rollins

    ...for love cannot and ought not to be justified. there is no justification for love, for if there were, then it would not be love. If we love because we are compelled through force, then it is not love. If I give money to the poor only because someone is holding a gun to my head and demanding the action, then this is not a loving action. Neither is it loving if I act in order to gain a reward, even if the reward is simply the feeling that comes from doing the act. As soon as we say that we should love, then love disappears, for love is the law that has no law, the way that knows no 'should'. Love is the law that tells us when to subvert the law, when to obey the law and when to break with laws, yet love is a lawless law that cannot be argued for.
    This means that my argument for love can in no way be taken as a justification for works-based salvation, for as soon as love works in order to receive something, it is not love. Love acts because it is compelled by love, not for a place in heaven. Here the binary between faith and works is devastated, as the work of love is faith by another word. The love that Christ spoke of is born of G-d, and when we see it at work, we know that the person has been born of G-d. If the works being carried out are for other reasons (such as the desire for salvation), then it is not love that we are witnessing. This love is not the narcissistic love that we see all around us and within us; this love is more radical than we can ever imagine...The problem we all face when confronted by this idea of love is whether we have ever done anything that could be described as loving in the way of that emanates from G-d...
[Peter Rollins, How (not) to Speak of G-d]