Can non-Christians really love anyone?

[apothanein kerdos]

Before we digresses to pie throwing lets stop sharing opinions and read John 21 and you will find that there are degrees in love and the original Greek is where the answer is found. Eros is the lower form of love. It is really more akin to idea of animal magnetism or lust. Phileo is a brotherly type of love. Non-christians are probably capable of obtaining this. Agapao or Agape which is the constant unfailing love that only a Christian is capable of obtaining when it is given to Him. If you remember the confrontation of Peter by Jesus when He restored him after the denial. Peter, do you Agapao? Lord you know I Phileo...etc... You will also remember Peter had to be taught to love Gentiles as part of his sanctification process. If you disagree with me in my conclusions, please converse with me. But, bring the Word to the discussion.

agapao means "moral" love (or a love of persons), not the same as agape. There is a huge difference. God does not agapeo the world, but He does agape the world. You use another verse (john 21) to try and prove your point because the other two have been aptly taken care of. Yet, when we look at John 21, we see absolutely nothing. This only shows there are degrees of love and says nothing to if a non-believer is capable of love or not. We often forget that non-believers are still made in the image of God. If they are not capable of love, then they are not capable of art, writing, or even comprehensive thought. Love is a part of us that makes us human, that makes us valuable as humans. Once we take any of these aspects away, specifically love, we cease to be human and become lesser than the image of God, unworthy of salvation.

Maybe I am just missing what you are saying here. Agapao is a verb (to unconditionally love). Agape is a noun (unconditional love). They can both be used many ways but have the same semantic range. One is a noun, one is a verb. In John 3:16 for example God is said to "love the world". The form of the verb there is the aorist indicative active of agapao

agape is, however, much more specific than agapao is the point. agapao can mean love of persons or a moral love. Though God "loves the world" it is in the sense of the people.

[EricH]

Before we digresses to pie throwing lets stop sharing opinions and read John 21 and you will find that there are degrees in love and the original Greek is where the answer is found. Eros is the lower form of love. It is really more akin to idea of animal magnetism or lust. Phileo is a brotherly type of love. Non-christians are probably capable of obtaining this. Agapao or Agape which is the constant unfailing love that only a Christian is capable of obtaining when it is given to Him. If you remember the confrontation of Peter by Jesus when He restored him after the denial. Peter, do you Agapao? Lord you know I Phileo...etc... You will also remember Peter had to be taught to love Gentiles as part of his sanctification process. If you disagree with me in my conclusions, please converse with me. But, bring the Word to the discussion.

agapao means "moral" love (or a love of persons), not the same as agape. There is a huge difference. God does not agapeo the world, but He does agape the world. You use another verse (john 21) to try and prove your point because the other two have been aptly taken care of. Yet, when we look at John 21, we see absolutely nothing. This only shows there are degrees of love and says nothing to if a non-believer is capable of love or not. We often forget that non-believers are still made in the image of God. If they are not capable of love, then they are not capable of art, writing, or even comprehensive thought. Love is a part of us that makes us human, that makes us valuable as humans. Once we take any of these aspects away, specifically love, we cease to be human and become lesser than the image of God, unworthy of salvation.

Maybe I am just missing what you are saying here. Agapao is a verb (to unconditionally love). Agape is a noun (unconditional love). They can both be used many ways but have the same semantic range. One is a noun, one is a verb. In John 3:16 for example God is said to "love the world". The form of the verb there is the aorist indicative active of agapao

agape is, however, much more specific than agapao is the point. agapao can mean love of persons or a moral love. Though God "loves the world" it is in the sense of the people.

None of the lexicons I am looking at, recognize this distinction. Agapao is used several times for God's love of the world. The verb is used more often than the noun, but that is to be expected. Agape is also used several times to speak of the love between persons.

[apothanein kerdos]

Before we digresses to pie throwing lets stop sharing opinions and read John 21 and you will find that there are degrees in love and the original Greek is where the answer is found. Eros is the lower form of love. It is really more akin to idea of animal magnetism or lust. Phileo is a brotherly type of love. Non-christians are probably capable of obtaining this. Agapao or Agape which is the constant unfailing love that only a Christian is capable of obtaining when it is given to Him. If you remember the confrontation of Peter by Jesus when He restored him after the denial. Peter, do you Agapao? Lord you know I Phileo...etc... You will also remember Peter had to be taught to love Gentiles as part of his sanctification process. If you disagree with me in my conclusions, please converse with me. But, bring the Word to the discussion.

agapao means "moral" love (or a love of persons), not the same as agape. There is a huge difference. God does not agapeo the world, but He does agape the world. You use another verse (john 21) to try and prove your point because the other two have been aptly taken care of. Yet, when we look at John 21, we see absolutely nothing. This only shows there are degrees of love and says nothing to if a non-believer is capable of love or not. We often forget that non-believers are still made in the image of God. If they are not capable of love, then they are not capable of art, writing, or even comprehensive thought. Love is a part of us that makes us human, that makes us valuable as humans. Once we take any of these aspects away, specifically love, we cease to be human and become lesser than the image of God, unworthy of salvation.

Maybe I am just missing what you are saying here. Agapao is a verb (to unconditionally love). Agape is a noun (unconditional love). They can both be used many ways but have the same semantic range. One is a noun, one is a verb. In John 3:16 for example God is said to "love the world". The form of the verb there is the aorist indicative active of agapao

agape is, however, much more specific than agapao is the point. agapao can mean love of persons or a moral love. Though God "loves the world" it is in the sense of the people.

None of the lexicons I am looking at, recognize this distinction. Agapao is used several times for God's love of the world. The verb is used more often than the noun, but that is to be expected. Agape is also used several times to speak of the love between persons.

Hmmm....try Thayers. That is what was used when I learned Greek and I'm looking it up and that's what I see. There is a distinction between the two.

[deadman1204]

yes they can.

Just cause they arn't saved doesnt mean God doesnt give them anything. I can't exist unless he wants me to. Think of all the old kings Isreal took out when claiming thier land. Those kings had grand lives before Isreal crossed the jordan. God doesnt only give to christians, if he did, how would anyone else be saved?

Love may very well be one way God glorifies himself to everyone. Showing mankind that true greatness does not reside with oneself alone.

[David from New Bern]

Since I left my PC I see there has been some word study going on. To clarify where I stand without trying to play faciltator. I believe there are definite degrees of the idea expressed in English as one word "love". John 21 is proof of that. If we learn nothing else in this discussion. Human love is pale when compared to the love of God backed by His sovereignty. There is no comparison. That is an objective fact. The discussion of whether a non-Christian can love is settled by the degrees of love. Yes, they can love and at varying degrees. But as my brother suggested earlier the sin nature stands in the way of obtaining that fully committed love of a lasting covenant. While the sinner is allowing the sin nature to completely rule his life the Christian still struggles at varying levels with his old sin nature. It is probably improper to guess at someone's motivation for a radom act of kindness, since you are not God you don't know. Scripture says man doesn't know his own heart, so what makes you think you would know someone else's heart. Sometimes I ask my own self, did I just show love for purely unselfish motives. Most of the time I have to say I don't know. The only solid answer I can give myself, "I felt prompted by the Holy Spirit to say or do that for someone." Then and and only then can I say it was a selfless act of love.

[followerofjesus]

They love their own.

[His Ambassador]

What you have just described isn't love at all. Its lust. Its, "i'm going to use you for MY pleasure until I get bored with you, or someone more attractive or less of a nag comes along."

Didn't read my post very carefully did you? The "in love" state and lust are the same thing.

Edited March 10, 2006 by His Ambassador

[deadman1204]

like 11:11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if [he ask] a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

Treasury of Scripture KnowledgeConcordance and Hebrew/Greek LexiconList Audio, Study Tools, Commentaries

No Images or Hymns AvailableVersions / TranslationsDictionary Aids

Luk 11:12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?

Treasury of Scripture KnowledgeConcordance and Hebrew/Greek LexiconList Audio, Study Tools, Commentaries

No Images or Hymns AvailableVersions / TranslationsDictionary Aids

Luk 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Also WSB, many of the quotes you gave don't really have any valid point in this debate.

[Guest sclay]

If man in his unregenerate state is hopelessly self-centered, can he truly love someone? Or is his fondness for others simply utilitarian in nature, or is it simply possessiveness posing as love? Is one of the discoveries when we get saved is how to genuinely love someone (1 Corinthians 13)? I guess another progression of this thought might be; If a non-Christian is capable of loving someone, are there are degrees of love that a non-Christian can't approach? See the kind of questions that people with a supposed creative minds can come up with when sit around pontificating in the wee hours of the morning.

i believe there are degrees of love and that true love is a decision

[Guest sclay]

What you have just described isn't love at all. Its lust. Its, "i'm going to use you for MY pleasure until I get bored with you, or someone more attractive or less of a nag comes along."

Didn't read my post very carefully did you? The "in love" state and lust are the same thing.

i agree