberty

-PR- 03

-PG- 159

Why Persecution Slumbers

The apostle Paul declares that "all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." Why is it, then, that persecution seems in a great degree to slumber? The only reason is, that the church has conformed to the world's standard, and therefore awakens no opposition. The religion which is current in our day is not of the pure and holy character that marked the Christian faith in the days of Christ and His apostles. It is only because of the spirit of compromise with sin, because the great truths of the Word of God are so indifferently regarded, because there is so little vital godliness in the church, that Christianity is apparently so popular with the world. Let there be a revival of faith and power of the early church, and the spirit of persecution will be revived, and the fires of persecution will be rekindled.

"Vital godliness"? What's different between the churches of today and the early church?

1] They understood the gospel.

2] The result was that selfless living amongst the brethren

When the SDA church, which is now Laodicea, accepts the true gospel, the result will be agape love amongst the brethren. Hence, "Here are they that keep the commandments of God".

When that happens I am sure our future leaders will denounce this "sharing" as communistic in nature, but the real issue is that exposes Capitalism for what it is: Greed and self-seeking.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

David Koot said:

Doing so would not leave such a person destitute, for a couple of reasons:

David Koot

---

It would not if it was ONLY among the congregation [as it was in the early church]. But this world is based on "self" - so if you live selflessly in the world at large, then you would experience what Christ experienced!

Quote:

---

firstly, his or her recognition of the importance of being a good steward,

---

Sounds like an excuse for selfishness? I guess Christ wasn't "a good steward"?

Quote:

---

and, secondly, the Scriptural fact that as a person gives, God blesses him abundantly, more than replacing what he or she gives in Christ's name.

---

Let's see...hmmm, I give so that I can get! Funny, that smacks with selfishness....This is why so many in the church give....The more I give, the more I get! Selfishness abounds!

[Robert]

Quote:

---

David Koot said:

secondly, the Scriptural fact that as a person gives, God blesses him abundantly, more than replacing what he or she gives in Christ's name.

---

Really? Let's go back to the RYR:

Quote:

---

As the young man turned away, Jesus said to His disciples, "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God."

---

These words astonished the disciples. [Why?] [:"red"]They had been taught to look upon the rich as the favorites of heaven[/]; worldly power and riches they themselves hoped to receive in the Messiah's kingdom; if the rich were to fail of entering the kingdom, what hope could there be for the rest of men? [COL 393]

Okay...clearly "they had been taught" that the rich are the favorites of heaven. Where did they [the Jews] get this idea?

Before I answer this question let's go to the Bible. Let's read Mark 10:23-27 :

• 23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 24 And the disciples were amazed at his words.

  But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them [:"red"]that trust in riches[:"black"] to enter into the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man [who trusts in his riches] to enter into the kingdom of God. 26 And they were astonished exceedingly, saying unto him, Then who can be saved? [1901 American Standard Version]

What does salvation [being saved] have to do with "trusting" in one’s wealth…being the favorites of heaven?

Turn to the book of the law, Deuteronomy 27:26:

• ‘Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’

  28:1 “NOW it shall be, if you will diligently obey the LORD your God, being careful to do all His commandments which I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. 2 “And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you will obey the LORD your God….

  Verse 11: And the LORD will make you abound in prosperity….

In the days of Christ a Jew was taught that if you obey God’s law [the Torah] then in return God would open up the sky and pour buckets of the green stuff into your lap. In other words the proof of being “a commanment-keeper” was your wealth. Even today “the world” tends to look at a rich man as a good man blessed of God. Hence, to the Jews a rich man was a good man .

So when Christ said, “It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man [who trusts in his riches] to enter into the kingdom of God”, the disciples fully understood His position. That’s why they were amazed! In their eyes if a rich man, blessed of God for His obedience, couldn’t make it into heaven then who could be saved.

So if any of you good commandment-keeping Adventists are looking to your wealth as proof of your goodness to enter into life, then Christ has bad news for you….

[Robert]

Quote:

---

David Koot said:

Without a doubt, someone who is experiencing the love of Christ will share his or her possessions with other who are in need.

---

You've missed out somewhere....

What did Luke say in Acts four?

32... no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common.

You are thinking in "self" mode! They didn't....They had ALL things in common! Why isn't your commandment keeping church doing this?

Rob

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

Even today “the world” tends to look at a rich man as a good man blessed of God. Hence, to the Jews

a rich man was a good man .

---

-BC- COL

-TI- Christ's Object Lessons

-CN- 28

-CT- The Reward of Grace

-PR- 03

-PG- 393

As the young man turned away, Jesus said to His disciples, "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God." These words astonished the disciples. They had been taught to look upon the rich as the favorites of heaven; worldly power and riches they themselves hoped to receive in the Messiah's kingdom; if the rich were to fail of entering the kingdom, what hope could there be for the rest of men?….

A rich man, as such, cannot enter heaven. His wealth gives him no title to the inheritance of the saints in light [i.e., it doesn't prove his righteousness]. It is only through the unmerited grace of Christ that any man can find entrance into the city of God.

[Robert]

Isn't "grace" looking a bit more attractive, unless you guys still insist on being "under law"! To be under law requires one thing: Selfless living!....It requires you to love outwardly instead of inwardly. It denounces self-love and demands "a love that is not self-seeking"!

Boy...I am glad for grace.

For those standing under grace, Paul gives balanced counsel:

Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.

Under law the above is not permissible!

Rob

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

Quote:

---

Ed Dickerson said:

Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines the word "as" 1 : to the same degree or amount

---

Ed...move out and build a nice home, equivalent to the home you have now, right next to a family living in a small single-wide trailer. Now focus your energy in loving them the same as you love yourself.

After some time shouldn't their status of living go up if you love them with the same enthusiasm as you love yourself?

Rob

---

Yes, Edward?

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

It [the law] denounces self-love and demands "a love that is not self-seeking"!

---

Exceedingly Sinful

[Robert]

At its very best, human love is self-seeking. Since we are by nature egocentric, everything we do or think, in and of ourselves, is polluted with self-love or selfishness [bTW, EGW states this*].

Socially, politically, academically, materially, economically, even religiously, we are all slaves to “our own way” [isaiah 53:6; cf. Philippians 2:21]. As we saw in the previous chapter, we are all shaped in “iniquity”; that is, we are bent toward self. Consequently, we all, without exception, fall short of God’s glory, His agape love [see Romans 3:23].

God’s love is the exact opposite. It is self-sacrificing, self-giving. That is why Christ did not cling to His equality with the Father, but emptied Himself and became God’s slave, obedient even to death on a cross [see Philippans 2:6-8]. All during His life on earth, Jesus demonstrated His Father’s agape love. This is “the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father,” that the disciples saw in Him [John 1:14]. He lived for the benefit of others; He actually became poor for our sakes, that we, through His poverty, might be rich [i.e., in heaven]. There is no self-love in God’s love....

Satan’s rebellion against God in heaven was, in reality, a rebellion against God’s agape love, which was the principle underlying the law [see Matthew 22:36-40; Romans 13:10; Galatians 5:13, 14]. Lucifer found the idea that love (agape) “is not self-seeking” [1 Conthians 13:5] too restrictive. He rebelled and introduced the principle of self-love or eros [see Ezekiel 28:15; Isaiah 14:12-14].

Ever since his fall, Satan has hated the concept of self-sacrificing love. When God restored this principle to the human race through the preaching of the gospel, Satan naturally fought against it with all his might [see Revelation 12:10-12]. The very first thing he attacked in the Christian church was not the Sabbath or the state of the dead. His onslaughts against these truths came later, but he focused first on the concept of God’s agape love.

After the apostles passed from the scene, the leadership of the Christian church fell into the hands of the church “fathers.” Most of these men were of Greek origin, and they felt insulted that the New Testament writers had ignored what they considered to be the highest form of love — Plato’s “heavenly eros” — in favor of an obscure agape. They felt that, because the apostles of Jesus were all Jews (with the exception of Luke), they didn’t really understand the Greek language and that a correction needed to be made.

Marcion, who died around 160 A.D., was the first to attempt a change. Next, Origen, who died in 254 A.D., actually altered John’s sublime statement, “God is love [agape]” to “God is love [eros].” However, the battle didn’t end there. It continued until the time of Augustine, bishop of Hippo in North Africa during the fourth century A.D. and one of the great “fathers” of Roman Catholic theology.

Augustine realized how futile it was simply to substitute eros for agape. Instead, he did something much more clever and dangerous. Using arguments from Greek logic, he combined the concept of agape with the idea of eros and produced a synthesis which he called, in Latin, caritas. (This is the source of our English word “charity,” which is the word the King James Version of the Bible most often uses to translate agape.)

Christendom accepted Augustine’s formulation, and caritas became the key definition of divine and Christian love in Roman Catholic theology. Since Augustine’s idea was a mixture of agape and eros, the gospel became perverted from “Not I, but Christ” [see Galatians 2:20] to “I plus Christ.” This concept of the gospel is still prevalent today. The moment the pure meaning of agape was corrupted, the gospel became perverted with self-love, and the Christian church lost its power and plunged into darkness. Not until the Reformation of the sixteenth century, when Martin Luther realized the problem and tried to undo Augustine’s synthesis, did the church begin to emerge into the light of the pure gospel once again. Unfortunately, the Christian church today is still, to a large degree, groping in the darkness, trying to understand the true meaning of agape and, thus, of the gospel.

By Jack

Note *

• "The religious services, the prayers, the praise, the penitent confession of sin ascend from true believers as incense to the heavenly sanctuary..."

Are these "true believers" measuring up?

• "but passing through the corrupt channels of humanity they are so defiled that unless purified by blood, they can never be of value with God."

Wait just a mintue, Ellen! Are you saying that my prayers, my praise and confession of sin are so defiled that Christ has to purify these things with His own righteousness?

• "They ascend not in spotless purity, and unless the Intercessor, who is at God’s right hand, [:"red"]presents and purifies all by His righteousness[:"black"], it is not acceptable to God."

Yes...you are saying that!

• "All incense from earthly tabernacles [i.e., true believers] must be moist with the cleansing drops of the blood of Christ [i.e., His righteousness]. He holds before the Father the censer of His own merits, [:"red"]in which there is no taint of earthly corruption [self-seeking?][:"black"]. He gathers into this censer the prayers, the praise, and the confessions of His people, and with these He puts His own spotless righteousness. Then, perfumed with the merits of Christ’s propitiation, the incense comes up before God wholly and entirely acceptable. Then gracious answers are returned."

Well...let's get real...Ellen is only writing about a "religious service" - you know - prayers, praise, the confession of sin. Surely she doesn't have our law keeping in mind?

• "Oh, that all may see that everything [:"red"]in obedience[/], in penitence, in praise and thanksgiving, must be placed upon the glowing fire of the righteousness of Christ. The fragrance of this righteousness ascends like a cloud around the mercy seat." [1SM 344]

No...not my "obedience"! It can't be! Do you mean, Ellen, that the Apostle Paul is actually right when he says, "All have sinned [:"red"]AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD"?[:"black"] Tell me you are kidding!

[Robert]

Guys...I'll make a deal with you.

If you admit that you are persistently falling short of God's agape love...if you admit that all you and I do, in and of ourselves, constitutes self-seeking and that our only hope is what Christ did 2000 years ago, I will take a vacation from this forum. If not I'll be around to challenge your so-called righteous.

Rob

[Gerr]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

Quote:

---

Robert said:

It [the law] denounces self-love and demands "a love that is not self-seeking"!

---

Exceedingly Sinful

---

[:"blue"]You have been built up a theological house of cards on one verse.

Here is how other versions render your mantra about self-seeking.

[:"red"]Love is patient; love is kind; love is not boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful...RSV

Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or pround or rude. Love does not demand its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no record of when it has been wronged...." NLT

It is not conceited (arrogant and inflated with pride); it is not rude (unmannerly) and does not act unbecomingly. Love (God's love in us) does not insist on its own rights or its own way, for it is not self-seeking;... AMP (on v.5) [/]

The same Paul you quote as saying we don't measure up contradicts your interpretation of what he said.

[:"red"]Love never hurts a neighbor, so loving is obeying all the law. Rom 13:10 NCV

Love does no wrong to anyone, so love satisfies all of God's requirements. NLT

Love does no wrong to a neighbor, therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law. RSV

Love does no harm to a neighbor, therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. NKJ

Love does no wrong to a neighbor, therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. NASB

Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therfore love is the fulfillment of the law. NIV [/]

Love has nothing to do with giving everything that one owns to the poor. In fact the same Paul says: [:"red"]"And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing." 1 Cor 13:3 NKJ [/]

Like I said before, you want to fail everyone so that you can justify your bankupt notion of no obedience required.

[/]

Gerry

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "If you admit that you are persistently falling short of God's agape love...if you admit that all you and I do, in and of ourselves, constitutes self-seeking and that our only hope is what Christ did 2000 years ago, I will take a vacation from this forum. If not I'll be around to challenge your so-called righteous."

Rebert, let us understand: At this point in time, whether or not you come here is a choice that you make. No one wishes that you would go away. No one wants to keep you out of here.

But, whether or not you contine to come and post here is also a choice that others have. It is not yours alone.

You are pushing the boundries in your personalizations, and in the comments that you made directed directly to individuals who post here. If you continue to do so, it may very well be that you will be limited in your ability to post here. I do not know, as no such decision has been made on this issue. But, do not push it.

By the way, the suggestion that you have made in my quote above is inappropriate. My expectations for your behavior are independent of what others post. I expect you to post within the limites regardless of what others post. If they go outside those limits, I can deal with them. This is exactly my expectation of everyone here.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Quote:

Ed Dickerson said:Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines the word "as" 1 : to the same degree or amount

Ed...move out and build a nice home, equivalent to the home you have now, right next to a family living in a small single-wide trailer. Now focus your energy in loving them the same as you love yourself.

---

Non-responsibe, non sequitur Please be courteous and respond. Do you contest that definition.

Please don't waste my time with unrelated editorializing.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

You are pushing the boundaries in your personalization, and in the comments that you made directed directly to individuals who post here. If you continue to do so, it may very well be that you will be limited in your ability to post here. I do not know, as no such decision has been made on this issue. But, do not push it.

---

Then to be unbiased...to be impartial...make the same requirement of Gerry and Ed....Both are extremely condescending. Just take the time to read.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Again, let me restate what I have already stated:

---

Aside from personal attacks, you never do anything but repeat yourself.

Unfortunately for your position, repetition doesn't make nonsense into sense.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Ed Dickerson said:

Quote:

---

Quote:

Ed Dickerson said:Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines the word "as" 1 : to the same degree or amount

Ed...move out and build a nice home, equivalent to the home you have now, right next to a family living in a small single-wide trailer. Now focus your energy in loving them the same as you love yourself.

---

Non-responsibe, non sequitur Please be courteous and respond. Do you contest that definition.

Please don't waste my time with unrelated editorializing.

---

I guess you are in corner. I feel for you….

Both the Bible and EGW are clear on this subject. You chose to ignore the facts. I can't help you see...only God can.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

When that happens I am sure our future leaders will denounce this "sharing" as communistic in nature, but the real issue is that exposes Capitalism for what it is: Greed and self-seeking

---

Since Cuba and North Korea are the only communist countries remaining, they must be heavenly.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Let's see...hmmm, I give so that I can get! Funny, that smacks with selfishness....This is why so many in the church give....The more I give, the more I get! Selfishness abounds!

---

Your position is self-contradicting. If people give, that's evidence of selfishness, if they don't, that's evidence of selfishness.

So it doesn't matter what people do, your silly theory condemns them.

We know who the Scriptures calls "the accuser of the brethren." Apparently you want that role.