The modern Scandinavian languages use the definite article in much the same way as it is used in English (although the form is very different - it is a suffix, except when accompanied by an adjective, in which case its form is similar to that of English and the other Germanic languages). To take the example given, "Love" and "Cholera" would take no article, but "Time" would take the definite article - just like English.
This may possibly have something to do with cross-influences between Old English and Old Norse (the ancestor of the Scandinavian languages) in the Viking period; but it may also be just that both English and Scandinavian were historically on the fringes of European culture, and have therefore not taken on certain features of West European languages which are widespread in the Mainland. Such features have been seen to spread among neighbouring languages regardless of linguistic group: so German and Dutch, although Germanic, share some features with Romance languages which they do not share with English or Scandinavian.
Another example of this is the use, in colloquial speech in Western Mainland European languages, of the present perfect to describe actions which took place at a definite point in the past. Thus the French render "I did it yesterday" as "je l'ai fait hier", and the Germans render it as "ich habe es gestern gemacht"; but the Norwegians render it as "Jeg gjorde det igaar" - "I did it yesterday". The Continental structure is an innovation, which has not spread to Britain (except arguably Cockney) or Scandinavia; and is also not yet fully accepted in written forms of Continenetal languages.
In light of all this, I doubt very much that the English usage of the definite article is the result of an early creolization. On the contrary, it is probably a result of relative isolation and conservatism (in this respect).