@Andrew you may be drawing a theological distinction, but there doesn't seem to be a functional distinction, in which case the theological distinction is without any real substance.
@bruisedreed Well, here's the problem, that I meant to add to that discussion but my computer died mid-message. Thank you for reminding me. There is a reason that Paul continuously reminds us that we have not yet attained the redemption of our bodies, and the reason is that we continue to do things we want not to. If we teach, as (I think) @jlverde says, that we have free will once we repent of sin, turn to follow Messiah, and receive the Spirit, or at any time, ...
@bruisedreed then the man of weak conscience who continues to battle with his flesh, and do things he wants not to do, must come to the conclusion that either 1) he has has forsaken the faith and Yahweh and entered back into bondage to sin, or that 2) despite his earnest desire for purity and calling on Yahweh for mercy, Yahweh has not kept his promise and given him a helper, and so either Yahweh is a liar or his desire for purity and mercy and his cry was not earnest enough to be heard by him.
@bruisedreed In either case, his faith and conscience are damaged, perhaps enough to drive him from faith in the power of Yahweh to redeem him.
To me, Paul seems abundantly clear on this. The redemption of the flesh comes at the resurrection. Until then, the will of the flesh battles the will of the spirit, and so the will of the person is not free.
@bruisedreed What do you mean by "functional distinction"? That in either case, the result is the same?
@LeeWoofenden I think that God loves himself a great deal. Self-love isn't evil.
@LeeWoofenden ^ Reading that article, which is very enlightening. As a critic of science, I have to bring attention to your statement "And yet, we now know that Copernicus and Galileo were right." Actually, they were also wrong, since they placed the permanent and motionless Sun at the center of the universe. A benefit of being a critic of science is that ultimately, all scientific theories are proven to be false.
Reading an article on Emanuel Swedenborg, I came across the following fact:
It should be noted, however, that Corinthians is not included in the list of books that, according to Swedenborg, constitute the divinely inspired Biblical canon...
What list of books did, according to Swedenborg, c...
@Andrew For us fallen humans, self-love is necessary for our survival. If we don't love ourselves enough to take care of ourselves, we will die, because nobody else is likely to do it for us. Self-love does become evil, though, if we make it primary, and put ourselves and care of ourselves above love for God and love for the neighbor.
God simply doesn't need self-love. God is self-existent, and does not have to take care of himself for his own good. God is infinite, eternal, omnipotent, and so on by nature. Self-love simply isn't necessary for God. God's love is therefore for others, not for self. It's not that God doesn't love himself in the sense of disliking or hating itself. It's just that God has no need for self-love, and God doesn't waste energy on needless things.
Reading an article on Emanuel Swedenborg, I came across the following fact:
It should be noted, however, that Corinthians is not included in the list of books that, according to Swedenborg, constitute the divinely inspired Biblical canon...
What list of books did, according to Swedenborg, c...
The Upper Room
The Upper Room