I got a PM this morning asking me about "unconditional love" and where the term originated and where it is found, etc.
I remember being taught about God being all-loving, all-knowing, everywhere present, but I can't for the life of me come up with a specific chapter & verse or other origin of the teaching. This was taught in the Baptist church where I grew up as well as in TWI, so it isn't just a TWI doctrine, but I still can't document it. I may just need more coffee, but in the meantime, could some of you weigh in on this one?
Thanks!!
I believe that you will find that these terms are not explicitly defined or explicitly stated in the Bible, but are inferred through other statements. Syntheses of a bunch of other statements.
For example, 1 Jo 4:8, 4:16 both say "God is love"
And of course, there is Jo 3:16 "For God so Loved the World"
And Eph 2:1-4 dead in trespasses and sins...God in his great mercy where he loved us...
Jn 15:22 "love one another as I have loved you"
and so on
And I believe you'll find the same with the others you cite. Syntheses...
If my dusty memory serves me correctly, Bullinger in his Greek-English lexicon defines agape as unconditional favorable regard, i.e., unconditonal love.
Here's a start. I love a challenge in the word. I'm sure there's more we can come up with.
Joshua 1:9
Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.
I John:3
18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.
22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
There's also a website called crosswalk.com that you can access many translations in seconds on the computer - it's free.
Enjoy this with a cup of coffee and pretty cookies. (I haven't figured out how to do the pretty pictures yet)
That video is amazing, you've got a lot of talent. What group are you in now? I'm not at the point of leaving twi just yet, but I've deceided to atleast look into other things.
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Sounds pretty unconditional to me. :)
Just for argument sake (I'm just posing a question, not trying to start an emotional fight here)
In the above verse, define "us" -- is it a universal "us" (as in everybody, all of mankind)? Or is it a defined class (e.g., all Christians, all members of the Church of Rome (and no I DO NOT mean the Roman Catholic Church) -- to whom the letter that contains this verse was written?
If you say 'us' is said in a 'universal' sense, please justify that assertion. (I ask because in a letter written by an individual to a group, the use of the first person plural would normally include the author and the addressees only). If you cannot define it simply through the lexical definitions of the words in the statement itself, then it must be a synthesis of multiple thoughts into a single thought.
If you say it is referring to a defined class (as in "Christians" or "Romans"), then that is a condition. The statement is conditional upon being a member of that class.
I mention this because Belle initially asked, " I can't for the life of me come up with a specific chapter & verse or other origin of the teaching." My response was "I believe that you will find that these terms are not explicitly defined or explicitly stated in the Bible, but are inferred through other statements. Syntheses of a bunch of other statements."
As I recall, Bullinger defined agape in this way and VP picked it up and ran with it. But I don't see any of the others who do so. Strong's defines it as 'brotherly love, affection' as does Thayers, as the the BLB, as does the Lidell Scott Lexicon (they also use the word 'fond'). Now, for brevity sake, I won't re-type all the Thayer's entry or the Lidell Scott entry (there is no more detail), but the term 'love of God in renewed mind in manifestation' or 'unconditional love' or whatever is simply not present in any other reference other than Bullinger (and that is based on my memory).
So I'm with Belle, here...I don't want to assume here at all...
My point: if it's a synthesis, it's an interpretation. Probably a very accurate one, but it is not a definition. If it's a definition, so be it. I'm from Missouri on this: show me.
To repeat, I'm not saying that the assertion is incorrect! But let's check into it to make sure we're not making an assumption where we should be making a deduction!!!!
I thought VPW defined agape as "The love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation", and then LCM added "in the Household" to the end of that definition. I have worked so hard to erase this stuff from my mind that I may be confusing this with some other term. Anybody else remember this?
And another thing - Love in TWI was absolutely conditional.
I am of the thought that there are quite a few qualifiers and conditions before the God of the Bible will even "spit in your direction." I feel the father son analogy falls way short. There is the arguement that God always loves you but does not always approve of your actions and that there are consequences to actions. I don't see it that way in the real world. I see people get desearved consequences and people that get undesearved consequences and people that don't get desearved consequences and everything in between; and all of this happening regardless of your affiliation with your personal god.
I also don't see a god with unconditional love blatantly stepping in on behalf of one son or daughter and not for another. In the Bible you see God or his messengers speaking with both the MOG, the faithful believer and the unbeliever, but not all of them, just a handful.
I think one of my examples on the thread I started a while ago was Paul. I haven't murdered anyone, yet (commas are important :) ) I don't get a voice, a vision, not even a light that isn't so blinding. I would say I could do quite a bit of good had I that kind of intervention. I would even accept snow on some gas pumps.
Anyways I'm going off, I shouldn't.
I think the better way to look at it is not as a god having unconditional love, but that God is love and conversely that love is God. Not that there is an ephemeral being floating everywhere at once, knowing everything that has ever and will ever happen, allowing both the good and the bad to happen to both the good and the bad...all the while loving everyone absolutely.
Love is something worth dieing for, worth livng for, worth serving, worth working for, worth praising.
There is that saying some like to use..."everyone has a god whether they know it or not."
Perhaps it is not that God is love, but that your god is LOVE!
I thought VPW defined agape as "The love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation", and then LCM added "in the Household" to the end of that definition. I have worked so hard to erase this stuff from my mind that I may be confusing this with some other term. Anybody else remember this?
And another thing - Love in TWI was absolutely conditional.
Holy cow! Really? It took all the pressure off me.
I kinda like the concept of the "taking responsibility for your own actions" side of "renewing your mind". Doesn't seem like something you can just make yourself (or someone else) do on command though. What the hell is nouthetic counselling anyway? LOL All I remember is the idea that the person is responsible to change ... which makes sense to me ... but I haven't read the Bible for years, so I've pretty much been unnouthetized...
Agape ... well, I guess it was unconditional love that smote all those bad guys in the OT ... just depends which end of the stick you're on ...
"He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,
whom He poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ" Â (Titus 3:5-6 NIV)
These verses plainly show that God saved us not due to our works, but due to His mercy and He renews our minds, not us.
when i think of unconditional love, i think of how my mom loves me
and how i love my son
I agree with you fully. (Well, daughter instead of son, but, you know)
But the way that TWI would have put it is that this love was an inferior form of love and could only be phileo love (unless those people were properly indoctrinated by TWI so that they could manifest the love of god in the renewed mind in manifestation -- where's that barf smiley????)
Something wrong with that picture
Something else wrong...I had more lexicons than Bullinger when I was in TWI...
yet I deferred to Bullinger's definition and disregarded all of the others...
Recommended Posts
markomalley
I believe that you will find that these terms are not explicitly defined or explicitly stated in the Bible, but are inferred through other statements. Syntheses of a bunch of other statements.
For example, 1 Jo 4:8, 4:16 both say "God is love"
And of course, there is Jo 3:16 "For God so Loved the World"
And Eph 2:1-4 dead in trespasses and sins...God in his great mercy where he loved us...
Jn 15:22 "love one another as I have loved you"
and so on
And I believe you'll find the same with the others you cite. Syntheses...
being synthesized into "Unconditional love"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
The story of the Prodigal Son....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jkboehme
If my dusty memory serves me correctly, Bullinger in his Greek-English lexicon defines agape as unconditional favorable regard, i.e., unconditonal love.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
djs
Hi Belle,
Ps. 103 has always been a comfort to my heart.
Just a few key phrases from that chapter.
He is merciful and gracious
Will not always chide.....has not dealt with us after our sins
As high as the heavens are above the earth so great is his mercy.....
As far as the east is to the west..... he removed our transgressions
He remember our frame .....we are just dust.
I'll work on the everywhere present part.
This a fun topic - thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
djs
Hi Belle,
Here's a start. I love a challenge in the word. I'm sure there's more we can come up with.
Joshua 1:9
Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.
I John:3
18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.
22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
There's also a website called crosswalk.com that you can access many translations in seconds on the computer - it's free.
Enjoy this with a cup of coffee and pretty cookies. (I haven't figured out how to do the pretty pictures yet)
Edited by djsLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Link to comment
Share on other sites
act2
dmiller, that is really cool. Thanks for posting it. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
That's beautiful, DMiller!
Ya know, Bullinger may define it as so and so did TWI, but Blue Letter Bible using Strong's says that:
Agape:
1) brotherly love, affection, good will, love, benevolence
2) love feasts
and
Agapao:
1) of persons
a) to be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing
But philotheos (Strongs 5377) says:
1) Lover of God
And it's only use is is in 2Ti 3:4 - contrasting Lovers of Pleasure (5369) with Lovers of God (5377)
There's also agapetos, but it's not even used exclusively of God's love:
1) beloved, esteemed, dear, favourite, worthy of love
Link to comment
Share on other sites
djs
dmiller,
That video is amazing, you've got a lot of talent. What group are you in now? I'm not at the point of leaving twi just yet, but I've deceided to atleast look into other things.
djs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
djs...Keep looking my friend...keep looking. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
Love your enemies...bless them that persecute you...if you love only them that love you, what reward do you have? ...
Edited by Lifted UpLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Sounds pretty unconditional to me. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
I realy like that raf...sum and sustance of all and so true..thank you
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
ditto.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Just for argument sake (I'm just posing a question, not trying to start an emotional fight here)
In the above verse, define "us" -- is it a universal "us" (as in everybody, all of mankind)? Or is it a defined class (e.g., all Christians, all members of the Church of Rome (and no I DO NOT mean the Roman Catholic Church) -- to whom the letter that contains this verse was written?
If you say 'us' is said in a 'universal' sense, please justify that assertion. (I ask because in a letter written by an individual to a group, the use of the first person plural would normally include the author and the addressees only). If you cannot define it simply through the lexical definitions of the words in the statement itself, then it must be a synthesis of multiple thoughts into a single thought.
If you say it is referring to a defined class (as in "Christians" or "Romans"), then that is a condition. The statement is conditional upon being a member of that class.
I mention this because Belle initially asked, " I can't for the life of me come up with a specific chapter & verse or other origin of the teaching." My response was "I believe that you will find that these terms are not explicitly defined or explicitly stated in the Bible, but are inferred through other statements. Syntheses of a bunch of other statements."
As I recall, Bullinger defined agape in this way and VP picked it up and ran with it. But I don't see any of the others who do so. Strong's defines it as 'brotherly love, affection' as does Thayers, as the the BLB, as does the Lidell Scott Lexicon (they also use the word 'fond'). Now, for brevity sake, I won't re-type all the Thayer's entry or the Lidell Scott entry (there is no more detail), but the term 'love of God in renewed mind in manifestation' or 'unconditional love' or whatever is simply not present in any other reference other than Bullinger (and that is based on my memory).
So I'm with Belle, here...I don't want to assume here at all...
My point: if it's a synthesis, it's an interpretation. Probably a very accurate one, but it is not a definition. If it's a definition, so be it. I'm from Missouri on this: show me.
To repeat, I'm not saying that the assertion is incorrect! But let's check into it to make sure we're not making an assumption where we should be making a deduction!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Xena
I thought VPW defined agape as "The love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation", and then LCM added "in the Household" to the end of that definition. I have worked so hard to erase this stuff from my mind that I may be confusing this with some other term. Anybody else remember this?
And another thing - Love in TWI was absolutely conditional.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I have asked a similar question on here before.
I am of the thought that there are quite a few qualifiers and conditions before the God of the Bible will even "spit in your direction." I feel the father son analogy falls way short. There is the arguement that God always loves you but does not always approve of your actions and that there are consequences to actions. I don't see it that way in the real world. I see people get desearved consequences and people that get undesearved consequences and people that don't get desearved consequences and everything in between; and all of this happening regardless of your affiliation with your personal god.
I also don't see a god with unconditional love blatantly stepping in on behalf of one son or daughter and not for another. In the Bible you see God or his messengers speaking with both the MOG, the faithful believer and the unbeliever, but not all of them, just a handful.
I think one of my examples on the thread I started a while ago was Paul. I haven't murdered anyone, yet (commas are important :) ) I don't get a voice, a vision, not even a light that isn't so blinding. I would say I could do quite a bit of good had I that kind of intervention. I would even accept snow on some gas pumps.
Anyways I'm going off, I shouldn't.
I think the better way to look at it is not as a god having unconditional love, but that God is love and conversely that love is God. Not that there is an ephemeral being floating everywhere at once, knowing everything that has ever and will ever happen, allowing both the good and the bad to happen to both the good and the bad...all the while loving everyone absolutely.
Love is something worth dieing for, worth livng for, worth serving, worth working for, worth praising.
There is that saying some like to use..."everyone has a god whether they know it or not."
Perhaps it is not that God is love, but that your god is LOVE!
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Yes, that's what vpw and lcm said.
No, they weren't even close.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
I went to Bible study the other day at a Baptist Church ( which is very hard for us to do ) but.........
it was so great.
One line really stood out:
"GOD renews your mind, not you!"
Holy cow! Really? It took all the pressure off me.
Is this off topic?
oh wait, I am going off on the "love of God in the renewed mind" thing..............
I always hated that defininition.
I still want to explore this further, but it made sense as we discussed it (yes we "discuss" in this class).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I kinda like the concept of the "taking responsibility for your own actions" side of "renewing your mind". Doesn't seem like something you can just make yourself (or someone else) do on command though. What the hell is nouthetic counselling anyway? LOL All I remember is the idea that the person is responsible to change ... which makes sense to me ... but I haven't read the Bible for years, so I've pretty much been unnouthetized...
Agape ... well, I guess it was unconditional love that smote all those bad guys in the OT ... just depends which end of the stick you're on ...
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
BikerBabe
"He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,
whom He poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ" Â (Titus 3:5-6 NIV)
These verses plainly show that God saved us not due to our works, but due to His mercy and He renews our minds, not us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i like your thoughts, lindy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
when i think of unconditional love, i think of how my mom loves me
and how i love my son
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I agree with you fully. (Well, daughter instead of son, but, you know)
But the way that TWI would have put it is that this love was an inferior form of love and could only be phileo love (unless those people were properly indoctrinated by TWI so that they could manifest the love of god in the renewed mind in manifestation -- where's that barf smiley????)
Something wrong with that picture
Something else wrong...I had more lexicons than Bullinger when I was in TWI...
yet I deferred to Bullinger's definition and disregarded all of the others...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.