Agape Love is the Type Used to Love the Darkness?

[Moseme]

I agree with this definition. I prefer the simpler definition: "a volition to favor".

Preample1: Definition of "hate": "A volition to disfavor".
Strictly speaking, wrath/hate is not an attribute of God’s nature, but is his “holy justice against sin”. Joel Beeke Reformed Systematic Theology

Preample2: “A love of holiness cannot be without a hatred of everything that is contrary to it. As God necessarily loves himself, so he must necessarily hate everything that is against himself; if he did not love his image, and loathe what is against his image, he would loathe himself, he would be an enemy to his own nature.

Answer: No, God does not take willful delight (volition to favor) in the children of Satan. He Hates (volition to disfavor) said children.
Leviticus 20:23; Psalm 2:4-9; Psalm 11:4-5,6; Psalm 11:5; Psalm 58:10a; Proverbs 3:32a; Proverbs 6:16–19; Nahum 1:2; Hosea 9:15; Malachi 1:3-4; John 3:36; Romans 9:13; Romans 9:22; 1 Corinthians 16:22; Revelation 14:10, 11; Revelation 18:20; Psalm 5:4; Psalm 7:11; Psalm 11:5-7; Habakkuk 1:13


Aside: I don't accept the terminology in the premise ... specifically the wording "create them to do evil". I prefer the word "allowed" instead of "created".

Answer: No. Same logic as previous answer. God is Holy and just. He cannot love (volition to favor) who He hates (volition to disfavor).

Using the word allow instead of create implies that they actually have a choice to be allowed. According to your doctrine thus is not the case. According to your doctrine we do not have any choices that God hasn't already decided for us before we were born.

And why would God (in your doctrine) hate sin when he was the one who decided that Adam would sin before creating Adam. According to your doctrine your God is directly responsible for the existence of sin and evil. And your God hates the children of satan, though they are only children of Satan because your God has decided that for them. Your God creates people for the sole purpose of hating them and having them spread more evil. That is why your God is an evil God.

Thankfully your doctrine is wrong.

 

[Moseme]

I do think you are onto something with pointing out delight, but willful delight? How does one will delight? Seems to me delight comes from seeing something we really like and our un-willed response is delight. E.g. I see my toddler grandson walk around with a bucket on his head and I feel delight in who he is and smile at what he's doing. I don't see myself willing it; it just happens. I guess I'm seeing delight, goodwill, and benevolence not necessarily being agape, but rather the manifestations of agape. They are fruit, but what's the root?

That particular quote came from your friend fastfredy. I was only quoting it myself. You have to ask him lol.

 

[Quantrill]

The question at hand is:



In my opinion the discussion is "what is the definition of agape love" and Hospes brings up the interesting point that whatever your definition is, the definition must allow for agape love being a sinful thing in some circumstances as pointed out by John 3:19-20.

Yes. It is good to get the definition right. But I don't see why it is an issue.

In (John 3:19-21) contrast is made between light and darkness. But in (Matt. 6:23) light can darkness. It just depends on how it is used.

Same can be said with the word 'lord'. It depends on who is being addressed.

Quantrill

 

[Hospes]

"What is agape if it can be the motive for a person choosing darkness so that they can hide their evil?"

I don't understand how agape love can help them hide their evil? Do you mean people who will act very nice polite and helpful, but stab you in the back in a heartbeat?

I am not claiming it helps them hide their evil. I am trying to accurately restate what I see in John 3:19-20.

John 3:19–20 (ESV)​

And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.​

​

There are people that agape the darkness because they do not agape the light and do not want their evil works to be exposed, i.e. they desire to "hide their evil."

Agape love wont lie to you. Agape love is loyal and trustworthy, it can (and has) inspired one to defend another who is wrong.

If you define agape as a love that can only be good, then you'd be correct. But in vs19, Jesus uses agape to describe a love for the darkness. So clearly, agape is not good when the object of the agape is not good.

Now that may give an initial knee jerk but consider that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. So that is an extreme example of agape love.

I agree totally.

So in your example, those people are simply liars. They have no agape love within them.

But Jesus says they agape love the darkness, so they do have agape love in them and its object of love is darkness, i.e. evil.

 

[Hospes]

Yes. It is good to get the definition right. But I don't see why it is an issue.

For me, it's not so much an issue needing resolved, as much as a pursuit for having a more full understanding of a extremely important word used often in scripture.

 

[Hospes]

I agree with this definition. I prefer the simpler definition: "a volition to favor".

Preample1: Definition of "hate": "A volition to disfavor".
Strictly speaking, wrath/hate is not an attribute of God’s nature, but is his “holy justice against sin”. Joel Beeke Reformed Systematic Theology

Preample2: “A love of holiness cannot be without a hatred of everything that is contrary to it. As God necessarily loves himself, so he must necessarily hate everything that is against himself; if he did not love his image, and loathe what is against his image, he would loathe himself, he would be an enemy to his own nature.

Answer: No, God does not take willful delight (volition to favor) in the children of Satan. He Hates (volition to disfavor) said children.
Leviticus 20:23; Psalm 2:4-9; Psalm 11:4-5,6; Psalm 11:5; Psalm 58:10a; Proverbs 3:32a; Proverbs 6:16–19; Nahum 1:2; Hosea 9:15; Malachi 1:3-4; John 3:36; Romans 9:13; Romans 9:22; 1 Corinthians 16:22; Revelation 14:10, 11; Revelation 18:20; Psalm 5:4; Psalm 7:11; Psalm 11:5-7; Habakkuk 1:13


Aside: I don't accept the terminology in the premise ... specifically the wording "create them to do evil". I prefer the word "allowed" instead of "created".

Answer: No. Same logic as previous answer. God is Holy and just. He cannot love (volition to favor) who He hates (volition to disfavor).

I like the "volition to favor", though I'd like to go one level deeper and explore what causes the volition.

Seems to me the volition to favor something comes from us seeing value/worth in it. For that matter, we have "volition to disfavor" toward something in which we see no value/worth. We pick up a $5 bill on the sidewalk and we avoid the dog scat on the sidewalk. (Good life lesson to not get that backwards!)

 

[Hospes]

Having been one of the participants in the "rabbit trail", the original question to me was regarding the above mentioned John 3:19.

Glad to see you followed the trail here!

I still think my thoughts regarding agape love being a love of total commitment and a holistic dedication to sacrifice for the benefit of the object of our love holds true. That is what God's love is for us, but it is also what our love for ourselves looks like. We will sacrifice anything to make sure we get what we think we want, as God sacrificed all he had to to benefit the object of his love. Agape is the same in both cases, but the object toward which the agape focused is the difference. Self-seeking agape is not true agape, but the commitment level and willingness to sacrifice for the sake of the object of its love is the same.

TD, I think you are dead nuts on. (In order to avoid being banned, let me explain the term dead nuts is a firearm and machinist term that means "zeroed in" or "absolutely accurate.")

As I wrote to Fastfredy0, I think there is some rich oar to be mined in asking what in us moves us to a "total commitment and a holistic dedication to sacrifice for the benefit of the object of our love holds true."

What caused the man to joyfully sell everything and buy the field? What caused the man to sell everything - to make a "total commitment and a holistic dedication to sacrifice for the benefit of the object" - to buy the pearl?

Matthew 13:44–46 (ESV)​

“The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field."​

​

“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it."​

 

[Fastfredy0]

Using the word allow instead of create implies that they actually have a choice to be allowed.

I don't agree. I can "allow" you to kill someone or I can stop you. You have a choice regardless of my choice to intervene or not. I decide if your choice is executed. A "choice" does not necessarily conclude in the execution of said choice.

The premises in the rest of your post show you don't understand 'reformed' doctrine. But, this thread is about the definition of "agape love" keeping in mind the definition should encompass John 3:19-20 where one can love 'agape' evil.

My definition of agape: A volition to favor
My definition, though possibly incorrect, does account to the possibility of loving (volition to favor) evil.
Aside: My definition of 'hate and wrath' is a volition to disfavor.
So those the love evil in John 3:19-20, by my definition, cannot hate evil.

So, join the thread and throw out your thoughts on the topic at hand.

 

[Fastfredy0]

I like the "volition to favor", though I'd like to go one level deeper and explore what causes the volition.

Seems to me the volition to favor something comes from us seeing value/worth in it. For that matter, we have "volition to disfavor" toward something in which we see no value/worth. We pick up a $5 bill on the sidewalk and we avoid the dog scat on the sidewalk. (Good life lesson to not get that backwards!)

Well, getting a little off topic. "Volition" is getting into the "why of love" as opposed to "what is love".

My definition of why God loves is it is an intellectual (passionless) disposition to favor according to the loveliness (I can live with VALUE) of the object (God himself and those “in Christ” being the most lovely). Who does God love? Himself as he is the most lovely (or valuable as you say). Those "in Christ" have the righteousness of Christ imputed to them and are also greatly loved (valued).

Aside: Passionless does not mean without emotion; rather, not emotional. (may not want to go down this road *weak smile*
Re: Dog scat ... agreed, many the time it got stuck in my PF Flyers (ah, running shoes) as a kid

 

[Fastfredy0]

I still think my thoughts regarding agape love being a love of total commitment and a holistic dedication to sacrifice for the benefit of the object of our love holds true.

I am good with this definition. I would make one slight modification. I would take out "to sacrifice".
Sacrifice is a loss or something you give up, usually for the sake of a better cause. Many the things God gives us for our benefit are not a sacrifice. Example: The rain and water we drink. I don't see it as God giving something up.

I would be happy with: Agape is a total commitment and a holistic dedication to sacrifice for the benefit of the object of our love .

Maybe we should convene a SYNOD. *giggles*

 

[Hospes]

Maybe we should convene a SYNOD.

I don't know about that; I've heard they can get pretty intense.

 

[Hospes]

I am good with this definition. I would make one slight modification. I would take out "to sacrifice".
Sacrifice is a loss or something you give up, usually for the sake of a better cause. Many the things God gives us for our benefit are not a sacrifice. Example: The rain and water we drink. I don't see it as God giving something up.

I think you are touching on a profound aspect of agape shown for God.

I love to backpack. When I go out and buy a nice tent, in a sense I am sacrificing something for backpacking, but I do it gladly because of the object of my love, i.e. backpacking. The love I have transforms me losing $$ - for my new tent - from something that normally is not a pleasure, to pleasure.

To love God supremely transforms my "sacrifices" to Him into a joy; the whole sense of loss due to sacrifice disappears because I now see my sacrifices for Him as a means of gaining Something of infinite worth. Love for God moves us to say with Paul

"But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish [i.e. of no worth/value/lovliness], in order that I may gain Christ [i.e. of infinite value/lovliness] and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Philippians 3:7–11 (ESV)​

​

Of course, the stuff in [brackets] is not scripture, just me editorializing.

 

[stovebolts]

Sacrifice is a loss or something you give up, usually for the sake of a better cause.

That is certainly one way to look at it.
It's odd, there is no real Hebrew word for sacrifice in the way your defining it.

In Hebrew thought, it means "to draw near".

Take Jesus on the cross as an example. We can certainly use your definition. However, we could also say that what occured on the cross draws us near to God. The cross serves the same function as the Altar.

I think it's about perspective. And both are valid perspectives.

 

[TibiasDad]

What caused the man to joyfully sell everything and buy the field? What caused the man to sell everything - to make a "total commitment and a holistic dedication to sacrifice for the benefit of the object" - to buy the pearl?

I don't think that love is "caused", and I think "the pearl" is a thing of such obvious value that the man does whatever is necessary to purchase the land in which the pearl lies. Love has a volitional element, it is something that we choose to do because of the value we see in the object of our desire. We cannot be caused to love, we can be enticed, and shown the value of someone/something, but we must choose to invest, commit ourselves to that person/thing.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

I am good with this definition. I would make one slight modification. I would take out "to sacrifice".
Sacrifice is a loss or something you give up, usually for the sake of a better cause. Many the things God gives us for our benefit are not a sacrifice. Example: The rain and water we drink. I don't see it as God giving something up.

I would be happy with: Agape is a total commitment and a holistic dedication to sacrifice for the benefit of the object of our love .

Maybe we should convene a SYNOD. *giggles*

The element of sacrifice does not infer that all things are a loss to the giver in some way. But the element of sacrifice is the element that raises and differentiates agape from all other types of love. It is the prodigal God's type of love that would sacrifice his own Son and thereby lavish us with love. " Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends". (Jn 15:13) In reference to "friends" one would assume that phileo would be employed here, but agape is used, raising agape above phileo by !sans of sacrifice.
Without sacrificial elements, it cannot be agape!

Doug

 

[Moseme]

I don't agree. I can "allow" you to kill someone or I can stop you. You have a choice regardless of my choice to intervene or not. I decide if your choice is executed. A "choice" does not necessarily conclude in the execution of said choice.

The premises in the rest of your post show you don't understand 'reformed' doctrine. But, this thread is about the definition of "agape love" keeping in mind the definition should encompass John 3:19-20 where one can love 'agape' evil.

My definition of agape: A volition to favor
My definition, though possibly incorrect, does account to the possibility of loving (volition to favor) evil.
Aside: My definition of 'hate and wrath' is a volition to disfavor.
So those the love evil in John 3:19-20, by my definition, cannot hate evil.

So, join the thread and throw out your thoughts on the topic at hand.

I have made commits on the OP. But I find your explanation of allowing or intervening to be avoiding the issue of an evil God that is presented by your doctrine. Regardless of what God allows or intervenes against, according to your doctrine there would be no evil to allow or disallow without god first deciding that we will commit an evil act so that God can then choose whether to allow or disallow. The problem isn't how god responds to evil but how he created it to begin with by choosing that we WILL choose evil.

 

[Moseme]

I don't agree. I can "allow" you to kill someone or I can stop you. You have a choice regardless of my choice to intervene or not. I decide if your choice is executed. A "choice" does not necessarily conclude in the execution of said choice.

The premises in the rest of your post show you don't understand 'reformed' doctrine. But, this thread is about the definition of "agape love" keeping in mind the definition should encompass John 3:19-20 where one can love 'agape' evil.

My definition of agape: A volition to favor
My definition, though possibly incorrect, does account to the possibility of loving (volition to favor) evil.
Aside: My definition of 'hate and wrath' is a volition to disfavor.
So those the love evil in John 3:19-20, by my definition, cannot hate evil.

So, join the thread and throw out your thoughts on the topic at hand.

Sorry I did not see the last part where you said that you didn't want to discuss this subject in this thread.

 

[Hopeful]

This thread is actually the continuation of a rabbit trail a number of us headed down in a separate thread. It got interesting/enjoyable enough to think it is worth its own thread.

The pop evangelical culture I grew up in defined agape love as "God's type of love" and held it up as kind of a gold standard of the various forms of love. (Mind you, there are some very good and Biblical reasons for this.) But with time I am thinking this is an overly-simple definition.

In John 3:19, Jesus uses the word agape for describing the affinity that evil-acting persons have for the darkness. In this verse, the idea that agape is Godlike love falls way short of meaningful, much less useful.

John 3:19–20 (ESV) [Jesus speaking to Nicodemus]​

And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved [agape] the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.​

So, really, what is agape if you can use it to stay in darkness because you want to hide your evil?

It seems the definition of "agape" love is "fervent" love.

 

[Hospes]

It seems the definition of "agape" love is "fervent" love.

Not that I disagree, but what leads you to think fervency is necessary? Again, not trying to argue, just wanting to understand what you mean by fervent and why you think it's part of agape.

 

[Hospes]

I don't think that love is "caused", and I think "the pearl" is a thing of such obvious value that the man does whatever is necessary to purchase the land in which the pearl lies. Love has a volitional element, it is something that we choose to do because of the value we see in the object of our desire. We cannot be caused to love, we can be enticed, and shown the value of someone/something, but we must choose to invest, commit ourselves to that person/thing.

Doug

Maybe "caused" is the wrong word. I guess what I find in myself and in my observation of others is that what we see as having high worth/value, we desire and are willing to give up things of lesser worth/value to attain. Maybe with the exception of severe mental disfunction, it seems this is universally true for everyone. I have no argument with us making a choice to give up things of lesser value to attain things of greater value. I just don't know how a person can make a choice for doing the opposite. I think the very nature of choice requires an evaluative process that determines the relative value between objects and then always choosing the object of greater value. Even for the Marine who belly flops onto a grenade, he made a choice to pursue the option he thought of highest value.

In John 3:19-20, Jesus spoke of persons evaluating what He called darkness and light and they chose the darkness because darkness was of higher value than the light. If they had seen the light as more valuable to themselves, then I believe I can predict with 100% accuracy they would have chosen the light. Because that is the way "choosing" works.