How We Can Tell If We Possess The Agape of God

Better do some more homework then. It's not my responsibility to teach you how to parse Greek words.

Many of the New Testament teachings are that it is OK to partake in OT law but that it is not required by those of faith. Although nothing is unclean in itself, if a person feels that something is unclean, it is unclean to them. We should be respectful of what our brothers and sisters see as unclean and abstain from those foods in their company lest it would lead to an offence.

"I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean." - Romans 14:14

The same logic applies to idols. Idols by themselves are nothing. Eating meat offered to idols is nothing, unless we risk becoming a stumblingblock to our brothers and sister that may be tempted by idolatry. Then we are to avoid it for their sake.

"But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend." - 1 Corinthians 8:8-13

It's OK to drink wine, but if you share company with an alcoholic neighbour, it is better to toss away your entire wine cellar rather than risk emboldening their temptations.

"Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. If anyone thinks they are something when they are not, they deceive themselves" - Galatians 6:1-3

We show our love to our neighbours in a reflection of the second commandment "love thy neighbour as thyself". Love is patient, love is kind.

This comes back around to the conversation at hand. If you feel that the OT laws are necessary for faith, they are necessary for you. If you feel it is right, it is right for you.

I don't act as such, but people who don't have a theological leg to stand on often do.

Posthuman made the same False Equivalence you're making in order to keep the "many" of Matthew 24:12 KJV out of the Lake of Fire. To his credit, after I showed him this, he changed his mind about them being wicked:

"Agapeo" is a verb meaning "to love" and action of which anyone can partake.

"Agape" is a noun meaning "Godly, divine, sacrificial, unconditional love", a love of which only the saints can partake.

Now, if you can't find a single verse which says the wicked can/do possess "agape" (not "agapeo"), and if you're not willing to stand up in church and declare the same, please stop with this asinine assertion on CC.

I provided a source supporting my view. Now it's your turn.

The Mosaic Law is optional...the Ten Commandments are obligatory - you can kill a lamb on Passover if you want, but you better not kill a man, ever.
The Greek word translated "unclean" actually should have been translated "common" - a made up category by the Jews which Paul is telling us is complete bulldookey. He's not saying "clean/unclean" was nailed to the Cross because it's not Mosaic, but Noahic and Isaiah 66:15-17 KJV is clear that when Jesus comes with fire at the Second Coming, among the "slain of the Lord" (Isaiah 66:16 KJV; Jeremiah 25:33 KJV) who will be "consumed together" will be those who eat unclean things.
Pretty sure there was no OT law prohibiting eating anything sacrificed to idols, but I might be wrong.
No Scripture authorizes drinking alcohol - the word "wine" (Greek "oinos") could mean either fermented or unfermented and the Christian is to remain "sober" (1 Thessalonians 5:6-8 KJV; Titus 2:12 KJV; 1 Peter 4:7 KJV; 1 Peter 5:8 KJV; Luke 21:34 KJV; Titus 1:7-8 KJV), which he cannot if he drinks booze.
Let's be clear: that's the second "new" commandment Jesus gave...which wasn't new at all (Deuteronomy 6:5 KJV; Leviticus 19:18 KJV) except to a people led by false Jewish prophets filled only with hate. The Second Commandment prohibits idolatry and we shouldn't get the idea the Two replace the Ten - they summarize the Ten.
The Ten Commandments are NT laws preached by James, Paul, Jesus, Peter, etc. And any New Testament Christian who thinks obedience to them are optional should read 1 John 2:3-4 KJV.

You think you've disproven my position that only the saints can be recipients of "agape" by providing a source that only mentions "agapeo"? That's cute.

That's OK...the rest of us know the difference between "agapeo" and "agape" so you're False Equivalence isn't harming anyone, theologically speaking.

Ignorance is not bliss, it is dangerous. You speak of things that you do not know.

A saint cannot be lost. Eternal life is just that, eternal. How can a believer be unborn again? You do not understand that there are two salvations, the initial, born again experience and the lifetime experience of the salvation of the soul. Some Christians will suffer great loss, but not of their right to enter heaven. (1 Corinthians 3:15). Those who are born again may consecrated and serving the Lord. They may be struggling with the idea of the Lordship of Christ, not willing to give up all for Him. Or they may be living pretty much for self, as many in the Church of Corinth and Laodicea were doing. They will find their works are dead and so will see them burned up (1 Corinthians 3:12) Our God is a consuming fire after all. But God is not going to send His children to hell. Our standing in God is based on relationship, not on doctrinal accuracy.

Your commentary is as childish as your reasoning.

I produced evidence; you merely provided opinion.

I wish that I could argue and disprove your position, but unfortunately, you are correct. We're not quibbling over "definitions," but real Bible doctrine, the sort of "meat" doctrine that all cannot bear at first -- if ever. I find it's not a doctrine that's profitable for anyone to simply argue over. The best you can do is point people to the appropriate scriptural references and hope they will be blessed by understanding and learn.

I grew up learning that God loved all people. All people were sinful, so we all stood on equal ground before God. Then the doctrine of "free will" crept in so as to avoid the painful doctrine of election. But, the difficult doctrine is that God has created all vessels for a purpose. He creates vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy. His will is thoroughly declared. But God defines his sheep and he defines his enemies.

I usually point people to contemplate Romans Chapter 9 to begin with. Then I'll point to earlier established doctrine in the prophets. But, it's grievous doctrine to say the least -- which is why I wish I could find proof otherwise. I haven't yet.

This is true, one can walk away from God. The argument of that is moreover pride and doctrinal position of losing one salvation instead of forfeiting it. it can mean they were not said, to begin with, I do not know.

So, before you Frozen choose get all bent out of shape and the OSAS please read. One can walk away.

That being said God Knows His own and NO ONE can take them out of HIS hand. We have more for us than against us.

The wonderful grace of God cannot be mocked or used to justify one who is practicing sin and lawless.

The life of the Believer must have the fruits of the Spirit. Which should be well seen in those who are NOT Believers.


If you hear " if that is a Christian, I don't need to be one" said about you, I think one might want to look at their own walk.

The flaws of the OSAS Theology aside, what does that have to do with the Title of the OP?

As well, while Agape refers to the perfect love of God, it does not replace the word "love" in Scripture, so your Title could use some editing. Agape is ONE of the types of love.

The six love styles was originally developed by John Lee (1973, 1988), he referred to these love styles as "colors of love", and also wrote a book on this theory. The six love styles are: Eros, Ludus, Storge, Pagma, Mania, and Agape.

You can google each to see what they refer to. Other than that........

That's a pretty good take on it. King Solomon is a pretty good example of someone wandering astray. People think, WHY? ARE THEY CRAZY? The answer is all about abiding in the root to begin with.

The vow of Jacob: (Genesis 28:20 And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, 21 So that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the LORD be my God

The whole thing starts off with a great big "if." The vow must be kept by God. If God does not perform the vow, the most righteous and wisest servant perceived may end up raising "high places" to false gods. Without the root, Solomon couldn't produce righteous fruit. Shocka.

People say, no, he "chose" to "reject" or did not "choose" to "accept" the offer of salvation. They never address the issue of whether God will perform a vow a person like Jacob makes that requires God to perform it. It's all in the hands of the great living God what he will and will not do.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. The facts are that the "many" in Matthew 24:12 KJV are SAINTS.
A person can always tell when they've made an unanswerable argument when those who reject his premise don't offer a single word in response to the elements for which he supports his premise.

Jesus contrasts two groups of saints: those who will endure to the end and be saved with the "many" whose agape grows cold through the widespread practice of iniquity - a Biblical euphemism for "death" - with no mention of them enduring to the end unto salvation...right or wrong?

Perhaps you don't understand how words are parsed into different forms depending on their context, and that the core meaning of the words don't change.

Run: I was running. I am running. I will run. I go for a run.

It's the same word, and same core meaning. The same principle applies to agape.

Do your homework instead of promulgating ignorance. Rhetoric is no substitute for understanding.

The title deals with how we can know if we possess agape...did you miss the part where I showed how we can?

You are among the most stubborn of all Bible students I've ever come across Good gravy, man, do you see anything in this screenshot of Strong's G25 "agapao" that even remotely suggests "agape" is the "core" from which it is derived? Do you see anything that remotely suggests "agapao" refers to "unconditional, Godly love"?


Enough with this charade...please admit you don't have a theological leg to stand on.

If you use the same website and look up Strong’s #26 or agape, you will see that agapao is the root word of agape. If you also read Thayer’s Lexicon you will find mention of Romans 13:10 and John 15:13. These are examples of agape being used as the love one has for friends or neighbors.

“For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭13:9-10‬ ‭KJV‬‬
https://www.bible.com/1/rom.13.9-10.kjv

“This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”
‭‭John‬ ‭15:12-13‬ ‭KJV‬‬
https://www.bible.com/1/jhn.15.12-13.kjv

"Should have"

Your opinion? What is this based on?

Your opinion is that when Paul speaks of "unclean" things that he is exclusively talking about "unclean" things mentioned in Genesis? Do you have any evidence to support this?

Paul doesn't actually say that nothing should be considered unclean either. He says nothing is unclean in itself, but if a person of weak faith esteems something to be unclean, it is unclean to them. If you believe pork is unclean to you, it is unclean to you. And fellow Christians are expected to respect that by not partaking of those things in front of a fellow believer that believes them to be unclean.

"The end is near for those who ‘consecrate’ and ‘purify’ themselves to enter their cultic groves! They go in procession one after another into their ceremonies. They eat disgusting foods—pork, mice, and rodents." - Isaiah 66:17 TPT

Are you trying to use OT passages to negate NT passages?

Some of those instances of sobriety are more broadly talking about mental clarify (but certainly includes inebriation). Your opinion that "wine" could refer to non-alcoholic beverages is not consistent with scripture. Your opinion that Christians must completely abstain from alcohol is also not consistent with scripture.

"Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre" - 1 Timothy 3:8 KJV

There are some Jewish texts and oral traditions that describe that dark beer is used to heal infections, and wine is used to heal sadness. These aren't inspired texts but may have been part of the culture of Jesus' day.

All of that said, if you believe that alcohol is unclean, it is unclean to you. A loving brother or sister in Christ will abstain from alcohol when around you to respect that.

It's actually a common misconception that Moses' ten commandments were the firstmost commandments. There is nothing in scripture that says that the Mosaic ten commandments are first. And in fact, Jesus clarifies in the NT that the first and second commandment are "love God" and "love thy neighbour as thyself". Yes! You are correct to note Deuteronomy and Leviticus, a form of the first and second commandment do make an appearance in the OT.

The second of the ten commandments given to Moses is about idolatry, but second of the Mosaic ten commandments is not in fact the second commandment ("love thy neighbour" is).

In addition to not having any passage that states "this Mosaic commandment is the first commandment", different faith also have different interpretations of how the the Mosaic ten commandments are parsed. Not everyone uses the same list of "ten commandments".

Why would the first and second commandment be mutually exclusive with the ten commandments given to Moses? That reasoning makes no sense.

No, they are the first and second commandments. Why argue with scripture?

What is a "New Testament Christian"? I think the term you are looking for is just "Christian".

If it appears in the NT it is part of the NT covenant. If a NT passage says to "keep the commandments" it is talking about the commandments within the NT covenant. Yes, the NT covers common ground with the OT (with some differences). Do you agree with me now that you don't need the OT for moral direction? Every commandment that you claimed to be important exists in the NT.