The Bible Study (I call it that, although it was about 22:3 ratio pastor talking to everyone else) was on 1 John 4. I believe all of my comments are faithful to the context that the verses I'm quoting are located in; at the very least, do know I was considering that when I wrote what I did. First of three thoughts:
"7Dear friends, let us love* one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."
If "everyone who loves...knows God" and "whoever does not love does not know God", it seems to be true to the text (acknowledging that this can often be dangerous) to assume the inverse as well, because of the qualifier at the end of those verses - "because God is love". If "God is love" explains "whoever does not love does not know God", the easiest (only?) way to understand why it explains this leads you to assume the inverse to be true as well. If you do not love, or, you do not practice the actions/lifestyle that define love as more than a feeling^, you do not have grounds to relate to or understand (know) an entity for which love is defining characteristic. Thusly, the inverse also makes sense, in that if you do not have these grounds to relate, that implies you do not love.
* 'Love' definitely needs to be nuanced, and I am not knowledgeable enough to do so to my satisfaction. The best I can say is that I understand its usage here as meaning a particular definition/brand of love (a la C.S. Lewis) that is not used/found except in the context of God, and implies a 'higher' or more desirable form of love
^Which I hope you agree is a consistent definition throughout scripture, without going into multiple citations
As far as where I ended up, let me make the point that I'm not entirely comfortable with the points I ended up on, which is why I wanted to put it out there to y'all for checking of my reasoning, etc. Basically, I want to know:
-If there's any bad underlying assumptions I'm making (or missing)
-If my thought processes / logic is flawed anywhere
-If, based on following my thoughts, my conclusion makes sense. What I mean by that is rather than seeing my conclusion & assuming (as I start to) that there has to be something wrong, instead starting at the thought inception and, going forward, seeing if I misstepped without a presumption of whether I have or not. Does that make sense?
I also want to make sure to point out that latter half of what I wrote (the application, if you will) is entirely dependent on the first half that ends with "Thusly, the inverse also makes sense, in that if you do not have these grounds to relate, that implies you do not love." If the first half is found to be untrue, you can go ahead & toss the latter half out.
And obviously, my writing is starting with the base assumption that the Bible is true. Regardless of agreement with that assumption or not, what I'm looking for is whether what I thought makes sense in that context. (similar to whether you would assume a character's actions make sense in a piece of literature)
So why is this relevant? For me, it affects how important it is for me to share my faith with others. As I have said before, the reason I find it relevant and important to pursue spiritual conversations and actively seek to share my faith with others is because I have found it as something good for me. My Christian life, faith, community, etc have been a central positive force of change & growth in my life, and it has been valuable enough that I desire for others to be exposed to it as well, in the chance they would find what I have found. What that statement ignores is anything pertaining to "exclusivity of the gospel", aka, the belief that Christianity offers something unique. This is typically couched in terms of salvation, aka, Christ is the only way to heaven, but I do not like to think of my faith solely as a path to heaven, ignoring my life and how I live & experience it.
I have never directly addressed the question of whether Christianity offers anything else unique, let alone searched the scriptures for an answer. Most spiritual conversations I find myself in really don't get around to the issue of salvation, which typically leads to quality mutual sharing sessions of beliefs & faith life. If the person doesn't display an interest in topics like salvation, but are content in their current faith situation, I consider the conversation a good sharing of beliefs, and leave on a positive note. Not to downplay questions of the afterlife, but I find those not all that motivating of a factor for evangelism. I assume that we both have the same quality of life (or at least access to), and leave it at that. What this passage, then, tells me is that is not in fact the case. Knowing God, I have access to a unique, desirable form of love, and they do not. What this then tells me is that, in these situations, there is additional reason to persist in sharing my faith, because knowing God does not just give them what they already have + salvation, but that knowing God will improve their life in the here & now. 'Will' is the operative word, as opposed to the 'can', 'possibly', or 'may'.
That was much longer than I thought it was going to be; we'll see if I get to the other two things later. Thoughts?
[wertadam] - Care to share your reasoning? One other thing - Pastor checked on the Greek at my request, and he said that the meaning of 'know' as used here implied following - having the combination of both the relationship & the actions that result out of the relationship, not just one or the other. Admittedly, I need to check this (and plan to). From that, perhaps we are using different meanings when we each say "know God"?
[kriegcar] - I'm not quite sure what you're asking; I think you're missing a word? Or perhaps a 'th' ?
If you're asking how I got started on this thought process, it was because it was a verse in the passage at Bible Study in my church this morning, and whenever I read something like that, I automatically think about the bounds of its application, including the inverse phrasing.
The conclusion of "people who don't know God can't love as well as Christians who do" was actually my starting point - I saw how one could potentially understand the passage Pastor Baker was teaching on as saying that. That wasn't (isn't?) an understanding I was willing to accept, so my first step in investigating it was to see whether or not that was something I could understand the passage to say.
My thought process was basically taking the verse, looking at what it said, and wondering whether the inverse was true. My notes from the study say the following:
"so does that mean unbelievers cannot know love"?
-> God is love
therefore, yes*
Translation: an unbeliever does not know God, and if God is equated with love, an unbeliever does not know love (aka, if p != q and q = r, then p != r,)
I didn't like that conclusion - it bothers me. And my faith is obviously more than just logical treatises. I don't really regard "God is love" as a mathematical equality, as I treated it there, so I was thinking about whether or not that conclusion would necessarily hold if I attempt to arrive at it without using that equality. I went from there on through the reasoning posted above to a tentative arrival that the conclusion could be true, or at least I couldn't easily dismiss it. Since I did all of that, and yet still don't like my conclusion, I want to know if my approach to how I reached what I did is flawed or reasonable.
