Can non-Christians really love anyone?

[David from New Bern]

Has anybody read 1 Cor 13 in forming their opinion?

Yes.

Then you know that in reality "heroic acts" have little or nothing to do with love in and of themselves, since Paul said that a person can give their body to be burned, but if they don't have love it means nothing.

Now how could he say that? Paul is in fact contrasting good works, such as: giving to the poor, spiritual gifts, performing a heroic act, or donating an organ, or giving ones life to save another against love. All of those "works" can be done without love, and often are done without love. Further, he states that none of those works accomplishes anything without love. ironicly the word "love" in this passage more closely translates into "charity", and yet the works he mentioned are the things we generally think about when the word "charity" is mention. In other words, "charity love" has nothing to do with giving material possessions to pat's coats for kids, or risking ones life for another.

1 John 2:15

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love(agape, social sense) the world, the love(agape, moral sense) of the Father is not in him.

I heard a speaker once say that if you saw a small child in the path of an oncoming Tractor Trailer and you instantly jumped in front of the truck and pushed the kid out of the way at the risk of personal injury that is not a rare act of heroism. But to have thirty-three years of your life to think about dying a painful death before an ungrateful audience that takes love.

Edited March 8, 2006 by David from New Bern

[Smalcald]

God provides sun, rain, health, food and love to both the evil and the good. So yes people who do not believe in Christ do love, and they love profoundly. Thus they are experiencing Christ, whether they want to admit it or not.

[Copper Scroll]

Then you know that in reality "heroic acts" have little or nothing to do with love in and of themselves, since Paul said that a person can give their body to be burned, but if they don't have love it means nothing.

If not love, what is it that drives a person to sacrifice himself for others?

Now how could he say that? Paul is in fact contrasting good works, such as: giving to the poor, spiritual gifts, performing a heroic act, or donating an organ, or giving ones life to save another against love. All of those "works" can be done without love, and often are done without love.

Then, it must be a different sort of love than the one Jesus spoke about when he explained the two most important commandments--because this is how he appears to define love. Or, Paul is saying that a person can do these things without the spirit or essence of the commandment. In verses 4-8, he describes this spirit (as patient, kind, etc.) implying that a person can do good works without patience, without kindness, with jealousy, etc. But I can't find anything in there that says that a non-believer in love cannot do good with the true spirit and intent of love.

1 John 2:15

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love(agape, social sense) the world, the love(agape, moral sense) of the Father is not in him.

And your interpretation of this says that the only valid object of love is God? That would toss out the window Jesus' second most important commandment.

[apothanein kerdos]

This is absolutely absurd.

For one, 1 John is talking about morals, not love. What is being constructed here is to say that a person who holds to the morals of the world, then they do not have love (salvation) in them. It is saying that to be a Christian, one has to have the proper worldview. When it says, "If any man loves the world" it is not agape but instead agapao which means to love the moral things of this world.

Regardless, non-Christians are capable of love BECAUSE WE ARE MADE IN GOD'S IMAGE. To say that they cannot love is to say that we are not in God's image. Now you can say that the effects of the fall have tainted us, and this is quite true. It has not, however destroyed His image. In Genesis 9, God still refers to man as being in His image.

As for 1 Corinthians 13, it has no bearing on this discussion. For one, Paul was speaking about those that are saved. Note that he talks of speaking in tongues, a gift of the Spirit. In order to have a gift of the Spirit, one must have the Spirit to begin with. It is talking about doing things without love, that if we do it for our own selfish benefits then it means nothing. We must act in love, something a non-Christian can do.

If a non-Christian is not capable of love, then they are not capable of salvation. Before we can recieve salvation we have to fall in love with Christ. We have to acknowledge that He loves us...if we do not know love at that point, how can we know that He loves us? To say non-Christians are not capable of love is just absurd and void of any intelligent discourse. Yes, I'm being rude but this is simply offensive and trite.

[EricH]

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.

The doctrine of total depravity does not mean that unsaved folks are incapable of any good at all. It means that even the good they do is tainted in some way by sin.

Jesus maintained that even the unregenerate are capable of recipricol love:

For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax-gatherers do the same?

Matthew 5:46 NASB

Unsaved parents love their children, unsaved adults, love their spouses etc etc etc. They are just not capable of loving to the extent that God's holiness demands. But they can love

[apothanein kerdos]

This is absolutely absurd.

For one, 1 John is talking about morals, not love. What is being constructed here is to say that a person who holds to the morals of the world, then they do not have love (salvation) in them. It is saying that to be a Christian, one has to have the proper worldview. When it says, "If any man loves the world" it is not agape but instead agapao which means to love the moral things of this world.

Regardless, non-Christians are capable of love BECAUSE WE ARE MADE IN GOD'S IMAGE. To say that they cannot love is to say that we are not in God's image. Now you can say that the effects of the fall have tainted us, and this is quite true. It has not, however destroyed His image. In Genesis 9, God still refers to man as being in His image.

A non-christian isn't in love with christ until AFTER they make the decision to accept him as Lord and savior.

Romans 8:7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Plain and simple. If you don't have the Spirit of God, you are in the flesh. If you are in the flesh, the only thing you are capable of is "works of the flesh". Which are all sins.

Gal. 5:13For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

14For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

15But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

24And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

25If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

Notice what Paul is saying. Even the BELIEVER has no love in and of himself. Even for the BELIEVER, they are only capable of love by and through the fruit of the Spirit, that is the Holy Spirit, living and dwelling in them.

If you don't have the Spirit of God dwelling in you, then you don't have Biblical love, whatever the world may call it, it isn't love that God recognizes. John said that God IS love, and love comes from God. If the "love" that a person has does not come from God, which it cannot come from God if they aren't saved, then it is NOT Biblical love. It may appear, to the undiscerning eye, to have some vague similarities, but in reality it is a cheap counterfeit.

It is impossible for an unbeliever to experience fruit of the Spirit, because they don't HAVE the Spirit of God!

Gal. 2:20I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Every single one of those passages is talking about works and not love. You have no case. IF the Bible teaches that the lost cannot love, then the Bible is wrong and contradicts itself. I say this because I know the Bible does not teach it.

[David from New Bern]

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.

Edited March 8, 2006 by David from New Bern

[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.

What odd is that the word "agape" is used in the passage I quoted (Matthew 5:46) above relative to unbelievers loving those who love them. I think they are capable of agape love, only it is tarnished by sin.

[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.

[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