Posts Tagged ‘theology’

This was found on the Do Right Hyles Anderson group page, and is typical of many new agers today:

 “please consider that true love is the definition of freedom, grace, joy and acceptance in Christ … NOT bondage to rules, fear, intimidation, threats and fear.”

It is the new age definition of love without rules. In fact, you can visit Jeff Allen, a clairvoyant healer and he’ll tell you all about it http://www.spirit2spirit.com/jeff/Writing/CDADF0DD-6150-4CB2-B195-48307971E7C8.html

Love has never simply been an abstract emotional fix one experiences as a result of being free in Christ. Love is always followed by an action, and actions are only necessary when some ultimate moral axiom demands it. In John 3:16, God so LOVED the world, that he GAVE (action following the love)..and why did He give? Because a rule required it, the law/rule of satisfying a payment for sin. Romans 5:8, He commended his love toward us, and notice what follows love, while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Even in the Clairvoyant Healers’s definition of love without rules, he has to create rules to defend his definition. “But James we live by faith” even faith is described as having a law to define its effectiveness and practice (Rom 3:27; James 2:14-19)

I will not go into a major philosophical debate here as to why love requires and action based upon satisfying rules in order to define love. Those that corrupt the definition of love do so simply because they want to, period. Sin is pleasurable (for a season, pay day-someday; Heb 11:25) the fruit of the world provokes curiosity and then jealousy. Then the believer agrees with the serpent “Yeah hath God said?”. Defining love in abstract terms guarantees that nobody can tell them they are wrong because there is no standard in which to judge the conduct. And with no standard, who are you to judge my right and wrong? If that logic were to be applied consistently universally, then victims have no right to be angry, because love has no rules, and for love to be credible, it has to be equally applicable to all, and that includes the perpetrator. If he acted in “love” who are you to say he’s wrong? Or the Muslim that beheads Christian in the name of love for Allah?

John said “And THIS is love, that we walk after his COMMANDMENTS”.  2 John 6. This new emerging Christianity wants to quote the “love one another” without the “keep his commandments” part. Gods commandments prevent love from being applied arbitrarily. God is love is not intended be interpreted as applicable to the believers point of view: God is love and demonstrates His love based upon His permanent unchangeable attributes. We are not God and therefore need rules and commandments to ensure that our love is demonstrated in accordance with His holiness.

And what’s the fuss about anyway, John said His commandments are “not grievous” I John 5:3

J/A