Summary of text [comment] page 72

Sin renders of us unable to love God and unable to love our fellow “man”.

If the person proclaims “his” love, it is not real.

One cannot appeal to the so-called fact, that some sinners (people who have lost grace) may nevertheless really love.

[Here, ‘love’ should be called agape as opposed to eros.

The above summary appears to confound the two.

Can a person incapable of agape fall into eros?

Here is a question that post-religious (enlightenment) rhetoricians would love to exploit. So let me pass it by.

According to Schoonenberg, natural agape cannot be real agape.

‘Agape is real’ when one’s conscience is oriented towards God.]

Summary of text [comment] page 72

[The second is the intersection showing the tension between ‘I recognize myself’ and ‘human nature is to participate in divine nature’.

Let me suppose that ‘love’ is ‘agape’.

Suppose the single actuality is ‘the state of brotherly love’. One would imagine this state to be a state of grace.

But, consider 1 John 4:20. If anyone says, ‘I love God’, yet hates his brother, he is a liar. He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.

In this case, the axis of recognition is visible. The person proclaims “his” recognition of “his” love for God.

The axis of participation is more hidden. The person (secretly) hates “his” brother.

What is the theological twist in 1 John 4:20?

Observe. The divine object is a lie.]

[What has the person not seen?

Perhaps, “she” has not seen the situation-level nested form. “She” has not seen how “her” divine nature situates “her” feelings of attraction. “She” becomes smaller. In modern terms, “she” objectifies “herself”. “Her” carnal expectations situates “her” feelings of attraction.

“She” does not sense “her” self-destruction.]

Summary of text [comment] page 72

[The first is the interscoping nested form for ‘something called ‘love’.

Let me suppose that ‘love’ is ‘eros’.

The person sees the content-level, where “she” is attracted to “her” love. “She” loves being in love. “She” sees the erotic.]

[To me, 1 John 4:20 calls to mind a question about the interscoping and intersecting nested forms:

Is one of the forms ‘visible’ and the other ‘hidden’?

Let me consider two examples.]

[By extension, this also applies to agape.]

Schoonenberg asserted:

No love is possible on any level without conversion from sin. Without grace, a sinful man is incapable of any love, natural or supernatural.