The Logos of Agape – Which translated fully into English would mean “the Logic of Love” is what this site is all about. Logos is the Greek word being translated “Logic” here and the Greek word “Agape” is the word being translated to Love. This is very intentional, Logos is capitalized because it is a reference to Jesus (the Son of God) and Agape is capitalized because it is a reference to God (the Father) as Love. It also carries the basic meaning of what is God’s love and the logic that accompanies it. In this way it could be said this this website is seeking the very mind of God who is love and the logic that flows from His loving nature. To fully understand why this is, it would be recommended that you start your journey through the website in the category of Greek word study and read on both the Greek words Logos and Agape and their meanings. Overall it is a play on words if God is love we ought to logically consider what this means!
I have spent many years now studying God and what this could mean. As I searched for this I have heavily leaned on scripture but not scripture of an english translation but scripture as it was originally written in its original language and what it meant to its original audiance. In light of this I have come to study and lean heavily on early church fathers and early church understanding in general to understand what the scriptures meant in their original context. What you see on this website are my findings, observations, and musings based off of this life long study I have embarked on.
I look forward to continuing this journey and study with you through this blog!
The Logos of Agape 
Thanks for your recent comment on my blog and kind words about the Sinnergists. I love the wordplay in the title of your blog! Be blessed 🙂
LikeLike
Hello have you thought about doing a translation of parts of the new testament ? Or a study of where the word Faithfulness has been wrongly translated into mere faith in the New Testament ?
LikeLike
Yes. I have translated all of the book of Roman’s and a small part of Ephesians so far. You can find a few snippets of my Romans translation under scripture translation on this site!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m sorry I didn’t get notified of your reply. Just seen it now. I will take a look at those . Many thanks.
LikeLike
I have been reading your articles and appreciate the effort etc. I do have a question regarding the study on Synegia and Klesis. I am not a Greek scholar by any means so I have to rely on other people who are far more learned than I am. I was especially interested in your view that the word “all” in Romans 8:28 was in fact not modifying “things” but was actually referring to all who love God and therefore was emphasizing a partnership as opposed to God doing it “all.” I was interested because I have looked at other verses where the phrase “all things” in English appears but there is no Greek word for things. It seemed as if Romans 8:28 might be doing the same thing. However, in checking other sources I have been told that grammatically the word “all” in Romans 8:28 is in Greek a neuter plural accusative and is in fact the object of the very synergei whereas “those who love God” is a dative plural masculine and as such “all” can’t refer to those who love God. Further it was explained to me that in English we don’t use adjectives as nouns but Greek permits it so the word “things” is appropriately added. Grammatically it was explained to me that you can’t mismatch the dative with the accusative nor the masculine plural with a neuter plural. Can you share with me your understanding? I certianly believe God partners with us but at the moment I would have trouble using Romans 8:28 as a proof text.
LikeLike
Just in case anyone is following along in these comments here is my response to your inquiry when you asked about this same thing elsewhere:
I appreciate your search for understanding. Let me begin by admitting something I say elsewhere on this blog.
All translation is an act of interpretation.
For that reason, I cannot and will not claim to provide a definitive translation that everyone must accept. At best, I can offer my reasons for interpreting and therefore translating the passage the way I have in this article.
But before doing that, I need to acknowledge something more personal and important.
Much of my work tends to focus on lexical meaning, what individual words mean, how they are used across Scripture, and the theological patterns they form. In Romans 8:28, for example, I focused heavily on synergei (“works together”) and klētois (“called”), and on how those concepts function throughout the New Testament.
What I did not sufficiently attend to was your syntactical argument, how the words relate to one another grammatically within the sentence itself.
That is my oversight.
You are not merely asking about word meaning. You were pointing to grammatical structure, case, gender, and agreement. On that level, your objection is well taken.
The phrase panta is neuter plural accusative, while “those who love God” is masculine dative plural. As a general rule of Greek syntax, a substantival adjective agrees with the noun it modifies in gender, number, and case. For that reason, it is difficult grammatically to sustain the claim that panta is referring directly to “those who love God” in the way I suggested in my original article.
In hindsight, I allowed a theological and semantic observation to do more grammatical work than the text can responsibly carry. That is on me, and I appreciate you pressing the issue.
So let me be clear. I do not think my original grammatical argument is the strongest way to read the verse, and I would not present it in that form today (when I have time I will try to correct it in the blog article itself)
However, correcting that point does not, in my view, dismantle the broader theological argument I was trying to make.
At the center of Romans 8:28 is the statement that God is working, whether one translates it as “all things work together” or “God works all things together,” for good to those who love Him, who are also described as those called according to His purpose.
Even if panta must be understood as “all things” or “all circumstances,” the question remains, what kind of framework does Paul place this divine action within?
Here I still think my broader argument stands.
Throughout the New Testament, the language of calling (kaleō, klēsis) is consistently relational and participatory:
Called into the fellowship of His Son (1 Corinthians 1:9)
Called into freedom that expresses itself in love (Galatians 5:13)
Called into God’s kingdom and glory (1 Thessalonians 2:12)
Called out of darkness into light (1 Peter 2:9)
Again and again, the called are not passive objects but active participants in a lived vocation with God.
So while I no longer think Romans 8:28 can be used to argue that panta refers directly to “those who love God,” I do still think the verse places God’s providential working within the lived reality of a called, responding, participating people.
In other words, the grammatical correction actually sharpens rather than destroys the larger point. Paul is not describing an abstract mechanism of fate, but a divine purpose unfolding within a relational, responsive community.
If I were to revise my translation in light of your objection, I would put it like this:
“Furthermore, we understand that God is working all things together for good within the lives of those who love Him, those who are called according to His purpose.”
Or alternatively:
“Furthermore, we understand that God works all things together toward good in the case of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.”
These translations concede the grammatical point you raised. panta refers to all things or all circumstances, not directly to the people described.
But they preserve what I still believe is the theological thrust of the verse. God’s providential action is not detached from a passive audience, but is occurring within the lived, relational context of a called people who love Him and participate in His purposes.
So in short, I agree that I overextended my grammatical argument. I think your syntactical objection is substantially correct. But I still believe the participatory framework of calling that surrounds the verse, and the broader New Testament usage of klēsis, supports a theology of engaged, responsive cooperation within God’s redemptive work.
Thank you again for pressing into this carefully. It helped me see more clearly where I was overreading the grammar, and where the real strength of the argument actually lies.
LikeLike