[Forest Keeper]

If love was automatic, then why does Paul say "if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." (1 Cor 13:2)?

I have asked this question about a dozen times on this thread, but have been ignored every time. Apparently, some people here already have their minds made up and would rather not address what the Scriptures say. If faith automatically led to love, then why does Paul suggest that faith can be had, but not love? What does Paul consider more important in the salvation formula?

(My Bible actually uses the word "love" instead of charity.) Perhaps it would be helpful to distinguish the type of love Paul is talking about here. It appears to be agape (Godly) love. This is as opposed to eros (e.g. spousal), or phileo (e.g. friendship), or whatever else my footnote would say if it were longer. :)

If this is right, then I can see Paul saying that faith (in existence of God?), without love for God, is useless. If I am to be consistent, then I know I have to say that love for God is included in the gift of faith. I do say that. So, the only way my explanation works is if Paul meant by "faith" something other than the normal way we have been referring to it on this thread. In 13:2, Paul does say "a faith" rather than just faith. That could be a distinction. (?) Sorry if I couldn't give you a great answer on this one, I thought I would try my best anyway. :)

God bless.

[jo kus]

I can see Paul saying that faith (in existence of God?), without love for God, is useless. If I am to be consistent, then I know I have to say that love for God is included in the gift of faith. I do say that. So, the only way my explanation works is if Paul meant by "faith" something other than the normal way we have been referring to it on this thread. In 13:2, Paul does say "a faith" rather than just faith. That could be a distinction. (?) Sorry if I couldn't give you a great answer on this one, I thought I would try my best anyway. :)

If love was included in the gift of faith, then Paul wouldn't be making the distinction, nor would James. Faith and Love are two different things, although I see in the Gospels that there are times that when Jesus talks about "faith", it seems He is also presuming love. When I read the entire Gospels, I understand that when Christ speaks of having faith in Him to have eternal life, He is also ASSUMING that we will also walk in that faith. Thus, it is never faith alone. And vice versus, when Jesus says we must obey the will of God and obey the commandments, He is naturally not excluding faith in God. Thus, the overall message is that we must have both faith in God and we must love God and our neighbor. "faith working through love" is the only thing that matters (Gal 5:6).

Brother in Christ

[HarleyD]

If love was automatic, then why does Paul say "if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." (1 Cor 13:2)? I have asked this question about a dozen times on this thread, but have been ignored every time. Apparently, some people here already have their minds made up and would rather not address what the Scriptures say. If faith automatically led to love, then why does Paul suggest that faith can be had, but not love? What does Paul consider more important in the salvation formula?

From Calvin's Commentary:

That faith, of which he speaks, is special, as is evident from the clause that is immediately added -- so that I remove mountains. Hence the Sophists accomplish nothing, when they pervert this passage for the purpose of detracting from the excellence of faith. As, therefore, the term faith is (polu>shmon) used in a variety of senses, it is the part of the prudent reader to observe in what signification it is taken. Paul, however, as I have already stated, is his own interpreter, by restricting faith, here, to miracles. It is what Chrysostom calls the "faith of miracles," and what we term a "special faith," because it does not apprehend a whole Christ, but simply his power in working miracles; and hence it may sometimes exist in a man without the Spirit of sanctification, as it did in Judas.5

5 The term faith is employed here to mean a special faith, as we shall afterwards see from the context. A special faith is of such a kind as does not apprehend Christ wholly, for redemption, righteousness, and sanctification, but only in so far as miracles are performed in his name. Judas had a faith of this kind, and he wrought miracles too by means of it. Chrysostom distinguishes it in a somewhat different manner, calling it the faith of miracles, not of doctrines.3 This, however, does not differ much from the interpretation previously mentioned. By the gift of healings4 every one knows what is meant.

Chrysostom's words are: Pi>stin ouj pau>thn le>gei thtwn ajlla< thwn. "By this faith he means not that of doctrines, but that of miraeles." -- It was called by the schoolmen fides miractelorum (faith of miracles. ) -- Ed.

As Calvin and Chrysostom point out this is the faith of miracles; not redeeming faith.