Posted on 02/16/2021 4:30:54 PM PST by pastorbillrandles
God is Love (I John 4:8)
And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. (EXODUS 34:6-7)
God is Love.
Yet, that is not all that the Bible says about God. Scripture also reveals that, God is Light and in Him is no darkness at all.
The only true context for an understanding of the Love of God, is by factoring in the fact that God is Love, but that also Righteous, Holy, Faithful, True and He hates Evil.
The Love of God is grossly misunderstood by this generation, due to notions about Love that come from Humanism, rather than from the scripture themselves, nor from Jesus.
For example, where does the phrase “unconditional Love” come from? One would think it to be the central teaching of the Bible, if you went by popular ‘christian teaching’ which abounds these days.
The term “unconditional love” has not come from the Bible, but from an Atheistic German Psychoanalyst, named Erich Fromm. Yet millions of Christians would define God’s love in terms of it as being ‘unconditional’.
God’s love is definitely not ‘conditioned’ upon our behavior, works, past accomplishments, or personal characteristics. God loves and justifies unworthy and ungodly sinners. There is nothing in us which He sees as desirable, attractive or worthy.
But there are definitely conditions which God has set forth, to those who would receive His love, and be saved. God loved the World, but only those who believe in the Son, will have everlasting life.
There is a context to the message of God’s love, and missing out on that context leads to vast presumptions.
In the above passage from Exodus, we have a very clear revelation of the Character of God, to Moses. Moses, the man who had seen the burning bush, and who had led the people across the Red Sea and seen the mighty World Empire of Egypt brought to her knees by God’s power, had prayed to “see God’s glory”.
And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory. And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. (Exodus 33:7-8)
God told Moses He would “make all of His goodness to pass before Him”. Evidently the glory of God is his Attributes and Perfections. We are told that in the answer to Moses’ prayer, the LORD “proclaimed His name” to Moses.
Among those Attributes are the ones that our modern generation is so familiar with, Mercy, Patience, Lovingkindness,goodness… . But along side of the other stated perfections of God, he proclaims, that He (God) will by no means clear the Guilty...but instead He will certainly visit the iniquities upon the guilty… .
God is Love…God is good…God is merciful and slow to anger… whilst at the same time, God is Righteous, Holy… He will judge sin, iniquity and transgression. He will by no means “clear the guilty”.
How can God be merciful and forgiving and judgmental and righteous at the same time? How do these attributes of God reconcile? How does a loving and merciful God judge Sinners? How can a Righteous and Holy God forgive them? Does He throw out one attribute for the other?
The only reasonable answer to this dilemma, is the cross of Jesus.
There on the cross, the Righteousness of God was revealed. There we see the wrath of God poured out upon sin and evil. On that day, the Justice of God was satisfied, when He punished Jesus, who knew no sin, for us sinners. No one can accuse the Holy God of simply pushing sin under the carpet! Sin has been dealt with!
Yet we can see the mercy and Love of God at the cross of Jesus, when we realize that Jesus died for our sins, He took our place in Judgment and bore the eternal penalty that was ours to bear. “He made Him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might be made the Righteousness of God in Christ…” (2 Cor 5:21)
A righteous God cannot merely pardon sinners as an act of kindness. What about Justice and Righteousness? What about the broken law? Shouldn’t the demands of the Law of God be upheld?
God had to make a Righteous way to forgive us…He had to satisfy both mercy and Truth, the conditions had to be met, thus Jesus had to come and die for us.
One of the Psalms puts it this way,
Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other. (Psalm 85:10) The Apostle Paul proclaimed
...Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.(Romans 3:25-27)
Bump
“There on the cross, the Righteousness of God was revealed. There we see the wrath of God poured out upon sin and evil. On that day, the Justice of God was satisfied, when He punished Jesus, who knew no sin, for us sinners. No one can accuse the Holy God of simply pushing sin under the carpet! Sin has been dealt with!”
Thanks for posting.
I have always been taught that Christ endured the wrath of God on the cross, and recently I tried to find the scripture that specifically says this and could not.
The closest I could find is Psalm 89 which might be prophetically speaking of God’s wrath being poured out on Christ in verse 38. But it is not clear to me that this is certain. Clearly Christ appeased God’s wrath as the propitiation for our sins. God’s wrath was turned away from us because of His sacrifice. But is it certain that the sufferings of Christ from His Father are proof of God’s wrath being on Him?
"A sovereign preference of one, above self and above another or others."
Matthew 6:24 (AV; cf. Lk. 16:13)
No man can serveδουλεύω douleuō dool-yoo'-o two masters: for either he will hateμισέω miseō mis-eh'-o the one, and loveἀγαπάω agapaō ag-ap-ah'-o the other; or else he will holdἀντέχομαι antechomai an-tekh'-om-ahee to the one, and despiseκαταφρονέω kataphroneō kat-af-ron-eh'-o the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.It is seen here that a human can employ this ἀγάπη (agapē ag-ah'-pay)(noun) love toward something or someone that is despicable. The definition still stands. But it is also to be remarked that this kind of love, this preference, exists apart from emotion that may also accompany it.
We see a further example of the application of the definition in 1 John 2:15 (AV):
Loveἀγαπάω (verb) not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man loveἀγαπάω (verb) the world, the loveἀγάπη agapē ag-ah'-pay (noun) of the Father is not in him.Let us keep this definition of The God's ἀγάπη (noun) love well in mind when we discuss the exercise of it. That activity is not necessarily a good or beneficial activity when spun out by a human.
Furthermore realize that The God can and does love the despicable depraved condemned sinner, but never the depraved damnable things that the sinner chooses to do as the servant of Sin, as a child of the god of this world.
But The Father God graciously offers the repentant miscreant a lasting, permanent way out of the state into which he/she was born, and that is through the lovingly shed Blood of His Only Begotten Son, Jesus of Nazareth.
“It is seen here that a human can employ this ἀγάπη (agapē ag-ah’-pay)(noun) love toward something or someone that is despicable. The definition still stands. But it is also to be remarked that this kind of love, this preference, exists apart from emotion that may also accompany it.”
Or, so you assert without citation other than your own opinion.
Love is expressed through emotion as well as action. It may not be contingent upon feeling first, but it certainly is expressed through feeling.
Here is what the Bible says about people who have become emotionally numb and desensitized:
Ephesians 4:19 NKJV
who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
The Greek is apalgeo...
https://biblehub.com/greek/524.htm
Matthew 24:12 NKJV
And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.
The Greek is psucho...
https://biblehub.com/greek/5594.htm
Love that is cold or that is expressed without feeling, is not the love of God modeled for us by Christ in scripture.
A person’s emotional brokenness should not be excused away as normative to the point of redefining biblical terms to fit and excuse this emotional brokenness. The attempt to fashion a god in one’s own likeness is idolatry. God—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—is emotional and expresses His love emotionally.
unlearner, Post #5: Or, so you assert without citation other than your own opinion.
So, give me, if you can find it, a citation that proves my opinion wrong.
You can't. Now, what I've addressed here is agape being the state of having determinedly and intellectually preferred some thing, action, or person above one's own existence, welfare, or feeling; as well as above that of any other's, apart from the subject that receives preference. This kind of "love" is a matter of choice, not a matter of one's feeling about this decision.
What I cited above from 1 John 2 shows this. And, in fact your own choice of Ephesians 4:19 proves my point, that being past the emotional "feeling," there are people who choose to prefer and commit themselves to the deadness of depravity, to their own disadvantage and that of others involved. In Matthew 24:12 the agape love of many may be without emotion, but it is still agape, to sovereignly personally choose, unchangeable by others, even by The God, to prefer something or someone over and instead of one's own beneficial advantage. Emotion may or may not coexist with that choice, but it is a separate matter apart from the process of choosing.
Though you seem to stand in a pool of wilful ignorance, I have previously demonstrated to you by citing the passage recorded by the observer John, the Beloved disciple, in his gospel, when Jesus put the question to Simon bar Jonah, the errant and denying adherent:
"Simon, son of Jonas, lovestἀγαπάω, verb thou me more than these? (Jn. 21:15c,d,e AV)('These" referring to the boats, nets, and involvement with other fishers of men that he had distracted back to the old worldly occupation.) Then immediately Simon attempted to change the context from that of preferring Jesus above self and others, back into his emotional stance of pretending to have a warm affection for Jesus, without committing to place Jesus as Lord above all else:
"Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I loveφιλέω phileō, NOT ἀγαπάω thee" (Jn 21:15g,h,i AV)Ducking the commitment issue, Simon tries to substitute a deflecting emotional response, "Well, you know that I have a brotherly affection for you," that evinces no real commitment to restore Jesus as Lord and Master, but only to go along to get along by soothing another's confidence in his emotional support.restating what Strong's Concordance says about this "phileo" vs "agape" matter:
"From G5384 (philos, =friend_; to be a friend to (fond of [an individual or an object]), that is, have affection for (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling; while G25 (ἀγαπάω, sovereignly preferring one above self and others) is wider, embracing especially the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty and propriety: the two thus stand related very much as G2309 (thelō = determined will) and G1014 (boulomai = permissive will), or as G2372 (thumos = passion) and G3563 (nous = intellect) respectively; the former being chiefly of the heart and the latter of the head); specifically to kiss (as a mark of tenderness): - kiss, love.Going on in that verse, Jesus reasserted himself as Master Shepherd, seeking to obtain Simon's clear exercise of the agape process and to commit himself by issuing the command:
"Feed my lambs" (Jn 21:15k AV)Then, probing to see whether He had gotten through to Simon, Jesus inquired again, to see if Peter would cease deferring the decision to intellectually commit himself entirely to the care and commands of The Lord, no matter what he felt anout becoming a subordinate:
"Simon, son of Jonas, lovestἀγαπάω, verb thou me?" (Jn. 21:16b,c,d AV)That is, "Simon, do you sovereignly prefer me above yourself and all others?" But the obstinately resisting disobedient servant whom Jesus had omnisciently chosen years before to accompany Him, again deferred the moment of decision, thwarting the opportunity by repeating:
"Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee" (Jn. 21:16f,g,h AV)And once more, Jesus commands Simon as he would an employee, challenging him to resume the duties that he abandoned in denyig his Rabbi as He was headed for the Cross:
"Feed my sheep" (Jn 21:16k AV)Jesus is not responding emotionally or asking for an emotional response. H is looking for recommitment to His Absolute Lordship and not getting it from Simon.
unlearner, Post #5: Love is expressed through emotion as well as action. It may not be contingent upon feeling first, but it certainly is expressed through feeling.
What kind of "love" are you talking about. Agape love is not about feeling, it is about thinkig, conviction, and commitment, as regarding the Christian application of the agape principle. That is found inJesus submission to The Father: "Not my willthelema be done."
That is how Jesus manifests His agape to The Father.
Unlearner, you can say to someone all you want about how much you "love" them, but until the commitment of putting another's interests above your own, as in a covenant or, say, marriage vow, the passion is really just talk, the artwork of a con man.
=========
I have a particular question for you:
How much do you know about spectroscopy? Have you any training concerning its application to the material world?
“Emotion may or may not coexist with that choice, but it is a separate matter apart from the process of choosing.”
It is impossible to love God or others in the manner the Bible commands without expressing it in our emotions.
“Though you seem to stand in a pool of wilful ignorance, I have previously demonstrated to you by citing the passage recorded by the observer John, the Beloved disciple, in his gospel, when Jesus put the question to Simon bar Jonah, the errant and denying adherent: Simon, son of Jonas, lovest, verb thou me more than these? (Jn. 21:15c,d,e AV)’These’ referring to the boats, nets, and involvement with other fishers of men that he had distracted back to the old worldly occupation.”
The Greek for ‘these’ is touton and is a demonstrative pronoun in the genitive masculine plural. ‘These’ refers to the other disciples. It is obvious by the context. Simon had boasted ad claimed that, even if all the other disciples denied Christ, he never would. He was essentially claiming to love Christ more than the other disciples loved Him. But then he denied Christ 3 times as Christ prophesied, and this is why Peter was grieved because Christ asked him 3 times if he loved Him. Also, Christ addressed his boast of being willing to die for Him by letting him know that he would do so, when he got older.
“So, give me, if you can find it, a citation that proves my opinion wrong.”
I already did so here
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3918862/posts?page=50#50
and here
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3918862/posts?page=61#61
But I will further add that we are commanded to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength. This proves that fulfilling the first commandment involves loving God with our emotions. It is not merely intellectual or a “preference”. Where else does emotion reside than in a person’s heart and soul? And if we love with ALL of our heart and soul, we must love with all of our emotion.
Additionally, we are commanded to love our neighbor as ourself. To deny that love is demonstrated emotionally is to deny that we feel any emotion toward our own selves.
Love is expressed in words. There are too many biblical examples to cite. But we are also told not to love in word only but also in deed (action) and in truth. The truth part indicates that words and deeds are not all-encompassing in their ability to demonstrate love. First Corinthians 13 gives the perfect example by telling us that a person could potentially give his body to be burned but fail to have love.
As I’ve said repeatedly, love does not depend on our feelings and emotions but it expressed by them. To deny this is to do violence to the texts about love. It is no more valid to redefine love to fit an agenda than it is to redefine marriage or to make a god in our own image. These are all false. In order to do so you would have to redefine things like hate, anger, and lust. Can a person hate or be angry without emotion? Of course not.
If an accident caused a person to lose an eye, arm, or leg, wouldn’t anyone in that situation feel grief over the loss? Then, if we love our neighbor as ourself, we would also be grieved if our neighbor lost an eye, arm, or leg. Love involves empathy, compassion, and understanding. In a word, emotion.
“Unlearner, you can say to someone all you want about how much you ‘love’ them, but until the commitment of putting another’s interests above your own, as in a covenant or, say, marriage vow, the passion is really just talk, the artwork of a con man.”
True, but again, we are to love in word, deed, and truth. Our emotions CAN deceive us. We CAN think we love God and others based on our feelings. And we can be wrong, as your example of Peter proves. However, we cannot “prefer something or someone over and instead of one’s own beneficial advantage” and love them biblically unless it is expressed emotionally. Wherever our treasure is our heart follows. If we value others above ourself, our heart will follow. We must not be led by our heart, but by the Spirit.
2 Corinthians 2:4 (NKJV)
For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you, with many tears, not that you should be grieved, but that you might know the love which I have so abundantly for you.
See how Paul expressed his love for the Corinthians? See how he says he makes the reality of this love clear to them? He expresses it in words (in the epistles he wrote), deeds (writing and weeping), and emotions (his heart was afflicted and anguished, as signified by his tears). See how loving with all our heart MUST involve our emotions because humans, like God, are emotional by nature and these emotions come from our hearts?
“Have you any training concerning [spectroscopy’s] application to the material world?”
I only have a basic understanding of it. No formal training.
See how loving with all our heart MUST involve our emotions because humans, like God, are emotional by nature and these emotions come from our hearts?
How does God define love? Take a look at this:
Mal 1:2 “I have always loved you,” says the LORD. But you retort, “Really? How have You loved us?” And the LORD replies, “This is how I showed My love for you: I loved your ancestor Jacob,
Mal 1:3 but I rejected his brother, Esau, and devastated his hill country. I turned Esau’s inheritance into a desert for jackals.”
God says, I love you by choosing you and rejecting others.
Can you just hear the sneer in the retort? “Really, how have you loved us?. Go love someone else, this doesn’t look like love to us. Go choose someone else, it is too hard being loved by you.
They wanted the emotional love.
I’ll take Gods definition of love any day over the worldly emotional love.
Now, there are many thoughts and definitions on love but this is the starting point. God defines love by choosing.
“I’ll take Gods definition of love any day over the worldly emotional love.”
It’s your redefinition of love, not God’s.
I cited endless scriptures to show why, and your comment ignores them all to cling to a false definition.
Biblical love can be categorized into 3 types:
1) romantic/sexual love as “eros” which God designed exclusively for the bond of marriage
2) familial/friendship love-often as “phileo”
3) the highest and least selfish form as God exemplifies for us is “agape”
ALL of these are good as God designed them to be. And they ALL involve our emotions. Claiming love can be emotionless makes as much sense as saying hate, anger, or lust can be emotionless. Or, for that matter, joy, which is part of the fruit of the Spirit along with love.
God designed us in His image which means that we are not merely thinking machines/computers/robots that process information but cannot feel.
Agape love (and all godly expressions of all forms of love) must bring our emotions under the control of the Holy Spirit. In so doing, love is not based on emotions or feelings but is always expressed emotionally.
Even in the extreme example of Ezekiel’s wife dying, when God commanded Ezekiel not to express his grief (in Ezekiel 24) with tears, mourning, or weeping, Ezekiel had emotion. God calls his wife the “delight of his eyes”. His conduct here was for a prophetic sign as it was extremely unusual. It also correlates to the New Testament exhortation for believers to not sorrow as unbelievers who have no hope when losing a loved one. But not one example in scripture depicts emotionless love as a positive thing.
Cold, uncaring, unfeeling love is not godly love, no matter which type of love is under discussion. It is an unspiritual, ungodly, and perverted imitation of the love taught by God.
Stoicism is an unbiblical heresy. Here is a brief discussion of the topic by John Piper, a reformed theologian and preacher:
He says: “Spiritual emotions are essential to pleasing God.” He goes on to define spiritual emotions and distinguish them from worldly emotions. He further comments: “Most unbelieving, liberal churches are not filled with emotion... millions more people perish in dead, emotionless churches than in churches that are excessively emotional.”
On the other hand, if you will please take in hand W. E. Vine's "Complete Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words," you will see that it gives an explanation of the word translated "love" completely contrary to that which you have maintained, and equivalent and complementary to that which U have given you in my discourses.
Would you please do so? And then I will continue with the principle that God is first righteous, and after that attribute has been satisfied, also able to be at peace and loving. Without righteousness, no matter how much emotion is involved, it will not be in the interest of the object of one's attention, nor will it bring to pass an agape type loving process.
Briefly, Vine elaborates on his statement that:
Excerpts:Vine goes on then to use exactly the same pericope that I used to show the difference between agapao and phileo that I used, John 21:15-17.
"God's love(referring to agapao alone) . . . is not the love of complacency, or affection, that is, it was not drawn out by any excellency in its objects, Rom. 5:8. It was an exercise of the Divine will in deliberate choice, made without assignable cause save that which lies in the nature of God Himself, cp. Deut. 7:7,8."
"Christian love(referring to agapao alone), whether exercised toward the brethren, or toward men generally, is not from an impulse from the feelings, it does not run with the natural inclinations, nor does it spend itself only upon those for whom some affinity is discovered."
"Phileo is never used in a command to men to love God; . . ."
Can you learn from this? Are you teachable?
I go on with this in the "agapao" sense, whether you or I like it or not. Agape is the "in spite of" kind of love, care, and charity (which the KJV properly uses instead of the ambiguous term "love"), preferring the other's best interests, not his or my affection or pride. If you cannot learn and only feel aggravated, I will stop, seeing that no benefit will be attained until your attitude is changed.
As The Godhead uniformly exercised this preference above what is convenient or adversarial, it is done in conjunction with His overriding, primary, inflexible attribute of righteousness, without which \He does nothing. And that is the attitude that one must adopt to properly explain His Word to others.
“I said before, and have proven by example, that agape love is choosing sovereignly to prefer one above self and others. that is a choice which may or may not coexist with an emotion. So far, nothing you have said or claimed anywhere contradicts that.”
Contrarily, I have provided unassailable proof that biblical love (including agape) is ALWAYS expressed through emotion. Your counterargument (in post #6) that cold, dead, lifeless, emotionless love is still love is no argument at all. It is love in name only. It is mere semantics devoid of real meaning. It defies the essence of what love is. Love is the culmination and highest expression of spiritual virtues. And these all entail the subordinating of emotion for good, not the annihilation of emotion. The one positive gain I’ve received from our conversations is to learn more precisely from scripture why the flavor of Christian Stoicism you are promoting is heretical. While you have some good things to say on the subject, they are ruined by your insistence upon this falsehood. I would not eat a gourmet meal from the world’s greatest chef if I knew at least one of the items in front of me contained deadly poison.
Your definition of agape love is reasonably well formulated, but the deficiency is in your ability to define love and miss the point. I’m not interested in parsing the definition. I can say a carpenter is someone who makes things from wood, and this may be a reasonable definition. But if I assert that a carpenter does not need to use his hands to be a carpenter, it would beg credulity. Similarly, to assert that agape love can exist without emotion is ludicrous. Perhaps a handless man could overcome his handicap and work with wood, though I’m unsure how. But if a man is damaged in his soul so that he has no emotion, he is truly broken and would be incapable of conveying love to others. Such a person should seek God who heals and restores souls. He should not be the naked emperor who needs others to pretend he is fully clothed.
“Can you learn from this? Are you teachable?”
You have continuously presumed to take on the role of my superior and my teacher. You are the “instructor of fools and teacher of babes” as it were. But you refuse to “teach yourself” or even receive correction from the Bible. I checked and have found no record of theological encyclopedias associated with a imardmd1 and relied upon by sound Bible schools and seminaries for their acumen. Nor have I heard of any signs of an apostle, as it were, associated with your brand that should make me acquiesce to your assertions above and apart from scripture. Have you called down fire from Heaven and I somehow missed this? If signs of your authority exist, please provide evidence so I can assume my proper role as your pupil.
In answer to your question, YES. Yes, I can learn. Yes, I am teachable. But I’m not going to accept your assertions blindly. I have examined every claim and argument you’ve made. You have ignored every one of mine. That’s not a conversation, it’s a diatribe.
An emotionless love is NOT biblical love (agape or otherwise). I have repeatedly made it clear that agape love is not based upon emotion. That part of your assertion is correct and is not new to me. It is a good reminder, but I did not learn it from you. Your assertion that agape love can exist without emotion is false. One of the primary ways all forms of love is expressed is through emotion. And to that point I have provided mountains of Biblical support.
In post #6 you asked for evidence: “So, give me, if you can find it, a citation that proves my opinion wrong.” I provided this and you have ignored it thus far.
To make my point practical I’ll let you answer for yourself (and to yourself if you prefer).
Do you shed any tears for lost souls?
Do you feel sad when a friend or family member is in pain?
Do you ever express such feelings to friends, family members, or the lost and perishing people around you?
And does your answer to these questions match the examples left for us in scripture by the apostles and Christ Himself?
While such emotions and their expressions are not proof of agape love, the lack of these is proof of being unloving.
It’s your redefinition of love, not God’s.
Mal 1:2 “I have always loved you,” says the LORD. But you retort, “Really? How have You loved us?” And the LORD replies, “This is how I showed My love for you: I loved your ancestor Jacob,
Mal 1:3 but I rejected his brother, Esau,........................
Ready in slowly and let your lips move. The people ask how you have loved us? God answers their question, by saying I chose you. This is how God defines love.
Do not rely on emotions, they change with the wind. I chose my wife to the exclusion of all others. My emotions are not feeling it today.
How does Jesus define love? If you love me, obey me. You love Jesus, choose him above everything else.
The problem is you don’t want to hear it. I agree there is more to love, but the ESSENSE of love is choosing. Then the rest makes sense.
“Ready in slowly and let your lips move”
I read the whole book of Malachi to see if there is any support for your claim that the people reproved in it were seeking a “worldly emotional love” from God rather than true love as you defined it (in post #8). I didn’t find a shred of evidence to support your claim. Nothing in the passage or book indicates that either God’s love for Israel or the love He wanted from them did not find its expression in emotions and feelings.
However, it true that false love also has emotions/feelings. The people were weeping but this was not an expression of love as God evaluates it.
“Do not rely on emotions, they change with the wind. I chose my wife to the exclusion of all others. My emotions are not feeling it today.”
I agree with this. However, your wife has emotions/feelings. She needs communication and intimacy on an emotional level just as much as (if not more than) a connection with you on an intellectual level. Further, unless you show your love for your wife in all 3 categories (I mentioned in post #9), you are not doing what God commands husbands to do.
I’ll also ask the same questions I posted in #11:
To make my point practical I’ll let you answer for yourself (and to yourself if you prefer).
Do you shed any tears for lost souls?
Do you feel sad when a friend or family member is in pain?
Do you ever express such feelings to friends, family members, or the lost and perishing people around you?
And does your answer to these questions match the examples left for us in scripture by the apostles and Christ Himself?
While such emotions and their expressions are not proof of agape love, the lack of these is proof of being unloving.
No, you have not. You have spread illogic throughout everything you have written so far, even in the sentence above, which illustrates an irrational oppositional stance against the various commentators and theologians, and yes, the Word itself which are arraigned against you.
A little birdie has told me that that you don't like rules and formulas and outlines that distinguish your lack of order in thinking. Earlier in this thread I mentioned the discipline of spectroscopy which exists because of selection rules that the God of Order has put into place to govern what exists, why things in the universe obey His rules. You might want to google on that, and learn something. Or not--it's your choice, about which I have had little influence.
But what you would learn from the rules of spectroscopy is that there are behaviors that are quite complex, but using the rules, a disciplined analyzer can separate out the irreducible responses which can combine to yield a complex behavior. For instance, the color purple is the result of white light (evenly consisting of all frequencies of the optical spectrum) which has passed into a medium which only allows blue and red colors to pass through, but not the frequencies in between. When these two primary colors pass through in about equal intensities, the human eye perceives the resultant color to be purple, a combination of the two as a single hue. But a prism can separate that light into the two components that are discrete, appearing at opposite ends of the visible spectrum.
Enlarging this principle and following the rules, under proper management we can have color photography, movies, color monitors teaching physical principles as this very display you are reading.
This is but a sliver of thwe selection rules that govern the entire electro-magnetic-mass-time continuum. But it takes understanding to master them, to be guided by them, rules which the Creator has imposed on this dimension.
God has such rules that He imposes on Himself, rules that He Himself does not disobey. If you haven't considered this, and to alert other readers who are knowledgeable, they are His attributes, primary factors irreducible to any simpler quantities. Of them, we see among them self-existence (I AM), omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, truth, and about ten others. Of the others are righteousness, goodness, and mercy, as well as "love," which in English is quite ambiguous. But in the more precise Koine Greek, there is no single word like the English word "love," and that hidden feature can cause many doctrine-poor Bible readers astray in the application of what they have read. Like yourself, in this instance.
Here, the Greek has seven discernable differentiated words, six of which occur in the New Testament. Each of these can exist without and are independent of the others. This fact is given in the chart Continuum of LOVE in The Koiné Greek Language (click here). This below is an expansion of that chart developed by a scholar who has precisely translated the whole New Testament from the Byzantine/Majority Textform:
===============
Koine Greek Words
Translated "Love" in the New Testament English
or in Common English Parlance
1. Carnal or connubial coupling called "love" - various terms
a. to "know" ghin-oce'-ko; Mt. 1:25, Lk. 1:34; (context)
b. lust ep-ee-thoo-mee'-ah; Mk. 4:19; Rm. 5:12, 7:7;
Col. 3:5; 1 Jn. 2:16
c. erotic eh-raws' (not a Bible Greek word)
2. Natural affection - stawr'-gaws; (the negative form, found only twice) Rm. 1:31, 2Tim. 3:3
3. Benevolent to humans - fil-an-thro-pee'-ah; Acts. 28:2,
Tit. 3:4
4. Kindly, naturally affectionate - fil-os'-tor-gos; Rm. 12:10
5. Brotherly kind affection - fil-ad-el-fee'-ah; Rm. 12:10; 1 Pet. 1:22
6. Kind affection, fondness, friendship
a. (noun) - fil-ee'-ah; Jas. 4:4
b. (verb) - fil-eh'-o(can be personal or inanimate, Rev. 22:15) - to befriend, be fond of; Mt. 23:6; Lk. 20:46; Jn. 21:17,25; Tit 3:15
7. God's love, Christian love, ("charity" in KJV) - highest kind of love, the sovereign preference for another over self and others:
a. (verb) - ag-ap-ah'-o; Mt. 5:43,44,46; 19:19, 22:37,39; Jn. 13:34,35; etc. (for more see Strong's Concordance Dictionary Number G25, 109 verses)
b. (noun) - ag-ah'-pay; Mt. 24:12; Lk. 11:42; Jn. 5:42, 13:35, 15:9,10,13; 17:26; etc. (Strong's G26, 106 verses)
c. (adjective) beloved - ag-ap-ay-tos'; Mt. 3:17; Jn. 3:16; Rm. 12:19; etc. (Strong's G27, 61 verses)
(Self-love, or narcissistic love, has not been addressed at all in this list.) ===============
When The Spirit wants you to know that emotional involvement is the governing factor, the inspired words are given to convey that. The language for which the uninspired words try to capture that application may fail; and in this case, I think for you. My observation is that you have been trying to justify a definition that must always include the soulish emotional factor. But if that is so, the hypothesis is certain to fail. "Always" and "never" are pretty exclusive words, which your choice of Eph. 4:19 comes under the terms of my quotation from Mt. 16:24 (cf. Lk. 16:13), where a person can sovereignly choose to prefer evil-doing, loving such an activity, and according to your verse, past feeling *whatever that means to the Greek mind). That alone does your theory in, as was before shown you.
What you have to come to grips with (and you haven't), is that when you propose a situation that would be translated by the English word "love," that you indicate precisely which of the manifestations of the Koine language you are referring to, or concurrent combinations of them serve the scriptural employment of them.
If you can.
As an aside, asking me what motivates my actions or reactions to life situations is irrelevant to this discussion. To make any progress in your confused replies, it would be better if you pay attention to the matter in view, and stop ignoring the definitions that agree with the lexicons, the logic, and the contexts that help clarify them, particularly John 21:15-17 that contrasts agapao and phileo.
Here's what agape is really about, as commanded by the Holy Spirit through Beloved John:
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous (1 Jn. 5:2 AV)How much of that is about emotion? To me, it speaks of the kind of personal commitment, of perseverance, according to the definition already given, independent of personal emotions that may or may not coexist with it.
Nor does it have anything to do with Stoicism, contrary to your inappropriate comparison.
“You have spread illogic throughout everything you have written so far, even in the sentence above, which illustrates an irrational oppositional stance against the various commentators and theologians, and yes, the Word itself which are arraigned against you.”
Emotion appears illogical and irrational to someone who is either emotionally crippled or has intentionally shut down his emotions thinking that this is somehow a godly, Christian thing to do. If someone slaps you in the face, it is not logic but feeling that is your body’s physiological response JUST AS GOD INTENDED AND DESIGNED it to respond. If you experience rejection, it is natural to be grieved emotionally. It’s not a process that your brain must analyze and logically deduce to determine how it makes you feel.
You twist the Bible AND theological commentary. Both support the basic reality of human emotion and the need to control rather than annihilate emotion. Your views are not based on the Bible or sound theology. They are based on the Hellenistic philosophy of Stoicism.
This is a quote from a noteworthy Stoic, Epictetus:
“With regard to whatever objects give you delight, are useful, or are deeply loved, remember to tell yourself of what general nature they are, beginning from the most insignificant things. If, for example, you are fond of a specific ceramic cup, remind yourself that it is only ceramic cups in general of which you are fond. Then, if it breaks, you will not be disturbed. If you kiss your child, or your wife, say that you only kiss things which are human, and thus you will not be disturbed if either of them dies.”
If a person is not disturbed and deeply grieved upon the loss of a wife or child, he did not love them the way Jesus loves. It is exactly BECAUSE Jesus feels human emotion that He is able to be our great high priest who gives us mercy.
Hebrews 4:15 NKJV
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
“A little birdie has told me that that you don’t like rules and formulas and outlines that distinguish your lack of order in thinking.”
It must have been a scavenger bird. It certainly wasn’t from God. I thrive with rules, formulas, outlines, and order... to a fault, actually. My background is being self-taught in computer programming, though I have some undergrad study in the subject after teaching myself, and computer certifications as a trainer. I’ve studied film, English, and Creative writing in depth in undergrad studies. I’ve studied business administration and education in postgrad studies. I’ve been part of research and development projects involving optical systems and electromagnetic design. I’ve spent countless hours also reading and availing myself of other resources to learn about science, math, technology, and philosophy. I’ve gone through numerous courses and trainings for Christian ministry and spent thousands of hours studying the Bible. That’s not reading Christian literature or commentaries, which has been in addition to the time in God’s word. I’m not trying to boast or use these to elevate myself as an authority on anything we are discussing, but you can stop with the condescending attitude and pseudo-intellectual pretense. I’m not buying it.
“But what you would learn from the rules of spectroscopy is that there are behaviors that are quite complex, but using the rules, a disciplined analyzer can separate out the irreducible responses which can combine to yield a complex behavior. For instance, the color purple is the result of white light (evenly consisting of all frequencies of the optical spectrum) which has passed into a medium which only allows blue and red colors to pass through, but not the frequencies in between. When these two primary colors pass through in about equal intensities, the human eye perceives the resultant color to be purple, a combination of the two as a single hue. But a prism can separate that light into the two components that are discrete, appearing at opposite ends of the visible spectrum.”
Whiteness is not an intrinsic characteristic of light. White light is the result of human physiology because of the rods and cones in the eye. Cones detect the 3 distinct spectrums of electromagnetic frequencies we associate with the colors red, green, and blue. An equal distribution of these 3 colors gives us the physiological perception of whiteness.
“Enlarging this principle and following the rules, under proper management we can have color photography, movies, color monitors teaching physical principles as this very display you are reading.”
The additional principles have to do with optics such as focus which determines the depth of field of what we see. This is just one of thousands of characteristics of the eye. The ability to see movies, for example, is the result of how the eye and brain process data. The rapid display of consecutive images is perceived as continuous motion due to the physiology of “persistence of vision”. And this provides an excellent analogy for our discussion of emotion versus logical thought. While there is some debate and some questions remain unanswered, the most commonly held scientific view presently is that feelings are continuous, but thoughts are discrete. That is, thoughts are like the frames of a film, but we perceive them as continuous. And what our five senses process seems to be done continuously.
“This is but a sliver of thwe selection rules that govern the entire electro-magnetic-mass-time continuum. But it takes understanding to master them, to be guided by them, rules which the Creator has imposed on this dimension.”
I’m doubtful that anyone other than God has “mastered them”. It appears that the time-space continuum contains objects and events determined by conscious observation. Just as our minds and emotions work cooperatively with continuous and discrete experiences, nature is in a constant flux of potentiality in the form of complex electromagnetic wave functions (possibly as a multidimensional hologram) that collapses into discrete events when measured and observed locally in space-time.
These things reflect human knowledge and understanding based on ontology, metaphysics, and epistemology. Theology might be thought of as a subset of epistemology when we discuss knowing by revelation (scripture or otherwise) as opposed to induction, deduction, and observation. That is, unless it might be possible to formulate a theology apart from revelation, which I suspect is impossible for many reasons.
“God has such rules that He imposes on Himself, rules that He Himself does not disobey.”
There are two immutable forces according to the Bible. God cannot lie. Presumably, the second is that His Word always comes to pass. So, promises and prophecies of scripture are sure. His word is always an expression of His glory, which is His eternal intrinsic perfections such as love and righteousness.
“But in the more precise Koine Greek, there is no single word like the English word ‘love,’ and that hidden feature can cause many doctrine-poor Bible readers astray in the application of what they have read. Like yourself, in this instance.”
A person does not need to be a Bible scholar or knowledgeable of Greek and Hebrew to understand love. A child understands love when he or she experiences it. This applies to receiving love and giving love to others.
Matthew 11:25 NKJV
At that time Jesus answered and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes.”
Psalm 8:2 NKJV
Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants
You have ordained strength,
Because of Your enemies,
That You may silence the enemy and the avenger.
“Here, the Greek has seven discernable differentiated words, six of which occur in the New Testament. Each of these can exist without and are independent of the others. This fact is given in the chart Continuum of LOVE in The Koiné Greek Language... This below is an expansion of that chart developed by a scholar who has precisely translated the whole New Testament from the Byzantine/Majority Textform”
This is a very good breakdown—probably the best I’ve seen. And I will also admit I had to correct an error in my memory of these terms, after looking it up to verify the list is accurate. I’m actually saving a copy of it because it is an excellent summary.
“The language for which the uninspired words try to capture that application may fail; and in this case, I think for you. My observation is that you have been trying to justify a definition that must always include the soulish emotional factor.”
I’m not trying to justify my view. I’m checking scripture to see if what you’re claiming is true or if my understanding of the subject is correct. I’ve learned some things by doing so. But you are the one stubbornly refusing to examine your belief.
Love (apage), being the highest form of love, does not exist in a vacuum. As part of the fruit of the Spirit it also accompanies joy and peace. As a characteristic of a mature believer, it is built upon other virtues such as brotherly love (philadelphia) in 2 Peter 1. Further, as I have pointed out repeatedly and you have repeatedly ignored, Christ and the apostles model agape love and show this love in their emotions as well as words and deeds.
It seems to be you rather who is trying to justify something. I’m not sure what particular moral bent needs to be propped up by justifying being emotionless, but it is certainly not found in the examples of Christ and the apostles.
It is not me who says agape love involves the soul (”soulish” in your words). Again I repeat myself and would not need to if you ever actually read what I wrote, took it into account in your replies, and responded accordingly. But we are COMMANDED to love (agape) God with all of our soul. That requires the emotions of our soul to be subordinated to the love of God.
“’Always’ and ‘never’ are pretty exclusive words, which your choice of Eph. 4:19 comes under the terms of my quotation from Mt. 16:24 (cf. Lk. 16:13), where a person can sovereignly choose to prefer evil-doing, loving such an activity, and according to your verse, past feeling *whatever that means to the Greek mind). That alone does your theory in, as was before shown you.”
Well, at least you did actually read and think this through. You come to the wrong conclusion, but listening is a start.
When I say “always” I am referring to true agape love being expressed through emotion. These passages are referring to an attempt at agape love that is defective. That is, such a person is not “made perfect in love” and is not truly possessing of agape love in ALL of its qualities. This is similar to faith apart from works. From Paul’s perspective, he writes of genuine faith which is always presumed to be followed by works. James, on the other hand, allows for a type of faith that does not produce the works, but this is a dead faith. Likewise you might claim a technicality of someone who has agape love by the definition you provided but does not express it emotionally. This is a dead, cold, and lifeless love. It is not the genuine article. John said to love in word, deed, and truth. Without love finding its expression in human emotion, it is not true love.
“What you have to come to grips with (and you haven’t), is that when you propose a situation that would be translated by the English word “love,” that you indicate precisely which of the manifestations of the Koine language you are referring to, or concurrent combinations of them serve the scriptural employment of them.”
I don’t need to express my love to family or friends using Greek. It’s not a technical thing. If I am living up to the agape love standard, I’m also living up to the brotherly kindness and familial love of the Bible. I’m also manifesting the fruit of the Spirit with joy and peace and the absence of fear. This is in the emotional realm.
“asking me what motivates my actions or reactions to life situations is irrelevant to this discussion”
It’s not irrelevant. It’s the whole point. Otherwise all you have is theory and no practice. You can say you love (agape or otherwise) but you are failing to love in deed and truth. Now, you may not wish to be open about your achievements or failures, but it is VERY relevant.
“How much of that is about emotion? To me, it speaks of the kind of personal commitment, of perseverance, according to the definition already given, independent of personal emotions that may or may not coexist with it.”
If you can do so, without any emotion, it is still good because at least your are attempting to obey God. But love is incomplete apart from the emotional expression of it.
Practically speaking, your wife and children can tell you love them most of all because of your commitment and preferential treatment of them by your actions. If you work and provide for their needs, that is love. If you make sacrifices of things you prefer, deferring to your wife’s preferences, that can be an expression of love. If you discipline your children correctly, it is love.
However, if you never say to your wife and children that you love them, you are not obeying Christ’s commandments. If you do not weep with them when they weep, you are not following scripture. If you do not comfort, exhort, admonish, and express your love with emotions, you are not following the example of Christ or the apostles in the matter of love.
Now, I am quite familiar with red, and use it all the time, sometimes in conjunction with blue, and sometimes not. But blue is blue and red is red. You can't make red out of blue nor blue out of red. Putting them together doesn't change either of them, nor does joining them produce green, which in the visible spectrum is halfway between the two ends.
What has been happening here is that I've been teaching about blue, what it is, how to recognize it, and how it has been used; and for sure, though being a color (and knowing that red is also a color), blue is not red, no matter how much you insist that separating the red from purple to perceive the blue component is not possible.
And since you do not appear to grasp the principle, but continue to resist the conditions that differentiate between them, you're not willing to admit that purple only comes when red, a separate entity, is mixed with blue. Instead you keep on insisting that purple is blue; in face of the easily proveable fact that blue can stand alone by itself without any red admixture.
I guess we'll have to leave it at that, without putting in the record that somehow attributing a lack of discernment is due to some kind of character flaw.
Mal 1:2 “I have always loved you,” says the LORD. But you retort, “Really? How have You loved us?” And the LORD replies, “This is how I showed My love for you: I loved your ancestor Jacob,
Mal 1:3 but I rejected his brother, Esau, ...............
God is Very clear there how he defines love. Do you believe what he says?
They ask and God Responds.
They ask because it doesn’t look like love to them. They are looking for something else as a sign of His love. What do you think it is that they are looking for?
You can have a lot of spiritual emotions but if you don’t understand the obeying and choosing it won’t get you far.
What does God say on the matter of how HE defines love, not what tickles your ears.
Are you going to accept what God says here or not? It doesn’t not support your position so you are obviously ignoring it. Your argument is with God, not me.
Joh_14:15 “If you love Me, obey My commandments.
Joh_14:21 Those who accept My commandments and obey them are the ones who love Me. And because they love Me, My Father will love them. And I will love them and reveal Myself to each of them.”
Emotions are a gift from God, but do not confuse them with love.
“God is Very clear there how he defines love. Do you believe what he says? They ask and God Responds.”
First, I’m not attempting to debate words, semantics, and definitions as much as I am am dealing with a specific error, regardless of what the best definition of love is. Even so, you don’t get to take one passage from the entire Bible and use it as a proof text to support an all-encompassing definition for love when the passage itself is NOT even about defining love.
This is a historical event in which God intervenes to answer a question posed to Him. His reply is through a prophet. There are a number of such questions and answers throughout the short book.
The point in chapter 1 is election being an example (rather than a definition) of God’s love for Israel. God dealt with Edom as His enemy. But He dealt with Israel as a son. The difference can be seen in the type of judgments God brought on both.
Edom became “the people against whom the Lord will have indignation forever” (v. 4).
But God’s judgments on Israel were corrective. It is as Christ said to the Laodicean church, “As many as I love I chasten” in Revelation 3:19.
Likewise, Hebrews goes further and indicates those who are not disciplined by God are NOT His children:
Hebrews 12:7-8 NKJV
If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons.
Chastening is a sign of God’s love. His wrath is not.
A key distinction is also which of these is eternal or perpetual. God loves the elect eternally, but His wrath abides on all others forever. It is also clear that He can be angry toward even His children briefly. And He extends temporal love to the entire world. (It is of the Lord’s mercy we are not consumed.)
“They ask because it doesn’t look like love to them. They are looking for something else as a sign of His love. What do you think it is that they are looking for?”
Not emotions and feelings, as you speculate. Maybe they wanted to avoid suffering. Maybe they wanted God to give them the things they lusted after, as He did at other times. Nothing in the passage says a single thing about the people thinking God didn’t love them because he was not showing emotion. I read the whole book to check this one question. Have you? If you can find a single instance of God’s feelings and emotions being the subject of this question, please point it out because I clearly overlooked it.
“What does God say on the matter of how HE defines love, not what tickles your ears.”
Nor yours.
“It doesn’t not support your position so you are obviously ignoring it. Your argument is with God, not me.”
That’s like some preprogrammed, canned response that could apply to any subject but does not in this case because I am the one giving you the word of God. You cite proof texts that don’t say anything resembling what you claim.
You assert a very specific, narrow definition of love that you can force onto one passage. You can’t cite multiple passages from which the idea emerges from the passage organically, as I have done with my MANY illustrations of the role emotion plays in all forms of love. I repeat myself, but you seem to be arguing with a straw man, pretending I assert something I never have. I’m not interested in parsing a definition but wish to address a simple falsehood with the truth: love is expressed by words, deeds, AND emotions. Agape love does NOT derive its energy from emotions. It is seen, recognized, understood, and perceived by the emotions of the person who has love which is comprehended by the one receiving love. Love is not a mere duty. As I have shown over and over, it is accompanied by joy, peace, gentleness, kindness, meekness, and many other virtues. It does not exist in a vacuum. A person who says he loves God or others but feels nothing does not love in truth.
“Emotions are a gift from God, but do not confuse them with love.”
I can agree with this as a general statement about agape love. I’m not trying to be argumentative. This is a very valid point worth pondering, and something I intend to take to heart as I evaluate not merely my understanding but actual obedience (or not) to this command.
It is certainly true that most people think of love as merely an emotion which is expressed in our choices, actions, words, etc. That is wrong. It may be true of brotherly kindness, fellowship, or other expressions of love such as romance. I’m not really sure the extent to which that may be the case. My whole point is that we must not treat emotion itself as evil or unnecessary. Emotion is an attribute of God and of humans who are made in His image. Just because they can be corrupted (in people) does not mean they should be annihilated. Rather, they should be brought under the control of the will which must be subject to God’s word and His Spirit.
It is also true that we must act and speak lovingly even when we do not feel like doing so. None of us show love all of the time as we should. We are a work in progress. While we must not make emotion a foundation or condition of love, following Christ’s example will lead us to demonstrate love in our words, deeds, and emotions.
“All along, I’ve been giving the definition and description of blue; while you’ve sold yourself on the idea that blue is purple and nothing but.”
The problem is not in my comprehension of your advocacy that love = blue by analogy. Rather, love = white is a more precise analogy. And, as I pointed out in the previous post, white is not a specific frequency of electromagnetic radiation. It is a balance of red, green, and blue. Like these 3, love as modeled by Christ, is expressed in words, deeds, and emotions. Ironically, the purple you chose to make your point with is lacking the green needed to make white.
Look at these uses of color symbology for white:
Isaiah 1:18 NKJV
“Come now, and let us reason together,”
Says the Lord,
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
They shall be as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson,
They shall be as wool.”
Matthew 17:2 NKJV
And He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light.
Revelation 1:14 NKJV
His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire.
“Putting them together doesn’t change either of them, nor does joining them produce green, which in the visible spectrum is halfway between the two ends.”
Exactly. And God made our eyes to see and comprehend a wide spectrum of frequencies, including greenness. He did not make them to see infrared or ultraviolet (generally speaking). Nor x-rays. Nor gamma. It conjures to the imagination a children’s fable in which the villain of the story attempts to remove all things green from the world because, for some strange reason, all green things disturb him. Yet the world would suffer a terrible loss without anything green. The hero of the story would certainly defeat such a villain. Would’ve made an excellent Dr. Seuss story.
White requires a balance of red, green, and blue. Love requires a balance of words, deeds, and emotions.
Why do you advocate love without emotion when the Bible is full of examples of love being expressed through emotion and none expressed without emotion (except in a negative sense)? It’s like saying that when we define running the definition does not involve arms, only legs. If a person wants to run a race well, they will certainly involve the motion of their arms for balance. It is not about some technical definition. It is about the doing of a thing.
In this case that thing is love. Stoicism, withholding emotion, being emotionless, denying or invalidating or otherwise trying to annihilate emotion is unbiblical.
We do not define biblical standards of conduct in a reactionary way. It does not matter that the world sees love as an emotion only or a mere chemical process of the body. We know otherwise. But to swing the pendulum to the opposite side is ALSO an error. To deny emotion altogether is to deny both the humanity and deity of Christ who is the personification of love. It is impossible to emulate the love of Christ without emotion.
Hebrews 5:7 NKJV
Who [Christ], in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear.
Making love out to be like the singular color of blue is akin to trying to sit on a one-legged stool. If love is only shown by action it is missing words and emotions. If you ONLY show your wife and children love by what you do for them, they will not be able to experience love as God intended. If you also tell them in words that you love them, it will be an improvement. But without emotion, it is still a two-legged stool. When they can perceive, as humans are designed by God to do, that you actually feel pain when they hurt... that you can rejoice with them when they rejoice and weep with them when they weep, then and only then will they know you love them.
See how Paul tells the Corinthians they can know of his love for them:
2 Corinthians 2:4 NKJV
For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you, with many tears, not that you should be grieved, but that you might know the love which I have so abundantly for you.
Look further at what God teaches through nature:
Job 39:14-17 NKJV
For [the ostrich] leaves her eggs on the ground,
And warms them in the dust;
She forgets that a foot may crush them,
Or that a wild beast may break them.
She treats her young harshly, as though they were not hers;
Her labor is in vain, without concern,
Because God deprived her of wisdom,
And did not endow her with understanding.
See how God uses this bird to illustrate that being emotionless toward ones offspring is even unusual for animals and is a mark of the lack of wisdom? Contrast this with the hen which pictures Christ in this passage:
Matthew 23:37 NKJV
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!
If a believer finds himself unable to express love toward family, friends, and fellow believers, he should recognize this to be a character defect because it does not conform to the image and glory of Christ in whose footsteps we are commanded to follow. We can do no better than to be as our Master. And we must seek God fervently in prayer to remove such character defects.
Paul continues the thought expressed in the above passage to the Corinthians in which he, based on the love of Christ, makes a heartfelt and emotional appeal for them to respond in kind:
2 Corinthians 5:14a, 20, & 6:1, 11-13 NKJV
For the love of Christ compels us...
Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God...
We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain...
O Corinthians! We have spoken openly to you, our heart is wide open. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted by your own affections. Now in return for the same (I speak as to children), you also be open.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.