Tom, good article as usual. You say, “Biblical writers use agape with diverse meanings, and they present the meanings of philia and eros in positive ways. The biblical witness suggests Christians should express agape, philia, and eros, rightly understood.” I think this true, especially that the NT uses “agape” in some very diverse ways. But I am curious how the biblical witness can suggest right uses of eros when the word never appears in the texts. Is it that there is a right kind of eros or is it that there are many kinds of agape?

Dear Tom:

Thanks again for another thought provoking post from your blog. At the outset, I need to remind you and your readers that I am keenly aware of my limitations when responding to the gifts of brilliance and erudition with which God has endowed you. Having said this sincerely, I would like to respond to a couple of statements in your blog.

First, you state: “Creatures depend upon God. But they exert a measure of independence when they choose how they will freely respond to God’s call in their lives.” I find this support of the doctrine of prevenient grace most reassuring. While I may be wrong, I am sensing an emerging strand of universalism that somehow combines a mutant strain of the Wesleyan concept of prevenient grace with a sentimentalism that seems to open the doors of eternal life even to non-Christian religious traditions. Thank you for this strong support of a proper interpretation of prevenient grace.

Second, you write: “Contrary to Nygren’s argument, the actions and responses of creatures do shape God’s love, at least in terms of the form divine love takes.” Again, I admit my limitations in challenging your astute intellect, but I must respectfully disagree with this statement. Working from Romans 5:8, I believe God’s love transcends “the actions and responses of creatures.” Perhaps I have misunderstood you, but it seems to me as I read the Scriptures that God is not only love, He is also holy. God, in my opinion, could not possibly possess contradictory motives with regard to either those with whom He exists in Trinitarian fellowship, or to His creation. It would follow, then, that God’s love remains eternally consistent, unchanging, etc. Now, I recognize that my perspectives in this regard are contrary to Open Theism, however, I find great comfort in realizing that the love of God for me (and all others) is not conditioned upon or shaped by my response.

Finally, you write, “God loves sinners. When he (Nygren) claims creaturely responses and conditions in no way motive (motivate?) God’s love, Nygren twists or ignores the biblical account.” I believe the statement above can be considered with the statement here. How is the love of God for sinners ever changed by even the most profligate sinner’s response, even if that response is rejection? The most reliable definition, foundation, expression, or benchmark for speaking of God’s love to sinners is the Cross, and even there Jesus asked for mercy for the mocking, scoffers assembled around his cross.

Thanks again Tom, for the wonderful service you provide the Body of Christ with your thought-provoking posts. God bless, and keep it up!

Cordially,
Dave

In my studies, I have found an over-romanticism attributed to “agape” in the Christian realm, given that while forms of it are used by non-biblical ancient writers in the context of affectionate (not necessarily intimate) love, it is rarely (if ever) used in the passionate sense that Coelho asserts, and is often used in a completely non-relational manner, as in “I love cars.” It seems that the very use of “agape” by the biblical authors may be as a phonetic device.

Thanks to all for your good responses.

To Dave - Thanks for your note. I think we may actually agree on that which you think we disagree.

Like you, I affirm that God’s nature as love is unchanging. We can rest assured that God will ALWAYS love us, no matter what we do. In this sense, I affirm divine immutability.

But I also think the way God loves us is determined by the context. The way God loved Jonah, for instance, is different that the way God loves Mary. Because God is a living God in relationship with changing creatures, the forms that God’s love takes also change.

In sum, I think the fact THAT God loves us is eternal, unchanging, or immutable. But HOW God loves us changes depending on the people and the circumstances. As the Psalmist put it, God’s mercies are new every morning. Does that make sense?

I also think we might agree on the issues of the cross. While God’s love is revealed to ALL in the cross, my point is that the way God expresses love to us depends on who we are. God’s love expressed to a 21st century internet porn addict will differ some from God’s love expressed to a 1st century tax collector. Both are loved. But the forms of these loves differ, because God tailor-makes them for their recipients.

At least that’s how I’m seeing things…

Tom

Good day to you, doc.

Throughout your essay, you use the term “creature”, or some variant thereof.

Yet here:

“Although the biblical witness indicates that creatures express love toward God and others, Nygren believes humans do not love God.”

you switch to “humans,” and that is your only use of the word rather than “creatures.”  You are a very careful writer, so I don’t think is by chance or error. Why the difference? What entities does/do “creatures” encompass other than or in addition to “humans?”

DinkyDauBilly,

You have a keen idea to notice this distinction! I wanted to indicate what I think the biblical witness says, namely that more than just humans can love God. But I don’t recall any instance in the Nygren text in which he includes creatures other than human. So I wanted to be faithful to his writings by saying he only talked about human love.

Hope that helps explain things,

Tom

I am glad you decided to address the issue of Agape here in your blog. I have tried to explain to some, who have been influenced by Nygren’s thoughts (taken as authoritative as the Gospel itself, in many cases) and consider agape as the only form of Christian love, your ideas from The Nature of Love. I am reluctant to lend the book, now I can send them here for the better explanation. Thank you.

My journey into theology was at a time when agape was a central part of Christian talk.  Eros and Philia were defined as “passion” driven relationships. Agape was said not to be driven by passion.  Agape was described by a passionless act of righteousness.  If you see a person stranded on the road and you helped them it was based on agape.  Philia was a non-sexual friendship relationship between two people. Eros was physical and driven by passion.  It was said that a marriage must be based on agape because there will be times when philia and eros will fail.  If one at least continues to perform acts of righteousness it can sustain the relationship.  This “sounded” good.
After a while I began to see weakness in this model.  If there is no physical attraction why get married?  If there is no friendship the relationship is doomed.  How boring and dead a relationship based on conscious acts of righteousness!  I came to see that all three must be part of a marriage. 

To expand upon this any relationship must contain all three forms of love. A relationship would naturally include physical contact, a handshake, an embrace, a Holy kiss.  Thus eros is involved.  To have a relationship you must at least like the person. Thus philio is involved.  Our lives are driven by doing right, even when it hurts (tough love).  Thus agape is involved. 

I can see this with any relationship.  How could we love a dog if we do not like it or enjoy physical contact with it?  How could we love nature without feeling stirred in our souls or enjoying the physical experience?  When it comes to God, how can we expect to love God if we do not like God? The psalms testify to the physical impact we get from our communion with God.  What about a “heart strangely warmed?”  How can we live out our relationship without acts of righteousness toward others?

I have come to conclude that love encompasses all three types of love, agape, philia, and eros.

Being created in God’s image, would this not indicate that God’s love is made up of all three types of love?  Do all of God’s creatures posses this intricate love to some degree? Someting to think about.

I am only curious to understand how it is that God does love us. To avoid what I have always heard called “sloppy agape,” or an understatement of what it truly means to love on the highest level (which again, might depend on how this word is defined), how is it that God loves us? I have heard many different stories. Obviously, the unconditional love, and like this article mentions, by assuming it part of God’s nature seems wrong, because I have never known God to be dependent on us, only us upon God. However, if we are to love like Him, or even if we are created in His image (not trying to misuse that passage),does that mean that God could understand being dependent, or can we be independent of love? Also how can we follow an image that we are not clear on? I was also told that God is the only one who can truly fill the space in which the other types of love may be lacking in our lives. Do you think God offers these different types of love as we need them, or start with on, and as we love and grow a relationship with Him, the level gets higher? I am aware that this might be missing the much bigger picture…

I personally get lost in the notion that we are suppose to love like God. How can we love like something that we can not fully understand? If it is God’s nature to love, and that is why he loves, then how can we ever imitate that? I personally do not believe that it is human nature to love. I believe that it is something that we all want to achieve, but have to work for it because it is not fully natural to us.

I completely agree with your position and claim that God is a loving God, and it is in his nature to love us all.  This principle of God’s unconditional love is at the very foundation of my beliefs.  If there is one thing I believe in for certain it is love.  And I think that it is what we are called to do in our lives.  Christians talk about love and our duty to love others, however I don’t think Christians love others how they are called to love, like God.  I think a lot of times they get too preoccupied with a “holier than thou” attitude and are judging/condemning when they should be loving.  And as a believer, this unconditional love is what I am striving for.

Until today, I had never really read anything by Anders Nygren, but after reading this particular blog I disagree with Nygren’s main points. I have believed in God my entire life and as motivation to change the way I treat others I think about how Jesus would react in my situation. I would like to think that by using God as my motivation to love others better, I’m still choosing to do so on my own terms.
I also loved the fact that you said God’s love was “full-orbed”- To think of biblical love as limited would make certain types of legitimate love “wrong” and thats not what I choose to believe. Any love that is based on God’s example should be considered good.

I had heard about Nygren before, but never really paid much attention to his theology until today. And I must say I disagree with what he believes. I find the whole idea behind love to be an endless discussion with no clear definition but one…God’s love. My whole life I have believed in God and his unending love, as a christian and believer I strive to love like God loves, even if it is slight. I do however believe that as humans we can never achieve this type of unending love. I think love is a choice, just like loving God and following him is a choice. I do not think we as humans can ever fully obtain love to its greatest potential. Its a nice thought, but not a reality.

I have never heard of Nygren before now, and I have to say that it seemed strange he said that the Bible backs up his work. But the fact that it doesn’t is kind of contradictory. I think that God is definitely Love, that he fuels us with His love to love others and ourselves. I also agree with the idea that we as humans can and do love God if we so chose. I also know without a shadow of a doubt that God loves humans and he is interested in each of His children. I do think that we can’t love perfectly all the time, but we can love perfectly in a moment. This article is definitely one that made me think about what I think and believe.

I do not agree with Nygren’s belief that there is only one type of love and that it is only christian. The bible presents many forms of love that are listed above, God’s love is never changing and can reach all life on earth, regardless of their belief in God. In class we discussed that different people use many forms of love depending on the person they are encountering, situation they are in, and there own definition of what loves is and what it does. Which is a major problem in defining love, this also suggest that between so many individual differences in love and life experiences there could be miscommunication. This could influence who we love, who we love, and how we interpret others love for themselves and others.

The point made in this blog that stood out to me the most was Nygren’s claim that humans do not love God. What I do not understand is what type of research or interpretations led Nygren to believe this. God created the world, the life sustaining resources we have, and the human race. He is the reason for our existence. How is it that humans could not love God, the only perfect being? I feel this is like saying that a child is incapable of loving their parents. Maybe this is simply my misinterpretation, but I do not follow Nygren’s logic.

I do believe that there are multiple loves, and they are necessary for a reason. I can not and should not love earthly things they way I should love God. I like the word used for God’s love as “unmotivated.” As humans we love because there is some kind of benefit to us, but God loves for absolutely nothing except that it is His nature.

This term of agape love is not unknown to me. It was a popular theme in my high school believe it or not, though it was not as much referenced in terms of Christian love. I think that Nygren was on to something in how he uses agape to describe God’s love for us. Being made in God’s image we are like him but in no way the same, so we cannot love as he loves. However I do not agree that this singular type of love can be used to explain the many different associations that we as humans refer to as love. Agape and love in my mind are not one in the same.

Agape is the only way a Christian may love and no other type of love has the right to be called Christian love.  Excuse me but..,what? According to the author of “Agape and Eros,” Anders Nygren, that’s what Christian love is.  I totally and wholeheartedly disagree.  Using words like “only” or “has the right” and equating them to christianity is akin saying that God has restrictions in His basic and most fundamental principle, love.  Agape love is central to Christianity, but, I don’t believe that it is the “only” valid type of love.  A husband and wife, do experience agape love but they may also experience the eros (physical aspect) and philia (non-sexual friendly) through out their lives and, of course, moments in time.  I think that conditions, such as environment, problems, relationship, etc. may bring up one at a time, or several simultaneously. Nygren says that Eros is not Christian, because it “...distords authentic Christianity,” To me, it sounds more like a personal issue than anything else.  Eros enhances agape love.  It is like adding NOX (nitrous oxide) to an engine- how can that be bad? however, If overdone, people may run into problems.  I believe that we are meant to experience all the different degrees and types of love in order to have a better and fuller Christian life and walk.

I haven’t studied a whole lot about Nygren’s beliefs. In fact, the only information I know comes for your book. One thing that stuck out to me was his idea that God makes the effort and we do nothing. It seems to me, that though God is always there waiting for us, we also have the important task of choosing to turn to Him and love Him. God gave us a way to have a relationship with Him, but He also gave us the choice to choose that relationship. It is not a one way relationship; both sides much choose to be present. We can show love to God by choosing to be with Him. That differs from Nygren’s theology in that he believes the only form of love is a way for God to seek us and not us to seek God, when I believe that we must always seek God.

I do believe there is more than one type of love. We have discussed this a little in class, that we all define love differently when we direct that love towards different people in our lives. I do believe it is the same in this case. The terms agape, eros, and phila were unfamiliar to me until I read this article as well as the chapter in the book. I believe these three terms all have different meanings when defining love. I also believe that each one is talked about in the bible and every
Christian has the capability to love in these three ways. Therefore, I do believe that Nygren may have interpreted some aspects of love wrongly.

Until this week I really did not know what the word agape meant. I had heard it but never knew the meaning. Also, I had never hear or really read Nygren’s beliefs. I would have to say from what I know so far, I do not believe in the same thing he does. I do however believe that I love because God loves me. I do not love just for God. I do believe I have some say. Also I believe God is always there for us. There to turn to when we need him, not telling us what to do, and not making us do all of the work.

I agree with the fact that agape is a form of love.  From the two extremes discussed in class I saw the importance of relationship’s role in love.  We recieve God’s love and choose to act on it is because of God that we are able to love but it is our choice to act on the love we recieve.  I feel that Nygren leaves relationship out of his explanations and that is part of what I disagree with about his explanation of agape.

I like the distinctions between the different types of love and am interested to look a bit more into where the word “love” could be translated more accurately in the bible. The real trick then is to come up with good definitions of agape, eros, and philia. It’s important to remember that even as we dig into what “love” is and attempt to label certain traits or types of it, we will never be able to fully wrap our minds around it; it’s just too magnificent. For instance, I don’t think agape is limited to being enacted only “when responding to activity that generates ill-being,” as was suggested in class. Love should never be dependent on anything, especially ill-being! I think we are closer to understanding love than Nygren was, but there is still work to be done.

As a lover of words, I can appreciate the difficulty and ambiguity that arises when one tries to pin down and understand definitions. We bring our own biases to our reading and at times allow them to take precedence over historical and textual context. This appears to have happened with the biblical use of Greek words for love—philia, eros, and agape. It seems that Nygren has attempted to make the word agape fit his own definition instead of letting God’s word speak for itself. However, I agree that he has made a significant impact in Christian faith and theological studies by simply drawing attention and initiating contemporary conversation about the primacy of love in the Bible.

One thing I like about a pastor or teacher is their ability to use the Greek to help teach their point or to help clarify something. This again is one of those situations. One of the ways Dr. Oord disproves Nygren’s statement is by providing an example of how Jesus interchanges agape and philia in a passage helping prove that there is no single meaning of agape in the Bible and that there are other Christian ways to love.

I do not agree Nygren’s view on love, where we as humans cannot love, but God loving through us. Being a science major, I have barely scratched the surface of how beautiful and complex his creation is (especially the human body). I would like to think that God wouldn’t use such beautiful and complex creatures just as robots to Love him out of necessity. We humans were made in the image of God. I feel like this can be applied to the concept of Love. God first loved us, which enabled us with the ability to love others. In this way we were made in the image of God (with our ability to love).

I definitely agree with Dan B.‘s comment. It is far to easy for us as believers to have a negative impact on the world, and one of the ways we do that most is through judging and condemning others. The speaker in chapel this week has been talking about a lot of the same ideas, about how God is not defined by rules, and God doesn’t focus on us following the rules, but God focus’s on love, and any “rules” that are in the scripture are because God loves us and wants to keep us from harm. He had some great examples on God’s love, which are much like the ones presented here.

I really appreciated the statement that agape is not the only form of Christian love. It may be the one that you hear about the most, but that does not mean you cannot love if you cannot achieve agape love.  It helps to remember that God expresses His love in different ways.  Expressing love is not always easy, and relying on God’s source of love for our own does not necessarily make it easier.  While we can strive for this unconditional love that seems to be unattainable, it is important for us to remember that we can love in ways consistent with eros and philia love. We are called to love, but the beauty of that calling is that it takes work.  More work for some than others, but regardless, everyone has to put in the effort to love.

I have grown up hearing the term agape love. But I have never fully understood its meaning. I do not agree with the statement that there is only one type of love. Already from the movies that we have watched in class, we have learned otherwise. I agree with what we had discussed in class, the Wesleyan belief, that God initiates the relationship and then it is up to us how we respond. We might respond appropriately or inappropriately, but at least we are given that chance to come to Him. I think too many Christians believe that their actions are straight from God instead of recognizing that there is room for free will. Every act we demonstrate might stem from the love of God but then it is how we respond and act on it which makes it true love.

This really helps narrow down and organize what shapes the theology of love. I understand love to have many dimensions and context is important in helping define these dimensions. Each of these terms are new to me and have made me more curious about this part of theology and philosophy. Can there really be a type of love that is purely Christian love? Within just Christian love how many other types of love are there? If you can say that there is Christian love can you say that there is a type of love specific for each other religion?

I have heard of agape love before this but have never quite understood what it meant. This helps tremendously with that! I like the idea of God’s love being unmotivated because I know I do not always live life to where it would be encouraging to love me. This blog also made me think of how important relationship is. We are given the opportunity to accept God’s love and to love God back. It is relational. Without that relationship, we would be robots, and life would be much more meaningless.

I don’t agree with Nygren’s view of agape. As Dr Oord illustrated Nygrens idea in class, we are essentially only acting as robots through a “tube” of Gods love. I believe that agape is more of an unconditional/relationship type love we are allowed or able to have with God and others. Because of Jesus, I believe we are able to have this type of love relationship God.

I personally believe that God gives us the ability to love others, whether we are capable of that, is our own choice. I do not believe that anyone can love perfectly or that we can ever achieve the love of God, but that is our choice. Because we have chosen sin (Adam and Eve) we have made it harder for humans to be able to fully love like agape love.

One thing that struck me with Nygren’s argument is that Eros, which he defined basically as worldly love, could even be considered to be love. I know that love has a difficult definition that includes a wide variety of actions and types, which is why I like the idea that God is the central provider in all types of love. This to me would mean that God is the creator of eros. This, like many discussions about love requires a lot of distinguishing terms that are so often ambiguous, but I really do like the overarching idea that God is the ultimate source of love, and therefore the love that we show to others is in response to his calling and movement in our lives.

I have never heard of Nygren before reading this. I think that he has the right idea but just doesn’t quite get it. God put us on this earth to love one another. Sure, God helps us in doing this, but as humans we have free will. God’s love is the most amazing love ever. As humans I don’t think we comprehend just how much God loves us. He sacrificed His own son for us, sinners, so we could one day be with him. That is true love.

Although I disagree with Nygren, I do recognize that there is a role in which God is effective at loving through us. This does not mean to be in a robotic sense, but that God gives us the capability and opportunity to love at times we could not on our own strength. However, I do not think that we are dependent on God in order to love.

Before this week I had never heard of the term agape. I would have to say for the most part I don’t agree with what Nygren has to offer. I feel that the Bible has authority and after reading all the contradictions that Nygren’s view causes I would have to say it is an incorrect interpretation of Love. I feel that the idea that God loves and inspires or initiates love and then it is our choice to act on that love is a more correct theological view.

I like the distinction that Agape love is not the only “Christian” love. I think what Aaron R. mentioned about God created us in His image, and being in His image enables us to love as He loves us, is a good point. I don’t think we are incapable of truly loving someone if we aren’t Christian. I think that if the definition of love is to promote the well-being of someone else, then many different cultures, and religions are more than succeeding at loving. The difference of Agape being the “Christian” love, seems more like a label to place on the memebers of the Christian club.

Agape is a word that I haven’t heard much of my life.  I didn’t even know of its existence until a week ago.  But I do agree with the notion that God loves everyone, regardless of our place and actions in life.  And as such, I would disagree the Nygren’s thesis.  While God is the catalyst for giving us and understanding love, we must reciprocate our “creature” love to him in order for it to be genuine to him.  If God was just using us as puppets to express his love through us, then it would be his own love going right back at him when we express our love for him.  If that were the case, what would be the point for our existence?

I really like the fact that your comparing and contrasting rather than bashing what Nygren has to say. I think a lot of people forget to realize that there is no growth if there is nothing to base your thoughts and beliefs on. Its a lot like a plant or tree where you need a good foundation so the roots can hold strong and support itself. Then, don’t stifle the growing process, the plant needs to be exposed to the right environment to and allowed to foster life. Don’t let the plant grow wildly it needs to be trimmed to allow for a stronger, well maintained, growth. We should limit ourselves in what we think but ready to cut out whats not important or not healthy for our growth in knowledge and truth.