O.K. then you do agree that love cannot stand alone! That it does need a "measuring rod".

I agree that the law must be based in love. God's law and God's love must be united for His law is based in His love.

O.K. since everyone says I'm only making things up -- let's follow the thread here.



So it seems to me, it was obvious that I wasn't talking about God's love, but our love.
In all this discussion I was talking ABOUT OUR LOVE.

After all it's we who SIN,
so it's OUR SIN,
The opposite of OUR SIN, therefore can't be OUR LOVE.



I then point to the general understanding we meet all the time concerning a certain verse that was quoted. I guess some here took it personally that I was refering to them, but I was refering to THE GENERAL way that text is used against us who uphold God's commandments as binding.


There were some reponses --
But the main one that caused me to agitate the issue was:



I wasn't contrasted love and law, I was combining them.

Basically Vastergotlund assumed I was making the law stand alone without love -- putting it in opposition to love -- yet was I?
No, I was not.

True he then outlines loving in spite of being mistreated, but WHAT WAS MY ERROR?
If my above statements were in ERROR the only conclusion was that it must be error to combine law with love -- and I could not agree with that.


So what was my error?

When someone says you are in error -- it means they are disagreeing with you.

Yet, it seemed several agreed with Vastergutland --
So WHAT WAS MY ERROR?

Thus I continued to point out that love must be combined with God's law and His Word.

It's true that the statement was made that "I see no difference between love as God would have it and the law."

I could agree with that --
But still the concept that my former posts were considered "error" led to the impression that "seeing no difference between love and the law" meant one no longer needed the law.

So I wrote:


That should have been an easy question to answer.
It's very plain that I was refering to OUR LOVE. (and not "sickly love" either -- but OUR love)

But the question really wasn't answered.
Instead things went into a whole SWITCH of terms.
God is LOVE, LOVE is a person. Therefore LOVE is the standard.

Talk about a switcheroo....

God's love wasn't what I was addressing
It wasn't me that made the switcheroo...

I was talking about our love the whole time.

Vastergutland then weighs in, which to me was the typical answer I get on forums that want to get away from God's commandments.

I've heard that type of reasoning so many times from people who believe love and the spirit take the place of God's ten commandments, that I could do nothing but see what I saw in the reply.

I was asked:


My answer was somewhat incredulous that anyone would even think that our love was always fulfilling God's law.



From there things only got worse --
So i won't go there.

But it wasn't me that pulled a switcheroo --

I was talking about our love the whole time.

this post would be a good example of what we are talking about: 113171.

but if you dont see it, you dont see it.

there have been things about myself that were as plain as the sun in the sky to others but i couldnt for the life of me see it. it all comes as we grow in grace.

Yet, that's what I was talking about the whole time.

OUR LOVE

Sin --
OUR SIN (not God's sin)
What's the opposite of sin.
It can't be OUR love no matter how noble.

To me the Word "agape" isn't automatically related only to God. It also means the more noble love in mankind. Christian love that puts self aside for the good of others.

I mentioned that it isn't God's love that's in question, it's our love.
Nor was I talking about "sickly love" I was talking about HUMAN LOVE even at it's best.







I tried to explain that earlier.
True, loving Eve was not wrong,
Not wanting to lose her, was not wrong.
BUT once that love caused him to choose her above God,
His love for her become IDOLATRY.

That's what IDOLATRY is -- loving something or someone more than God.
So yes, as soon as his mind was made up and he determined to disobey God in order to keep Eve, he sinned.
His love was good and righteous till then, it was NOT sin until that point was reached where he made up his mind to disobey God in order to keep Eve.
When he determined to place his love for Eve above his love for God, he broke the first commandment.




No, the ultimate conclusion is that we must LOVE GOD supremely and follow Him in obedience and trust, and subject all our love to his will.

I have no problem agreeing that God's love is perfect and the very opposite of sin -- but never OUR LOVE.

If you agree that OUR LOVE must always be in subjection to God's commands and word, then I have no problem.

And yes, love and God's law must be combined, one cannot stand without the other.

From there we went on to for instance quote the bulk of Pauls letter to the Galatians. Though I am not suprised that you, wishing to promote the primacy of the law, would not go there.

In looking back over this thread, I notice that Colin said that agape was the opposite of sin, and I said the same thing (independently, not having read what Colin wrote) using the same word "agape." Arnold agreed with what Colin and I wrote.

Now I don't see how you could possible confuse "agape" with "our love." Don't you realize "agape" refers to God's love?



Nobody was speaking of "our love," were they? Do you honestly think that anyone here would assert that our love doesn't need to be in subjection to God's commands and word?



To say something like this means you conceive of God's law and His love as two separate and distinct things. Yet His word tells us that "love is the fulfilling of the law." Given that love is the fulfilling of the law, I'm not seeing the sense of your statement. Obviously one cannot stand without the other, since they are intertwined, so it's not that part I find confusing, but the first part which says, "love and God's law must be combined." The problem is that this implies it's possible that they not be. But this is an impossibility, unless by "love" you mean something which isn't love, because "love is the fulfilling of the law," which means that wherever is found, there you find the fulfilling of the law.

We've all been assuming what everyone means by "love", and that makes an ass of each of us.

Yes, Christian love is indeed agape in our hands...: I said that in my first post. "Love" is the most confusable Bible teaching that there is, at least in general conversation! Agape starts with God, and our use of it goes by his written Word and law, and his incarnated Son.

I follow your sequence, Dedication, and you're right. Maybe put in a bit more detail, from now on, to clarify between our natural love, Christian agape and agape from God, when referring to them...?

can we say they are "intertwined"? do we see them as different if the bible writers understood them to be one and the same? love is the law, the law is love. isnt there where the problem is? seeing them as different?

im probably just agreeing with you, but in different words.

The Scriptures say "love is the fulfilling of the law" so "intertwined" looks like a good word to me. We could say the law is a written expression of love.