WesleyGospel Ministries

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. –1 Corinthians 13:4-8

We have seen what abominations ensue where love is lacking; such individuals are proud, envious, puffed up, impatient, unstable, false, venomous, suspicious, malicious, disdainful, bitter, disinclined to service, distrustful, selfish, ambitious, and haughty. –Martin Luther

From the least to the greatest, all are greedy for gain; prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit. They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, when there is no peace. –Jeremiah 6:13-14

Though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema! –Galatians 1:8 (ASV)

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. –Matthew 5:10-12

Correction: there is one Destiny Image book called The Hell Conspiracy by Laurie Ditto.

---

Thomas C. Oden, John Wesley’s Scriptural Christianity, p. 213.

—. The Transforming Power of Grace.

John Wesley, “On Love.”

J. I. Packer, Concise Theology, pp. 179-180.

Martin Luther, “A Sermon on Christian Love.”

Harald Lindstrom, Wesley and Sanctification.

Mark Jones, Antinomianism, ch. 6: “Amor, Amor.”

Charles Finney, “Love Is the Whole of Religion,” ch. 23, in Lectures to Professing Christians.

David Wilkerson, The Vision.

Jim Goll, The Seer.

John Sandford, The Elijah Task.

—. Elijah Among Us.

R. Loren Sandford, Understanding Prophetic People.

—. Purifying the Prophetic. –“Reading this book could cause your blood pressure to rise.” –John Paul Jackson

Julie Roys, “Woman Claims Mike Bickle Sexually Abused Her When She Was 14.”

Ernie Gruen, Documentation of the Aberrant Practices and Teachings of Kansas City Fellowship.

David Pytches, Some Said It Thundered: A Personal Encounter with the Kansas City Prophets.

Bill Hamon, Prophets and the Prophetic Movement.

John Paul Jackson, R. Loren Sandford, John Sandford, James Goll, etc. “Biblical Principles Concerning Ethics and Protocols Relating to New Testament Prophetic Ministry.” also here.

---

Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing. 1 Corinthians 13:3

[1.] There is great reason to fear that it will hereafter be said of most of you who are here present, that this scripture, as well as all those you have heard before, profited you nothing. Some, perhaps, are not serious enough to attend to it; some who do attend, will not believe it; some who do believe it, will yet think it a hard saying, and so forget it as soon as they can; and, of those few who receive it gladly for a time, some, having no root of humility, or self-denial, when persecution ariseth because of the word, will, rather than suffer for it, fall away. Nay, even of those who attend to it, who believe, remember, yea, and receive it so deeply into their hearts, that it both takes root there, endures the heat of temptation, and begins to bring forth fruit, yet will not all bring forth fruit unto perfection. The cares or pleasures of the world, and the desire of other things, (perhaps not felt till then) will grow up with the word, and choke it.

[2.] Nor am I that speak the word of God any more secure from these dangers than you that hear it. I, too, have to bewail “an evil heart of unbelief.” And whenever God shall suffer persecution to arise, yea, were it only the slight one of reproach, I may be the first that is offended. Or, if I be enabled to sustain this, yet, should he let loose the cares of the world upon me, or should he cease to guard me against those pleasures that do not lead to him, and the desire of other things (than knowing and loving him), I should surely be overwhelmed, and, having preached to others, be myself a castaway.

[3.] Why then do I speak this word at all? Why? Because a dispensation of the gospel is committed to me: And, though what I shall do to-morrow I know not, to-day I will preach the gospel. And with regard to you, my commission runs thus: “Son of man, I do send thee to them; and thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; — whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear.”

[4.] Thus saith the Lord God, “Whosoever thou art who wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” (In order to this, “believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.”) “Forsake not the assembling together, as the manner of some is.” In secret, likewise, “pray to thy Father who seeth in secret,” and “pour out thy heart before him.” Make my word “a lantern to thy feet, and a light unto thy paths.” Keep it “in thy heart, and in thy mouth, when thou sittest in thy house, when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.” “Turn unto me with fasting,” as well as prayer; and, in obedience to thy dying Redeemer, by eating that bread and drinking that cup, “show ye forth the Lord’s death till he comes.” By the power thou shalt through these means receive from on high, do all the things which are enjoined in the Law, and avoid all those things which are forbidden therein, knowing that if ye offend in one point, ye are guilty of all.” “To do good also, and to distribute, forget not;” — yea, while you have time, do all the good you can unto all men. Then “deny thyself, take up thy cross daily;” and, if called thereto, “resist unto blood.” And when each of you can say, “All this have I done,” then let him say to himself farther, (words at which not only such as Felix alone, but the holiest soul upon earth might tremble) “Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing.”

It concerns us all, therefore, in the highest degree, to know,

I. The full sense of those words, “Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned;”

II. The true meaning of the word love; and,

III. In what sense it can be said, that without love all this profiteth us nothing.

---

I.

As to the First: It must be observed that the word used by St. Paul properly signifies, To divide into small pieces, and then to distribute what has been so divided; and, consequently, it implies, not only divesting ourselves at once of all the worldly goods we enjoy, either from a fit of distaste to the world, or a sudden start of devotion, but an act of choice, and that choice coolly and steadily executed. It may imply, too, that this be done not out of vanity, but in part from a right principle; namely, from a design to perform the command of God, and a desire to obtain his kingdom. It must be farther observed, that the word give signifies, actually to deliver a thing according to agreement; and, accordingly, it implies, like the word preceding, not a hasty, inconsiderate action, but one performed with open eyes and a determined heart, pursuant to a resolution before taken. The full sense of the words, therefore, is this; which he that hath ears to hear, let him hear: “Though I should give all the substance of my house to feed the poor; though I should do so upon mature choice and deliberation; though I should spend my life in dealing it out to them with my own hands, yea, and that from a principle of obedience; though I should suffer, from the same view, not only reproach and shame, not only bonds and imprisonment, and all this by my own continued act and deed, not accepting deliverance, but, moreover, death itself, — yea, death inflicted in a manner the most terrible to nature; yet all this, if I have not love, (the love of God, and the love of all mankind, ‘shed abroad in my heart by the Holy Ghost given unto me’) it profiteth me nothing.”

---

II.

Let us inquire what this love is, — what is the true meaning of the word? We may consider it either as to its properties or effects: And that we may be under no possibility of mistake, we will not at all regard the judgment of men, but go to our Lord himself for an account of the nature of love; and, for the effects of it, to his inspired Apostle.

The love which our Lord requires in all his followers, is the love of God and man; — of God, for his own, and of man, for God’s sake. Now, what is it to love God, but to delight in him, to rejoice in his will, to desire continually to please him, to seek and find our happiness in him, and to thirst day and night for a fuller enjoyment of him?

As to the measure of this love, our Lord hath clearly told us, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart.” Not that we are to love or delight in none but him: For he hath commanded us, not only to love our neighbour, that is, all men, as ourselves; — to desire and pursue their happiness as sincerely and steadily as our own, — but also to love many of his creatures in the strictest sense; to delight in them, to enjoy them: Only in such a manner and measure as we know and feel, not to indispose but to prepare us for the enjoyment of Him. Thus, then, we are called to love God with all our heart.

The effects or properties of this love, the Apostle describes in the chapter before us. And all these being infallible marks whereby any man may judge of himself, whether he hath this love or hath it not, they deserve our deepest consideration.

“Love suffereth long,” or is longsuffering. If thou love thy neighbour for God’s sake, thou wilt bear long with his infirmities: If he want wisdom, thou wilt pity and not despise him: If he be in error, thou wilt mildly endeavour to recover him, without any sharpness or reproach: If he be overtaken in a fault, thou wilt labour to restore him in the spirit of meekness: And if, haply, that cannot be done soon, thou wilt have patience with him; if God, peradventure, may bring him, at length to the knowledge and love of the truth. In all provocations, either from the weakness or malice of men, thou wilt show thyself a pattern of gentleness and meekness; and, be they ever so often repeated, wilt not be overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. Let no man deceive you with vain words: He who is not thus long-suffering, hath not love.

Again: “Love is kind.” Whosoever feels the love of God and man shed abroad in his heart, feels an ardent and uninterrupted thirst after the happiness of all his fellow-creatures. His soul melts away with the very fervent desire which he hath continually to promote it; and out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh. In his tongue is the law of kindness. The same is impressed on all his actions. The flame within is continually working itself away, and spreading abroad more and more, in every instance of good-will to all with whom he hath to do. So that whether he thinks or speaks, or whatever he does, it all points to the same end, — the advancing, by every possible way, the happiness of all his fellow-creatures. Deceive not, therefore, your own souls: He who is not thus kind, hath not love.

Farther: “Love envieth not.” This, indeed, is implied, when it is said, “Love is kind.” For kindness and envy are inconsistent: They can no more abide together than light and darkness. If we earnestly desire all happiness to all, we cannot be grieved at the happiness of any. The fulfilling of our desire will be sweet to our soul; so far shall we be from being pained at it. If we are always doing what good we can for our neighbour, and wishing we could do more, it is impossible that we should repine at any good he receives: Indeed, it will be the very joy of our heart. However, then, we may flatter ourselves, or one another, he that envieth hath not love.

It follows, “Love vaunteth not itself;” or rather, is not rash or hasty in judging: For this is indeed the true meaning of the word. As many as love their neighbour for God’s sake, will not easily receive an ill opinion of any to whom they wish all good, spiritual as well as temporal. They cannot condemn him even in their heart without evidence; nor upon slight evidence neither; nor, indeed upon any, without first, if it be possible, having him and his accuser face to face, or at the least acquainting him with the accusation, and letting him speak for himself. Every one of you feels that he cannot but act thus, with regard to one whom he tenderly loves. Why, then, he who doth not act thus hath not love.

I only mention one more of the properties of this love: “Love is not puffed up.” You cannot wrong one you love: Therefore, if you love God with all your heart, you cannot so wrong him as to rob him of his glory, by taking to yourself what is due to him only. You will own that all you are, and all you have, is his; that without him you can do nothing; that he is your light and your life, your strength and your all; and that you are nothing, yea, less than nothing, before him. And if you love your neighbour as yourself, you will not be able to prefer yourself before him. Nay, you will not be able to despise any one, any more than to hate him. (Nay, you will think every man better than yourself.) As the wax melteth away before the fire, so doth pride melt away before love. All haughtiness, whether of heart, speech, or behaviour, vanishes away where love prevails. It bringeth down the high looks of him who boasted in his strength, and maketh him as a little child; diffident of himself, willing to hear, glad to learn, easily convinced, easily persuaded. And whosoever is otherwise minded, let him give up all vain hope: He is puffed up, and so hath not love.

---

III.

It remains to inquire, in what sense it can be said that “though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, yea, though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing.”

The chief sense of the words is, doubtless, this: That whatsoever we do, and whatsoever we suffer, if we are not renewed in the spirit of our mind, by “the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost given unto us,” we cannot enter into life eternal. None can enter there, unless in virtue of covenant which God hath given unto man in the Son of his love.

But, because general truths are less apt to affect us, let us consider one or two particulars, with regard to which all we can do or suffer, if we have not love, profiteth us nothing. And, First, all without this profiteth not, so as to make life happy; nor, Secondly, so as to make death comfortable.

1. And, First, without love nothing can so profit us as to make our lives happy. By happiness I mean, not a slight, trilling pleasure, that perhaps begins and ends in the same hour; but such a state of well-being as contents the soul, and gives it a stead, lasting satisfaction. But that nothing without love can profit us, as to our present happiness, will appear from this single consideration: You cannot want it, in any one single instance, without pain; and the more you depart from it, the pain is the greater. Are you wanting in longsuffering? Then, so far as you fall short of this, you fall short of happiness. The more the opposite tempers — anger, fretfulness, revenge — prevail, the more unhappy you are. You know it; you feel it; nor can the storm be allayed, or peace ever return to your soul, unless meekness, gentleness, patience, or, in one word, love, take possession of it. Does any man find in himself ill-will, malice, envy, or any other temper opposite to kindness? Then is misery there; and the stronger the temper, the more miserable he is. If the slothful man may be said to eat his own flesh, much more the malicious, or envious. His soul is the very type of hell; — full of torment as well as wickedness. He hath already the worm that never dieth, and he is hastening to the fire that never can be quenched. Only as yet the great gulf is not fixed between him and heaven. As yet there is a Spirit ready to help his infirmities; who is still willing, if he stretch out his hands to heaven, and bewail his ignorance and misery, to purify his heart from vile affections, and to renew it in the love of God, and so lead him by present, up to eternal, happiness.

2. Secondly. Without love, nothing can make death comfortable.

By comfortable I do not mean stupid, or senseless. I would not say, he died comfortably who died by an apoplexy, or by the shot of a cannon, any more than he who, having his conscience seared, died as unconcerned as the beasts that beasts that perish. Neither do I believe you would envy any one the comfort of dying raving mad. But, by a comfortable death, I mean, a calm passage out of life, full of even, rational peace and joy. And such a death, all the acting and all the suffering in the world cannot give, without love.

To make this still more evident, I cannot appeal to your own experience; but I may to what we have seen, and to the experience of others. And two I have myself seen going out of this life in what I call a comfortable manner, though not with equal comfort. One had evidently more comfort than the other, because he had more love.

I attended the first during a great part of his last trial, as well as when he yielded up his soul to God. He cried out, “God doth chasten me with strong pain; but I thank him for all; I bless him for all; I love him for all!” When asked, not long before his release, “Are the consolations of God small with you?” he replied aloud, “No, no, no!” Calling all that were near him by their names, he said, “Think of heaven, talk of heaven: All the time is lost when we are not thinking of heaven.” Now, this was the voice of love; and, so far as that prevailed, all was comfort, peace, and joy. But as his love was not perfect, so neither was his comfort. He [had] intervals of [anger or] fretfulness, and therein of misery; giving by both an incontestable proof that love can sweeten both life and death. So when that is either absent from, or obscured in, the soul, there is no peace or comfort there.

It was in this place that I saw the other good soldier of Jesus Christ grappling with his last enemy, death. And it was, indeed, a spectacle worthy to be seen, of God, and angels, and men. Some of his last breath was spent in a psalm of praise to Him who was then giving him the victory; in assurance whereof be began triumph even in the heat of the battle. When he was asked, “Hast thou the love of God in thy heart?” he lifted up his eyes and hands, and answered, “Yes, yes!” with the whole strength he had left. To one who inquired if he was afraid of the devil, whom he had just mentioned as making his last attack upon him, he replied, “No, no: My loving Saviour hath conquered every enemy: He is with me. I fear nothing.” Soon after, he said, “The way to our loving Saviour is sharp, but it is short.” Nor was it long before he fell into a sort of slumber, wherein his soul sweetly returned to God that gave it.

Here, we may observe, was no mixture of any passion or temper contrary to love; therefore, there was no misery; perfect love casting out whatever might have occasioned torment. And whosoever thou art who hast the like measure of love, thy last end shall be like his.

For the first time I got down on my knees in the chapel…I said Lord, “I’m sorry for all the things that I’ve done and I renounce Satan and everything that I ever did for him.” They told me that I actually rose up off that ground, actually levitated an inch off that floor. (50:25) –Stephen Dollins

I went out street preaching at NC State recently. I was drained to the core of my being by four hostile hecklers: two atheists and two antinomians. I think that atheists are relatively easy to handle, because you can just dismiss them on the presuppositional grounds of Romans 1; but antinomians are tougher, because they deceive well-meaning Christians into thinking that their Jesus has a “higher road” of morality in universal tolerance (which they call “love”), carnally-minded “friendship evangelism,” loose morals, and strong opposition to the doctrine of Hell. Truly, truly these cheap grace, cheap love antinomians are “lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God” (2 Tim. 3:4), and while they claim to “know God,” they not only disobey His commandments (1 John 2:4), but will publicly oppose and argue with evangelists who preach obedience to them. In my experience, antinomianism, or what is also called cheap grace or easy-believism, is an old lawless spirit (2 Thess. 2:7), the “faith of devils” (Jas. 2:19), and is all too readily the norm in evangelical churches. Campus ministries are often full of antinomianism; and not the true faith of Israel (lordship salvation).

This is “another Jesus” (2 Cor. 11:4) than that spoken of in the New Testament: the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But the antinomian Christ, and the portrait that is painted of him, comes from taking a few select passages of Scripture out of their context, placing meanings on them that no Matthew Henry, nor Adam Clarke, nor John Wesley would ever ascribe to:–and with their maverick hermeneutic of lawlessness, end up deceiving the minds of the elect, who then fall into the sexual trap of frats and sororities, in the name of this Jesus of theirs, and his “love for sinners.” The true Jesus loves sinners in a saving way (John 3:16), but not in an antinomian way that bails them out and doesn’t help them transform.

1. The Woman at the Well (John 4:1-42). This one was used on me recently. I was out street preaching about repentance from sin, faith in the blood of Jesus, and the consequence of eternal punishment in Hell for rejecting the Gospel–only to be interrupted and eventually shouted over by a young man who had imbibed some antinomian doctrines. 

In this particular case, he was trying to persuade me, and demonstrate publicly in front of my group of listeners, that I was wrong for evangelizing the way I was. He said the more Christlike way to evangelize is through loving one-on-one relationships, like Jesus and the woman at the well. The inconsistency in his argument had already shown itself, so I asked him deeper and more thoroughly about the passage of Scripture on Jesus speaking to the woman at the well. He avoided the part about Jesus confronting her about her sin of adultery (John 4:16-19); so after quizzing him a bit, he came to admit that Jesus did indeed confront her about her adultery. He said other things about his concept of “friendship evangelism,” that led me to conclude he had forgotten that “friendship with the world is enmity with God” (Jas. 4:4), so I questioned him: “So, are you the kind of guy who goes to drinking parties to make friends and bring them over there to the Baptist Student Union? Watching carnal, worldly movies; and having no concept of holiness?” At which point, he got very angry, because he was embarrassed, and got about 2 feet away from me, intimidating me, pointing his finger in my face, shouting, and demonically raging against me, all the while telling me that “God is love” and I shouldn’t preach to people about Hell! “You’re going to punch me in the face!” I said, bracing myself. He eventually got on his bike and rode away. He had taken a portion of Scripture out of context and was operating on a picture of Jesus that was a semi-Biblical, half-truth; it created a picture in his mind of Jesus gently sharing God’s love to sinners, by being a gentle anonymous friend, who doesn’t talk about their sins. Boy, was he wrong!

2. Jesus at Matthew the Tax Collector’s House (Luke 5:27-32). Antinomians love this passage; this is their favorite one. In this passage, Jesus goes to the apostle Matthew’s house (before he was born again), while he was still a tax collector (often guilty of deceit and extortion), and He goes to the party with Matthew and all his unconverted sinner friends. The Pharisees avoided association with such people, but Jesus went to eat and associate with them in order to “call sinners to repentance” (v. 32). However, in the antinomian version, they always take the “call sinners to repentance” part out of the story, and once again they operate on this picture of a morally loose Jesus, and they follow suit with such behavior, going to frat or sorority parties all in the name of this “Jesus”; they drink beers, get tipsy, lust around, and then go to Campus Crusade or BSU and praise the Lord together as “the Friend of Sinners.” They even base their behavior on the Pharisees’ accusation of Jesus, which He was quick to deny: “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds” (Matt. 11:19). Then in a few days, they will go to another frat party. Of course, this is not what Scripture says about Jesus. 1. Jesus Himself said the whole reason He went to Matthew’s party was to find an opportunity to preach repentance and grace to them. 2. Matthew was eventually converted and wrote what is probably the most ethically-driven of the four Gospels, which includes the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7). 3. This whole argument is absolutely ridiculous, and blasphemous, and reduces God Almighty into a party animal; people should be ashamed of such retarded reasonings, but nevertheless, they buy into these deceits of the devil, “the father of lies” (John 8:44), in order that they may “continue in their sins” (Rom. 6:1), and not be “transformed by the renewal of their minds” (Rom. 12:2). 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”

3. The Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14). Look at the classic Bible commentaries. None will suggest that the Pharisee symbolizes the “righteous man” and the tax collector “the sinner.” But this is always the antinomian’s understanding. In their minds, they make the Pharisee out to be a good guy, but who Jesus ironically condemns as a bad guy; and then commends the tax collector for at least admitting that he sins, unlike the lying Pharisee who is probably just covering up his sins by saying that he is holy. But the reality is, this is not the concept that Jesus was trying to convey at all in this parable. And I am not alone in my interpretation: see Henry, Clarke, Wesley, and the all the rest of the evangelical commentators. This is no private interpretation; its out in the open!–Jesus was teaching against spiritual pride, especially when coming to God in prayer. While many of the Pharisees in Jesus’ day were “full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Matt. 23:28), Jesus did once admit that a particular Pharisee who said loving God and neighbor was the most important thing, was “not far from the kingdom of God” (Mark 12:34). The apostle Paul used to be a Pharisee (Php. 3:5). I don’t think Jesus was condemning the Pharisee group in this parable so much as He was attacking a popular sin found among them; and that was this: many of the Pharisees–the word “Pharisee” means “separate,” “holy,” or even “Puritan”–had an attitude of superiority over others because they lived a holy life (which some of them, no doubt, tried to do, even if misguided), and Jesus was not at all condemning the Pharisee for his avoidance of sin and pursuit of righteousness: on the contrary, Jesus said, “Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of God” (Matt. 5:20). Jesus was not against the Pharisaic emphasis on holiness; in fact, He felt many of the Pharisees didn’t go far enough, and this He agreed on with John the Baptist (Matt. 3:7; 12:34). This parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector praying to God in the temple is to illustrate the sin of spiritual pride, or the pride of holiness: an insidious devil’s trap that saints can fall into at times, when they lose sight of the influence of the Holy Spirit on their hearts, the grace of God, and they forget the former corruptions that they were saved from. “The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people–robbers, evildoers, adulterers–or even like this tax collector’” (Luke 18:11). By comparing himself with others, and lifting himself up above others, he made God angry with him. Why? Because there was no love for his fellow man in such a thought, nor humility. Love and humility are fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23). And the tax collector at least prayed with a repentant heart and prayed for God to forgive his sins, and the thought about comparing himself with someone else had not even crossed his mind. Antinomians, however, distort this whole passage, and you will find they will refer to this passage partly, and come off with this idea that Jesus was against Pharisees because they emphasized holiness and were prideful on account of it; and Jesus supported the tax collector because at least he was honest with God about his sinful life. To clarify: the true interpretation is that Jesus was against the Pharisee in the parable NOT because the Pharisee was holy, but because he had become PRIDEFUL about his holiness by comparing his behavior with those of others; the tax collector was favored NOT because he was a sinner, but because he had A HUMBLE, REPENTANT, AND HONEST HEART. Jesus ends the parable with: “All those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted” (Luke 18:14).

4. The Woman Who Washed Jesus’ Feet with Her Tears (Luke 7:36-50). I can’t really say that I’ve heard any antinomian references to this passage, per se. But I think I have in passing. The idea seems to go something like this: Jesus was eating with the Pharisees, and all of a sudden a prostitute comes in (often thought to be Mary Magdalene), and she had been so impacted by Jesus’ teaching on grace, that she barged into the Pharisee’s house uninvited and was weeping so profusely, out of her love for Jesus, that she washed His feet with her tears; but the Pharisee, offended at the impropriety of this behavior, thought badly of it; but Jesus rebuked his attitude, because He favors sinners and dislikes righteous people. So, 90% of what I recounted is the Gospel story, but the end conclusion, or interpretation: is antinomian. Its this view that Jesus is a “Friend of Sinners” and an enemy of the righteous (the Pharisees). Beware of falling into this trap. Note that Jesus viewed the majority of Pharisees as being “full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Matt. 23:28). Jesus was not showing partiality to the woman because He Himself was morally loose–as the Pharisees thought He was; no, Jesus is “the Holy One” (1 John 2:20) and could see that this woman was truly, truly sorry for all of her adulteries and fornications, and that the Holy Spirit was working repentance into her heart, so that she weeped profusely; to which Jesus assured her, “Your sins are forgiven; your faith has saved you; go in peace” (Luke 7:48, 50).

5. The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11). Whether this woman is the same as the woman in the prior case, I don’t know. But in this case, she had been caught in the act of adultery and delivered to the Pharisees, who were prepared to stone her, according to the law of Moses (Lev. 20:10). Whether or not this was legal under Roman occupation, I can’t tell, but in order to put Jesus on the spot in front of His disciples, they brought the woman to Him, and a mob was ready to stone her to death. They asked Jesus, “Is it lawful for us to stone her?” He replied, “He who is without sin cast the first stone” (John 8:5, 7). And as they became convicted, they all dropped their stones, and left, with Jesus telling the woman, “Woman, where are your accusers? Neither do I condemn you; go, and sin no more” (John 8:10-11). The antinomians like this passage because it illustrates the severity of the Law and its eagerness to expose, rebuke, and punish sin and sinners–and it shows that Jesus is grace-oriented and ready to forgive sin, and not punish–unlike the Law. The antinomians, however, almost always conveniently forget the last statement of Jesus in this story–which is perhaps the most important: “GO AND SIN NO MORE” (v. 11)–which means that the grace and forgiveness that God has shown to her is to be responded with transformation in her life.

CONCLUSIONS.

Modern-day antinomians seem to take an “all love, no rules, and no Hell” view of Jesus and the Christian life. I believe that based on these distorted interpretations of Jesus in the Gospels; and also confused readings of other New Testament texts, the antinomians on today’s college campuses, and in our churches, feel that they have the Bible on their side (for a thorough handling of these texts, see my book The Gospel of Jesus Christ, pp. 83-92). Oh, how wrong they are! These are the people Peter said, “Twist the Scriptures to their own destruction!” (2 Peter 3:16). Beware of these false doctrines! They are DAMNABLE heresies, not just harmless but misguided views. DAMNABLE! Any teaching that is anti-holiness will not permit its adherent to see the Lord.

NO HELL? Give me a break! Jesus spoke about Hell more than anyone in the Bible! Take a look at the following passages for proof that Jesus believed in eternal punishment in Hell, where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched!–Matthew 5:22, 29-30; 7:13-14; 10:28; 18:8-9; 23:15; 25:46; Mark 9:43, 45, 47-48; Luke 16:19-31; John 3:36. Interesting to note that most of it comes from THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW THE TAX COLLECTOR!

Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  –1 Corinthians 13:6

…a number of unsent persons (went) preaching about…much smooth, undigested nonsense, preached up heresy, even that worst of heresies, (as not striking at the branches, but the whole root of holiness at once,) I mean antinomianism.  –John Wesley

No Such Sin As ‘Legalism’.

O beware of all that talk or write in that un-Scriptural manner, or they will perplex, if not destroy, you! I cannot find in my Bible any such sin as legality [legalism]. Truly, we have been often afraid where no fear was. I am not half legal [legalistic] enough, not enough under the law of love. Sometimes there is painful conviction of sin preparatory to full sanctification; sometimes a conviction that has far more pleasure than pain, being mixed with joyful expectation. Always there should be a gradual growth in grace; which need never be intermitted from the time we are justified. Do not wait, therefore, for pain or anything else, but simply for all-conquering faith.

John Wesley, November 27, 1770, “Letter to Mary Bishop.”

—

In this article, I am going to draw from four different sources. Because there is no subject in the Christian life more important than love, I feel a strong sense of responsibility to get the doctrine right; and to not water it down, or modernize it, by popular definitions. The four sources I will turn to, are what are called in Wesleyan theology, the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral” of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. Although Scripture trumps all the rest, my hermeneutic, or method of Biblical interpretation, will be guided and informed by the other three.

In the Tradition category, I will draw mainly from John Wesley, some of his creation-centered expressions of love from William Law’s A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life, chs. 20-21, Reformed theologian J. I. Packer, Martin Luther’s “A Sermon on Christian Love,” Hugh Binning’s A Treatise of Christian Love (who was a Reformed Arminian Puritan), and John Brown of Edinburgh’s Keeping Christ’s Commandments: A True Manifestation of Love to Him (a nineteenth century Reformed Arminian Presbyterian preacher):–these last two men are interesting, because they both held the view of unlimited atonement, over and against the Calvinist tradition, believing that it is possible to love all men, because God loves all men, and sent His Son into the world to die for all men, not only the “elect.”

In the Reason category, I will appeal to the sound Biblical arguments, or the reasons that these theologians and preachers had given, for why Christians should love their neighbors, and with a particular view in mind.

In the Experience category, I will appeal to my own personal experience with divine love operating in my heart since my conversion, and my gradual or not-so-gradual, growth into a more loving Christian.

Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience may guide the article, but the structure of the article is going to be based on what I feel is the most logical progression of subjects related to love for man operating in the Christian life. This article will not touch so much on God’s love for man, Christ’s love for man, or the world’s love for man or things; nor will we be taking up the subject so much of a Christian’s love for God (although we will have to necessarily touch on that briefly); rather, we will be taking up the subject of a Christian’s love for all mankind or for his neighbor.

Christian Love Fulfills the Moral Law

Jesus, Paul, and John are the three greatest teachers of Christian love (agape) in the New Testament; and it is worthy of noting in the beginning, that all three of them agreed on the view that Christian love fulfills all the moral requirements of God’s law in the Scriptures.

Jesus said, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matt. 22:37-40). From the outset, we should not interpret Jesus as meaning that a simplistic “loving the Lord” and “loving your neighbor” replaces all the Law and the Prophets, as if we can basically ignore the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:1-17), the sayings of the prophets, and all the moral directions in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. No, Jesus is saying that these two Mosaic commandments, to love the Lord, which the Jews called the shema (it was a very important devotional Scripture to them, Deut. 6:5); and to love your neighbor (Lev. 19:18), were the most important commandments in all the laws that were given by God to Moses, because it is in these two commandments that all the Ten Commandments, and all the other moral commandments in the Bible are obeyed exactly in the way they were intended. Jesus was not an antinomian (a teacher against the Law of Moses), although the Pharisees accused him of this, Jesus was careful to clarify Himself, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,” etc (Matt. 5:17). Jesus had to say this, because all His teaching on grace, mercy, love, and forgiveness were even during His days on earth, coming to be misinterpreted by His disciples and the Pharisees, as a “cheap grace” or morally lax antinomian teaching. While it is clear that Jesus taught flexibility about the ceremonial law, such as how to observe the Sabbath (Matt. 12:1-14), there is not one occasion in the Gospels where He taught laxity with the moral law. And even in Jesus’ teaching on Sabbath observance, He was not breaking any Old Testament regulations, but only the teachings of the rabbis, the “tradition of the elders” (Matt. 15:2), or their interpretations of how to keep the Sabbath, and various rituals. (These teachings were later compiled into the Mishnah.) Jesus closely tied love with keeping God’s law; and that when transgression of the law or sin, increased, when iniquity is said to abound, then “the love of most will grow cold” (Matt. 24:12).

Paul wrote, “Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not covet,’ and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom. 13:8-10). Many carnal, morally lax, and antinomian teachers over the centuries have taken the writings of the Apostle Paul, namely Galatians, and have twisted them to their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16). Taking Paul’s teachings out of their original context, whenever they see in his letters something that says Christians are saved by grace and not by works (Eph. 2:8-9) or when Paul says, “We’re not under law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:14). These people don’t realize that Christian freedom does not mean license to sin (Rom. 6:1-2); it means liberation from the ceremonial law of Judaism as the way of salvation. The Christian way of salvation is much easier: the cross of Christ (Isa. 53), brings immediate forgiveness of sins, by living a life of repentant faith (Rom. 3-8). Paul agrees with Christ: “Love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom. 13:10; cp. Matt. 22:37-40). But love is not the abolition of the law, as carnal and unstable people teach. Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law” (Matt. 5:17). Abolish means to demolish or overthrow; fulfill means to fill up, perfect, or complete. Jesus was not anti-commandments; He was pro-commandments (and even more so; His teaching was so exacting and heart-searching, that anyone who follows them will obey God’s commandments just as they were originally intended.) And Paul, the once zealous Pharisee, when he came to understand the spiritual nature of Jesus’ teaching, was able to write, “Through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death…in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit” (Rom. 8:2, 4). Through faith in the cross, we receive the Holy Spirit, which gives us supernatural love, and supernatural obedience to God. Romans 5:5: “God has poured out His love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom He has given us.” Galatians 5:22: “The fruit of the Spirit is love.”

John also carries on the theme of how love fulfills the moral law in the Christian life; and he goes so far to say, that if someone does not have this Spirit of commandment-keeping love in their life, then they are not saved. But first, John quotes Jesus as saying, “He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me…If anyone loves Me, he will keep My Word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My Words” (John 14:21, 23-24, NKJV). This from the “disciple whom Jesus loved,” the “apostle of love,” as a close brother and friend of Christ, also later wrote, fending off a group of Gnostic antinomians, “We know that we have come to know Him (Jesus) if we obey His commands. The man who says, ‘I know Him,’ but does not do what He commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys His Word, God’s love is truly made complete in him” (1 John 2:3-5). “Knowing God” is another Biblical expression for being saved; those who do not “know God” are spoken of as going to Hell: Christ “will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of His power” (2 Thess. 1:8-9). “This is love for God: to obey His commands. And His commands are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3). And John agrees with Paul, that the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in a Christian, produces divine love for other people: “If we love one another, God lives in us and His love is made complete in us…God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him” (1 John 4:12, 16).

Commandment-Keeping and Christian Contemplation:
Ways of Experiencing More of God’s Love

Dwelling in God and in His love is a continual spiritual discipline, no doubt cultivated by keeping God’s commandments; and also by silent prayer. Harald Lindström, the Wesley scholar, states that John Wesley believed contemplative prayer was a means by which to be filled with more of the love of the Holy Spirit: “If the eye of faith is steadily fixed on God’s love in Christ man is filled with ever greater love to God and man. Love to God can also be regarded as a direct result of the contemplation of God;” and quoting Wesley: “Now, if God should ever open the eyes of your understanding, must not the love of God be the immediate consequence? Do you imagine you can see God without loving Him?”[1] I have had personal experience of this! I remember in 2006 I was on a mountain retreat with a Christian friend, and I stole away into the woods for solitude and prayer. I was fixing my eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of my faith (Heb. 12:2), and I experienced a kind of inner vision, and I had a sudden flash of understanding come into my heart and mind:–that God loves all of the creatures that He has made, animate and inanimate—stars, dolphins, trees, animals, plants, men, women, and children…because He made them, He designed them, and He loves them. And this Spirit and revelation was in my understanding for some time; because the vision was amazing. I came out of prayer, and went to the Bible study session, only to discover that the theme the retreat leaders had chosen was love! And do I try to keep God’s commandments? Ever since I got saved in 2000—Jesus has been my Lord first, and Savior second. Almost legalistically, I try to keep the law of Christ, reforming my old ways, and striving for purity of thought every single moment. There is no other way to see the Lord (Heb. 12:14). Repentance from sin is a continual walk of faith, hope, and love; and I have no other view of how to be a Christian, but by exacting obedience to God in every Biblical way; yet sometimes, my focus gets off balance, I’ll get distracted, and I will focus on this or that thing in the Word, and forget that the main point of everything is to love God and neighbor (Matt. 22:37-40).

Christian Love Offers Charity to All

It’s one thing to say you feel pure and holy, divine love for all people; it’s quite another to act on it and offer proof that it is there. “Charity” in the KJV is a fitting translation of the Greek word agape in 1 Corinthians 13:1-13. If you were to look at all the uses of the word agape in the New Testament with Strong’s concordance, you would find it being used in the sense of an act of charity. Of course, it is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22); charity is a Spirit of Generosity; but it finds its expression in works of charity, charitable activities, or “mercy ministries,” such as feeding the hungry, showing hospitality to strangers, clothing the poor, visiting the sick, or those in prison (Matt. 25:35-36). Jesus illustrated agape in His parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). This agape, this charitable love, this love of neighbor is profiled in positive and negative descriptions by Paul: “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres” (1 Cor. 13:4-7). Lindström summarizes Wesley’s understanding of the Spirit of Love: “It is a ‘universal, disinterested love,’ ‘a sincere, tender, disinterested love for all mankind,’ ‘universal benevolence; tender good-will to all men.’ It is described as a ‘tender good-will to all the souls that God has made’ or as ‘benevolence to our fellow creatures’…a ‘real, disinterested benevolence to all mankind,’…he says that neighborly love is a ‘pure, disinterested good-will to every child of man.’”[2]

But universal Christian charity is not the only meaning of agape in the New Testament. Although the word agape literally means “affection or benevolence; charity; charitable” (charitable love):–the word is also used in reference to church members loving one another as brothers and sisters. Those in pastoral ministry must see such a need for this! Backbiting, talebearing, and all kinds of divisive and malicious behavior occur among church members. But Christ and the apostles will not allow it! Jesus; and especially the apostles repeatedly tell the churches to “agape one another” (John 13:34-35; 15:12, 17; Gal. 5:13; Eph. 4:2; Col. 1:4; 1 Thess. 3:12; 1 John 4:11-12):–which implies it must require the Holy Spirit to show charitable love to such hard to love, oftentimes mean, unloving, unlovable people, who are, as Hugh Binning said, “worthy of hatred.”[3] In a way, it’s a renewal of Jesus’ teaching to love your enemies (Matt. 5:44), but taking it further, to love them as brothers and sisters, self-sacrificially, and as Wesley said, “disinterested”: expecting no love in return. Showing them the same kind of love Christ did, when He willingly offered up His life on the cross, for the sins of the whole world: friends, enemies, and everyone.

Sweet fellowship of brotherly and sisterly love (more comparable to phileo) can be experienced between saints, but this is rare. This, it seems, when given its sanctifying parameters, is a mixture of agape and phileo (a holy brotherly or sisterly love between Christian friends—a love with godly interest and godly reciprocation; a love that gives as well as receives; and is more of a blessing than a cross). This is a heightened, and dare I say, rare form of godly love, rarely spoken of in the New Testament. But if the Christian will pursue self-sacrificing charity (agape) to those that do not love him, the Holy Spirit will come alongside, and help; enabling him to see and know that love which Christ had in Him when He offered Himself up on the cross. “God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). What an act of charity! To die on a cross in order to satisfy God’s wrath at us, so that all who repentantly believe, will be saved from eternal damnation! This is the sort of love (agape) that Christians are to demonstrate to all men, if they intend on imitating Christ; and being Christian disciples. Sure, it doesn’t literally mean dying for someone (although in some cases it might come to that):–but overall there is the concept of sacrificing yourself to show Christ’s charity to other people; as did the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37).

The Golden Rule, however, puts a simple parameter on the exercise of charity, lest those charitable Christians be taken advantage of, and allow themselves to be made into doormats, for abusive people to walk all over: “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this is the sum of the Law and the Prophets”; and “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 7:12; 22:39). Lindström said of Wesley, “In the exposition of the commandment to love one’s neighbour as oneself, self-love is regarded as an obvious pre-requisite”; and quoting Wesley, “We would that all men should love and esteem us, and behave towards us according to justice, mercy, and truth…let us walk by the same rule: let us do unto all as we would they should do to us. Let us love and honour all men.”[4] This allows for some measure of self-protection from unjust, unmerciful, liars who would seek to take opportunity of a charitable Christian, and really cause him harm. If we are to love others as we love ourselves; then that means we should obviously, really in fact love ourselves (only not in an overly selfish, egotistic, or self-centered way).

Christian Love Is Not Carnal Tolerance

In my personal experience of being a member or participant in various Christian ministry groups, I have repeatedly come across the concept that Christian love is nothing more than a we-can-all-get-along kind of tolerance. Forgetting all the Biblical descriptions of love, such as fulfilling the moral law, or giving prominence to charitable activities, or loving all of God’s creatures, the word “love,” it seems to me has been very misused by modern-day Christians, and still is. I suspect that this counterfeit teaching on love is influenced both by pop psychology and hippie ethos, filtering down to us through the Baby Boomers and the Jesus Movement of the 60s and 70s. Thomas Harris’ I’m OK—You’re OK (1967) idea seems to have prevailed upon the liberal mainline as well as the evangelical churches. “Judge not lest ye be judged” (Matt. 7:1), comes along with the understanding, that it is itself a sin to speak out or preach against sin, to expose the fruitless deeds of darkness (Eph. 5:11). We are told by prominent Christian leaders that Jesus means for us to tolerate sin, not expose it; that being non-judgmental is the highest, most “loving” road to take; that love is basically defined, or understood to mean, over-simplistically, nothing more than accepting everyone just the way they are; showing off a kind, friendly demeanor (usually fake, with an empty naturally-based sentiment in the heart), regardless of harmful vices and sins that could be obviously crowding their lives, and bringing destruction and despair to them, their friends, family, and relatives. We are told to leave them in the darkness, in so many words; and “just as I am” to receive God’s forgiveness, I am also to remain just as I am, knowing I’ll always be forgiven automatically of whatever I do. Christ Jesus is no longer in the ethical transformation business. Jesus is a hippie, or “Jesus is My Homeboy” as one recent sexually charged girls t-shirt came out years ago. There is no fear of God before their eyes. This is a carnal, antinomian form of Jesus, in fact “another Jesus” (2 Cor. 11:4), of which many have no comparison to the real Jesus described in the Bible, because Biblical illiteracy is at an all-time high. People simply seem to assume that Jesus was a loving, non-judgmental, tolerant hippie, who offers easy forgiveness to everyone, and does not expect the smallest measure of repentance from personal sin.

I have had a concern about this ever since I got saved and tried to live by the Bible in 2000. And for the longest time, I’ve had nothing but the Bible and my personal experience to bolster my conviction against this false, sin-accommodating idea of love. As I learned theology, I eventually found some corroborating evidence among godly theologians, that this is a type of heresy called antinomianism (anti-law-ism), and although “love” is in this case the concept used to excuse obedience to God’s commandments, there are other forms of it as well. What peace it brought to my heart to know for sure that Christ is not a minster of sin; but that He has come to deliver us from its power over our lives! (Romans 8). Wesley agreed: love is not “a love of esteem or of complacence” (man-pleasing); “it does not mean latitudinarianism” (religious tolerance);[5] love is not “an empty and vain sentimentality” (sentimental, natural favoritism without any spiritual depth).[6] Love is not political correctness, or man-pleasing, just to get people to “like” you in a social manner; as churches are often seen as any other social club in the community. Paul wrote, “Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10). Man-pleasing is not the love of God; it is a self-centered, cowardly “seeker-friendly” approach to “not offending” people, so that you don’t “hurt their feelings”—and here’s the catch—even if your godly, mild, temperate rebuke could save their souls. It’s a humanist understanding of love, not Biblical, and not Christian. And often, this sort of “tolerant love” leads to the idolatry of interfaith activities with people of non-Christian religions. That is not the power of God unto salvation! They say, “Love the sinner; hate the sin,” but in practice they love the sin too, because they never take a stand against it, even in a proper, meek spirit. As for the Pharisees: “they loved praise from men more than praise from God” (John 12:43). J. I. Packer defines this kind of fake love-centered antinomianism:

Situationist antinomianism says that a motive and intention of love is all that God now requires of Christians, and the commands of the Ten Commandments and other ethical parts of Scripture, for all that they are ascribed to God directly, are mere rules of thumb for loving, rules that love may at any time disregard. But Romans 13:8-10, to which this view appeals, teaches that without love as a motive these specific commands cannot be fulfilled. Once more an unacceptably weak view of Scripture surfaces.[7]

Dr. Joel Beeke, a well-known Reformed theologian and Puritan scholar, active in today’s New Calvinist movement, says:

“Popular media often present love as feelings of attraction and pleasure, but such feelings rise and fall like mercury in a thermometer. We need love that is less like a thermometer and more like a thermostat—controlling our reactions rather than being controlled by them.

“Others speak of love as non-judgmental, unconditional acceptance, derived from the psychological concept of unconditional positive regard.[8] But this overly-simplistic approach is confusing and leaves us powerless in the face of malice and evil. How do you unconditionally and non-judgmentally accept a terrorist or a serial killer?

“Love does not behave indecently (1 Cor. 13:5)…This statement disqualifies any antinomian view of love; love extends to God’s law (Ps. 119:97) and strives to fulfill it (Rom. 13:8-10).

“Love does not rejoice in injustice, but it rejoices in the truth (1 Cor. 13:6). Love is jubilant whenever it encounters righteousness and faithfulness. Yet love grieves over news that someone has fallen into sin and paid a heavy price for it; thus, love does not regard such news as a tasty morsel for gossip. Such love does good, even to enemies.

“Verse 6 (1 Cor. 13:6) rebukes the idol of relativistic tolerance that often passes for love in our culture; sincere love includes hatred for evil (Rom. 12:9). The greatest display of God’s love was also the greatest demonstration of His righteousness, as His Son satisfied God’s justice by bearing the penalty for our sins (Rom. 3:25-26). So 1 Corinthians 13:6 corrects the popular Christian notion that love has nothing to do with feelings. Love has strong feelings against sin and for righteousness.”[9]

Christian Love Is Not Universalism

When a tolerant “loving” antinomian Christian thinks about Hell, it does not usually produce good theological results. In this mentality, there is an aversion to the attributes of God’s holiness, justice, and omnipotence. God is no longer seen as a Judge, but only as a tender Father over all mankind: including “good” people in non-Christian religions. This results either in an allegorizing of the New Testament passages of Hell, fire, torment of the wicked, and/or a reevaluation of the doctrine of eternal punishment:–the Biblical teaching that the wicked will suffer in the fire of Hell for all eternity (Matt. 25:46; Rev. 14:11; 20:10, 15). As this doctrine naturally makes a tender-hearted Christian to cringe, we cannot ignore it, because it is Biblical revelation: it is the Word of God. Traditional Reformed Protestant theology has taught that God’s love was manifested in the cross of Christ, so that sins could be freely forgiven, and sinners reconciled to a holy God. The universalists, which are heretical Christians filtered throughout many denominations today, maintain that there is either no Hell, or that Hell is like Purgatory, where in the end God will talk all the damned out of their sinful addictions, and by His infinite compassion, and mercy, let them all into Heaven.[10] This idea was expressed in Rob Bell’s Love Wins (2012). This begs the question, however, “Will Satan and his demons be saved by God’s infinite love too?” But the universalist squirms at such thoughts. And usually retracts by attacking the traditional Biblical view of God as a Judge and as an avenger of the righteous, who are the only true children of the Father.

A Summary of Christian Love (Agape)

I have not surveyed the entire Bible on love. Maybe I will do that one day in the future. But in this article, I have attempted to provide a Biblical, Wesleyan, and somewhat Puritan view of the Christian’s love that he should have towards his neighbor, as it is taught in the New Testament. I have focused on the New Testament Greek word agape as the normative concept for love in the Christian life. We have found that agape is morally righteous, it keeps God’s commandments; and is a supernaturally given fruit of the Holy Spirit, received by repentant faith in Christ’s atoning work on the cross. Further, New Testament love is a charity-love or charitable love that reaches out with arms of divine generosity to all of mankind, to all of the creatures that God has made. Although this love is universal or all-encompassing in its outreach, with regard to death and the afterlife, it does not embrace universalism (or the idea that God’s love will save damned people out of Hell).

Listen to Martin Luther. To be without agape in our lives is a horrible curse:

“We have seen what abominations ensue where love is lacking; such individuals are proud, envious, puffed up, impatient, unstable, false, venomous, suspicious, malicious, disdainful, bitter, disinclined to service, distrustful, selfish, ambitious, and haughty.”[11]

I pray that the love of God would be shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost!

I pray that we would dwell in God; and dwell in love!

I pray that we would always seek to be law-abiding and pure!

I pray that we would be the body of Christ; and His hands of charity in this world!

—

UPDATE: 5/3/23

A DEFINITION FOR LOVE.

“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres” (1 Cor. 13:4-7).

Adjectives to describe the hatefulness that comes out of people where love is lacking: Martin Luther defined those well. But where the presence of love is, the reverse would be true: humbleness, meekness, godly contentment, self-love tempered by a sober self-deprecation, patient endurance, perseverance derived from the presence of God, emotional stability, honesty, emotional healthiness, trustworthiness, peace with others, good-will towards others, admiration and respect for others, a sweet attitude (but not syrupy or fake, just a sincere sweetness), and the desire to bless, help, and empower others that you love.

---

[1] Harald Lindström, Wesley and Sanctification (Nappanee, IN: Francis Asbury Press, 1980), p. 188.

[2] Harald Lindström, Wesley and Sanctification, p. 191.

[3] Hugh Binning, A Treatise of Christian Love, ch. 3.

[4] Harald Lindström, Wesley and Sanctification, p. 195-196.

[5] Harald Lindström, Wesley and Sanctification, pp. 191, 194.

[6] Kenneth J. Collins, The Scripture Way of Salvation (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1997), p. 123.

[7] J. I. Packer, Concise Theology (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1993), pp. 179-180.

[8] Unconditional positive regard, or “unconditional love,” was popularized in the psychiatric community by humanist Carl Rogers’ On Becoming a Person (1961). Martin Luther King, Jr. is quoted as having said, “I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.” Dec. 10, 1964, Oslo, Norway. Thomas Harris’ I’m OK—You’re OK (1967) popularized non-judgmentalism among the hippies. “Positive” and “negative” dichotomy. Clearly tolerant non-judgmental love is a 60s pop psychology concept.

[9] Joel Beeke, “Love’s Attributes” from http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/loves-attributes/

[10] J. I. Packer in Hell Under Fire, eds. Christopher Morgan and Robert Peterson (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), pp. 189-194.

[11] Martin Luther, “A Sermon on Christian Love” (an exposition of 1 Corinthians 13:1-13).