Now's good - byHismercy

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Technically not a mistake, because it does mean God's love. It is often used to describe God's love, but can be used in a negative context. Still, given that the word is not used negatively in 1 Cor 13, I don't really see the relevance of your additional information.

So based on the part highlighted in bold which you wrote, you probably agree with me that Ohio is wrong when he said:

" there is no reference to God's love in this section of I Cor 13".

Here comes the infamous LC-style terminology twisting again.

If Ohio means there is no literal reference to God's love in 1 Cor 13, then he is not wrong. (Sorry, may be I am doing the word play I learned from LC too. I'd better leave it to Ohio himself to comment what he truly meant.)

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Here comes the infamous LC-style terminology twisting again.

If Ohio means there is no literal reference to God's love in 1 Cor 13, then he is not wrong. (Sorry, may be I am doing the word play I learned from LC too. I'd better leave it to Ohio himself to comment what he truly meant.)

Or we could say, in English, Ohio is correct. In Greek however, Ohio is wrong because there are different words for love and the meaning should be apparent.

But whether or not 1 Cor 13 refers to God's love is really not the point. The point is - can God's love be separated from God's person? I would say no because Scripture says "God is love", indicating that love is not just something God does, but something God is.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Or we could say, in English, Ohio is correct. In Greek however, Ohio is wrong because there are different words for love and the meaning should be apparent.

Dear brother, I really don't know what to do with you. After pointing out all the scripture references showing the Greek word agape does not always mean God's love, you still insist. Since when gotquestions.org became a more authoritative source of truth than the scripture?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But whether or not 1 Cor 13 refers to God's love is really not the point. The point is - can God's love be separated from God's person? I would say no because Scripture says "God is love", indicating that love is not just something God does, but something God is.

Paul also said in Rom 8 nothing can separate us from God's love. So if love is the person of God, and we cannot be separated from it, so we are person of Love, and then we are the person of God?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Since when gotquestions.org became a more authoritative source of truth than the scripture?:

ALB,

Don’t kid yourself. Everyone here is having a scriptural conversation.

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

ALB,

Don’t kid yourself. Everyone here is having a scriptural conversation.

Drake

I certainly hope we are having a scriptural conversation, but couldn't help wondering given Evangelical's response.

BTW, hope my discussion with Evangelical hasn't interrupted the discussion with you. Feel free to continue with what we were discussing previously.

Apologies to byHismercy too. Hope I didn't hijack your thread too far away.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I certainly hope we are having a scriptural conversation, but couldn't help wondering given Evangelical's response.

BTW, hope my discussion with Evangelical hasn't interrupted the discussion with you. Feel free to continue with what we were discussing previously.

Apologies to byHismercy too. Hope I didn't hijack your thread too far away.

ALB,

Just because Evangelical disagrees with you does not mean he is not having a scriptural discussion and you are. That gets stated in this forum now and again as if ones opinion from reading the Bible is more worthy than someone else’s.

On our last chat, I had nothing more to contribute. What you believe and why is clear.

Thanks
Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

ALB,

Just because Evangelical disagrees with you does not mean he is not having a scriptural discussion and you are. That gets stated in this forum now and again as if ones opinion from reading the Bible is more worthy than someone else’s.

On our last chat, I had nothing more to contribute. What you believe and why is clear.

Thanks
Drake

An informed opinion is more worthy than an uninformed one.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

Just because Evangelical disagrees with you does not mean he is not having a scriptural discussion and you are. That gets stated in this forum now and again as if ones opinion from reading the Bible is more worthy than someone else’s.

I understand what you mean. But I don't quite understand why things simple as a word not always having the same meaning can cause so much disagreement. Anyway, I don't intend to further continue that discussion. Enough has been said.

Originally Posted by Drake

On our last chat, I had nothing more to contribute. What you believe and why is clear.

May I know then what you believe on the topic of Satan indwelling flesh? Any difference from what WL taught?

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I certainly hope we are having a scriptural conversation, but couldn't help wondering given Evangelical's response.

BTW, hope my discussion with Evangelical hasn't interrupted the discussion with you. Feel free to continue with what we were discussing previously.

Apologies to byHismercy too. Hope I didn't hijack your thread too far away.

Please, hijack away. Bedtime calls us here. But it is not a person.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Dear brother, I really don't know what to do with you. After pointing out all the scripture references showing the Greek word agape does not always mean God's love, you still insist. Since when gotquestions.org became a more authoritative source of truth than the scripture?

I already agreed with you that it does not always mean God's love and we have already established that the word agape in 1 Cor 13 refers to God's love. So "agape does not always mean..you still insist" is not relevant, is it? In 1 Cor 13, the word agape, always means, God's love. Paul must have thought it obvious to any Greek reader that he was referring to God's love, because he used the word agape. This is because the Greek word agape was hardly ever used in Greek-speaking societies but in the New Testament it is used over 300 times. So it would be unlikely for a Greek speaker to wrongly interpret the word 'agape' as a natural kind of human love.

I think it is correct to say:

There is no literal reference to God's love in the English translation of 1 Cor 13.
There is literal reference to God's love in the Greek of 1 Cor 13 because of the words special meaning and special use by Paul.

Still, it does not bode well for anyone to be arguing from the English translation while being ignorant of the Greek because they miss the meaning completely: the intention of Paul in 1 Cor 13 was to apply God's agape love to the situation at hand, and not to provide a generic definition of natural human love.



Gotquestions.org has some credentials:


All of our answers are reviewed for biblical and theological accuracy by our staff. Our CEO, S. Michael Houdmann, is ultimately accountable for our content, and therefore maintains an active role in the review process. He possesses a Bachelor's degree in Biblical Studies from Calvary University and a Master's degree in Christian Theology from Calvary Theological Seminary (Kansas City, MO).

Originally Posted by A little brother

Paul also said in Rom 8 nothing can separate us from God's love. So if love is the person of God, and we cannot be separated from it, so we are person of Love, and then we are the person of God?

A person may say "Nothing can separate us from God's love" or "Nothing can separate us from God", because "God is love".