[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.

[HarleyD]

Addedum:

Before I get the question about how can miracles be done outside of God, please remember that the Egyptian magicians were able to imitate some of the miracles of God through Moses.

[jo kus]

I disagree with Calvin's commentary. He is quite obviously trying to defend the idea of "faith alone saves" by changing the clear meaning of Paul's words. It has nothing to do with "miraculous faith" or "faith of miracles"!

Here is Paul again "EVEN IF I had ALL faith, SO AS to move mountains, but had not charity, I am nothing".

Paul is clearly saying that an unlimited faith, ALL faith, is insufficient, if it is without love. He isn't talking about miraculous faith, he is qualifying his statement by saying EVEN IF I HAD ALL FAITH... In other words, faith alone doesn't save.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Here is the next verse. Again, no charity, then the things we DO are ALSO worthless. The context of these verses is that without proper interior disposition of love, faith or works of action are meaningless. We must possess love for our faith or our works to have meaning to God.

Paul is merely saying "faith without love is dead" and "works without love is dead". Consider the last verse:

And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these [is] charity.

Love is the greatest of virtues. Without it, you won't be saved,

Regards

[Forest Keeper]

Re: 1 Cor. 13:2 - As Calvin and Chrysostom point out this is the faith of miracles; not redeeming faith.

Thanks Harley!