What is the Christian Philosophy and What are Christian Ethics

[Josheb]

That would be the two greatest commandments.

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

THese sum up all the moral law. Especially the 2nd greatest commandment because its basically what morality is in how we treat others. So if we love others like ourselves and do unto them what we would want done for us then this covers a multitude of sins against others.

In fact there is no morality unless it is between people. Morality is a natural sense or inclination in us because we are made in Gods image and just living together requires morality. The Isrealites found this out in the desert.

Gee your a hard task master. lol. Six lets see. Ok I mentioned the 2 greatest commandments which are to love God and your neighbour as yourself.

So the Golden Rule also applies.

Also help the poor and needy as Christ did and taught such as help widows in a practical way. Give of your time and money to help others. This is a fundemental principle of sacrificing oneself for the good of others and an example of Christ.

Being born again through the gospel would also mean proclaiming the gospel, the good news to others, The 11th step of AA is after being restored to sanity and having a spiritual awakening a recovering alcoholic or addict must then help others find the way to sobriety in sharing the message of AA. This is a fundemental principle and ethic as it is not only helping others but putting faith into action in sharing what saved you.

Another important principle is the idea of surrender and submission. That seems a dirty word to society today. But like in AA or NA the addict admits their wrongs and surrenders to a higher power which if often God. This is a continual practice for when we sin or fall short we take this to God and hand over to Him so we are transformed into a new person in Christ.

From this comes the fruits of the spirit with love being the greatest. Which ultimately brings us back to Christs example of sacrificial love and the two greatest commandments.

So
1) Love God with all your heart and mind. This relates to having a mind and heart after God in being born again. We want to please God. By making God our number 1 anchor rather than the love of money, things or even our family is the foundation for all else.
2) love your neighbour as yourself, unconditional love like Christ for others. Which underpins all morality.
3) the Golden rule which is different to loving others as yourself. It is taking the time and effort to treat others in practical ways like you would want to be treated. Heres the caatch, not just family or friends but also strangers. Especially strangers.
4) help the poor and needy in a practical way with time and/or money. As Christians and a church we should be the experts and leaders on this within society. Its our mission and obligation.
5) proclaim the good news to others. Sharing the Good news and God not only helps others but also yourself in putting your faith into action.
6) submission and surrender of self to God and others. This is a fundemental principle and ethic that the world finds hard tyo understand. Its a radical and counter intuitive way to be in a rights based political world where power and oppression is seen everywhere. But it is transformative not just for the individual in submitting to God and becoming a new person. But also in exampling Christ to the world.

I hope this is ok. Please be kind on your remarks. I feel like I am back at Uni

Wonderful. Thank you very much. I'll wait to see who else weighs in and I will return to address this content more specifically after I have had a chance to read and consider everyone else's responses.

 

[Josheb]

God is the only One capable of thinking and doing what is right. And this comes through Jesus. And this includes being able to love the best possible way. And God will only give us the best, therefore giving His very own Son and His one right love in the Holy Spirit. And only this love is right for having the best relating along with strength of God to keep us from getting hurt and suffering in cruel and nasty emotions and feelings.

Therefore; we have ethics >

Depend only on God to bring us into real loving and to protect us emotionally.

A practical rule for this is >

"Do all things without complaining and disputing," (Philippians 2:14)

Because arguing and complaining are not in God's love which has His creativity to get us what is better than arguing and complaining can get us.

And be generously forgiving; because God's love is generously forgiving; and so unforgiveness can keep us in what is not real love; unforgiveness is in Satan's spirit and kingdom where a person can attract trouble and hurts: being willing to be unforgiving can make someone a magnet for things to be unforgiving about.

God gives us rules because He knows what is and what is not done in His love. Therefore, do not get into immoral and falsely sexual stuff which is in lust for pleasure and not in sensitive sharing with God in His love.

Thank you. I find this wanting, but I do appreciate bot the attempt and the fact you actually endeavored to meet the op's criteria. Thank you very much. I'll wait to see who else weighs in, and I will return to address this content more specifically after I have had a chance to read and consider everyone else's responses.

 

[Josheb]

I don't feel that specific ethics will satisfy you.

Then do not post. If the subject of the op is going to be ignored in favor of impugning others, then it would be best of another thread where others could be satisfied was enjoined. If I read more content like post 18, I will it.

 

[Josheb]

That's a long list, but I'll do my best.

First, one needs to understand what love of God means.

No, one does not need to understand the details to answer the questions asked. A theses statement was requested, not a thesis. That being said, I give you credit for the following:

It means that after recognizing that God is good, one lives their life in harmony with God's standards of right and wrong. Thus obedience to God takes priority over everything else.

For example, humans give advice regarding family life, health, etc.
Some say, masturbation is a healthy practice; practice safe sex - use a condom, when having sex with your "partner"; get a divorce if you cannot live peacefully with your mate; get an abortion if...
God says differently, in these matters, and others.
One must follow God's view, even when it goes against popular opinion.

Are they benefits to following God's standards?
Certainly. There are many.
Would you like a list of the benefits as well?

Another example...
Humans may believe it is right to "defend and fight for your country".
Love of God, dictates that "we must obey God rather than men". Acts 5:29

God says, "love your enemies". Matthew 5:44
Jesus said, "A new commandment I give to you, that you should love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another." John 13:34
So, we obey God, and Jesus, and show love... not by going to war, and fighting people of different nationalities, but doing what God's word says at Romans 12:17-21

17 Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. 18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 Therefore​

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.”​

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.​

This allows us to demonstrate love for neighbor, by not setting out to harm them.
Instead, even when they are at war with us, we try to be at peace with them, allowing for the potential that they themselves might become peaceable.

The greatest love that we can show God, and our neighbor, is giving of spiritual gifts, which includes preaching the gospel of the kingdom, in obedience to God Matthew 24:14, which may help a neighbor to find joy in coming to know God, and his truth; kind acts toward others Hebrews 13:16.
These also bring many benefits to neighborhoods.

One benefit, is that a neighborhood that is "bad", can actually become "good", because people change their life course, for the better.
Even whole households benefit, as violent individuals become peacemakers; drunkards become sober; abusive mates become real husbands or wives... contributing to happy family life, which result in less youth abusing drugs, and or teenaged pregnancies and abortions... etc.

I hope that wasn't too long.
I can make it longer, if you want more details.

The op asks for a statement describing the Christian philosophy and a short list of specific ethics that support that personal statement. Thank you very much for your attempt. I'll wait to see who else weighs in and I will return to address this content more specifically after I have had a chance to read and consider everyone else's responses.

 

[Niels]

1. The individual's relationship with God.
2. Our ethics should reflect Jesus' attitude and sacrifice for us as individuals. Extending to others the grace that has been extended to us.

I realize that what this looks like can differ greatly from one person to the next. Which is partly why I identify as a Quaker who is a Christian rather than simply a Christian. The Quaker approach to life is a reasonably accurate reflection of my personal ethics. Like George Fox, what I find lacking in Christian denominations I find in the person of Christ. He meets us where we are regardless of race, station in life, or other worldly signifiers. We are created in his image, worthy of dignity, and with something of him in each of us through that image. God is directly accessible regardless of where we are on our journey. I prefer my ethical practices to reflect that of an individual among other equal individuals also blessed to experience God's creation. This approach also aligns well with that of my Jewish friends. Considering Jesus' status as a Rabbi, that resonates with me.

For what it's worth, I do meet the definition of Christian per this site's rules despite the fact that not all Quakers are Christian.

Regarding US conservatism, I don't think it has much if anything to do with Jesus. On your list, fiscal responsibility and distrust of power structures align reasonably well, but the rest just seem like politics to me. Although I strongly support the US Constitution, and would rather not mess with a formula that works, I also see it as a worldy document. Not gospel. It enshrines liberal ideology into law, allowing for self governance as a populace. To the extent that conservatives want to preserve the liberal thinking that the Constitution represents, I think that's great. However, I disagree with conservatives who wish to implement and preserve authoritarian power structures. To do so strikes me as unrelated to either Christianity or the historical US emphasis on freedom.

Regarding hot-button US conservative issues, I think people should follow their conscience without being busybodies. If you don't support abortion, for instance, then don't have an abortion. If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry somebody of the same sex etc. I think Christians stand to make the world a better place by simply walking with Christ and being influenced by the dynamics of relationship than by using the government to coerce others. Leading by example is more effective in the long run.

 

[stevevw]

Wonderful. Thank you very much. I'll wait to see who else weighs in and I will return to address this content more specifically after I have had a chance to read and consider everyone else's responses.

Yes I think theres more to say. Especially in how this can be lived out. Easier said than done in todays world.

 

[Stephen3141]

What is the Christian Philosophy and What are Christian Ethics

1) If you were asked to provide a single thesis statement defining or describing the "Christian philosophy," what would be your version of that statement? Try wording it in a single sentence but, for the sake of this discussion, I'll allow but limit the definition to one to three sentences.

2) Using the definition provided, what would you list as the basic points of Christian ethics. List the principles you think qualify as the ethics of Christianity. For the sake of this thread let's make the list at one to ten principles in length.

Please do not merely quote scripture unless the verse quoted explicitly uses the word "ethic." Use scripture to support any statement by citing the text reference in parentheses ().

Here is an example of what I am requesting using US political conservativism:

Thesis statement:

Conservatism is a political philosophy that seeks to preserve what has proven to work in society.

Ethical Principles:

1. Following the Rule of Law with the Constitution being the chief authoritative statement of that Law.
2. Mistrust of Power
3. Limited federal government, as stipulated by the Constitution.
4. Majority rule with an obligation to preserve and protect the rights of any minority.
5. Fiscal responsibility.
6. Change effected gradually based on what has previously proven to work, specified goals, and confined to the stipulations of the Constitution.
7. Reliance on all the institutions of society as viable agents of change rather than a sole reliance on the government as the chief agent of change.

I could make that list a little longer but that will serve as an illustrative example for what is being requested in this op. The point being that policies are not principles. Policies are governed by principles, not the other way around. Maintaining a balanced budget is not a principle; it's a policy arrived at through the application of already existing principles. Deciding whether or not to implement law prohibiting panhandling on traffic medians is not something a conservative would/should support if there already exist laws prohibiting that conduct. This is because there is a governing principle that restricts the expansion of government and the enforcement of existing laws over the addition of new laws that are unnecessary.

And please do not get distracted by this example. This op is about Christian philosophy and Christian ethics in the Christian Philosophy & Ethics board. Feel free to quote my content and paste it into an op in the Politics board. Have that discussion there. Thank you.



What is a thesis statement describing or defining Christian philosophy, and what are some of the basic, fundamental ethical principles thereof?

(I'm trying to figure out what your initial assumptions have to do with
philosophy. Let alone, Christian philosophy.)

In philosophy, you must deal with the major disciplines in philosophy,
such as...

Epistemology: exploers definitions of truth

Moral Theory: explores what people believe is "right" and "wrong"

Formal Logic: explores the historical definitions of what "logically valid"
and "logically sound" mean.

There are Christian approaches to these subjects.

BUT, you seem to be confusing badly systems of government,
with disciplines in Philosophy.

 

[Josheb]

(I'm trying to figure out what your initial assumptions have to do with philosophy. Let alone, Christian philosophy.)

You should probably stop trying to figure out what others assume, and definitely stop doing it with me.

This is the "Christian Philosophy & Ethics" board. It explicitly states that fact right there at the top of the browser. Therefore, members of this forum enter this board to discuss Christian philosophy & ethics. This board is not for discussing Buddhist or Islamic philosophy or Marxist or Objectivist philosophy, nor the ethics associated with those philosophies. Presumably, the people entering this board to discuss Christian philosophy and ethics either have some knowledge of those subject or are interested in getting some of that knowledge.

That is the only assumption I have made.

In philosophy, you must deal with the major disciplines in philosophy,
such as...

Epistemology: exploers definitions of truth

Moral Theory: explores what people believe is "right" and "wrong"

Formal Logic: explores the historical definitions of what "logically valid"
and "logically sound" mean.

There are Christian approaches to these subjects.

BUT, you seem to be confusing badly systems of government,
with disciplines in Philosophy.

Thank you, but I do not need philosophy, Christian or otherwise, explained to me (and some of what you just posted is factually incorrect). I would correct those errors but that is not the subject nor purpose of this thread so I will thank you to make an effort to stick to the two requests made in the op.

1. If stated in a single sentence, what is your version of the "Christian Philosophy"? How would you define, describe that? What would be your thesis statement describing the Christian philosophy?
2. Using the definition you are going to provide, what would you list as the basic points of Christian ethics? List the principles you think qualify as the ethics of Christianity relevant to your definition of the Christian philosophy.

Short and sweet. Give it a try. Thank you

 

[Josheb]

My apologies for the absence.

I originally posted this op because I was wondering if anyone, or how many Christians can identify a "Christian philosophy." I was wondering why have a board on the topic if the term is not defined by the forum. One of the most frequently occurring problems when a diverse group of people get together to discuss something is the failure to define the subject and/or the relevant terms. When that happens, the result is people start talking past each other with each participant thinking they have communicated something of substance when that hasn't actually occurred. I give two example.

When we talk about "Jesus Christ," there are a lot of different definitions of that term. Christians who subscribe to the historical, orthodox position in Christianity hold to a Trinitarian definition of "Jesus Christ." Non-trins reject that premise. They use the phrase, "Jesus Christ," but mean something entirely different from the Trinitarian when they do so. The modalist, the JW, the LDS, and the allegorist all hold a different definition of Jesus the Christ so if one of the Trinitarian members of the forum is discussing who and what is Jesus, then they MUST define the term and come to some sort of agreement so that at least some of the conversation is about the same person.

Another example is one I had recently in another board. The topic of discussion was sanctification, and the op had asserted a book on comparative views, "Christian Spirituality: Five views of Sanctification." I read the book specifically so I would be familiar with the positions asserted by the five different theologians, each of whom comes from a different theological tradition. I had my own viewpoint before reading the book, one I could articulate referencing scripture alone. Although I enjoy extra-biblical theology, I endeavor to always base my views on rightly-rendered scripture alone wherever possible. One of the most remarkable parts of the book is that all five theologians held different definitions of sanctification. The end result is a book that isn't actually comparative and a book for which there is little mutually shared conclusion. I immediately thought of Ephesians 4.

Ephesians 4:11-13
And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.​

Those authors, imo, failed to achieve one of the basic goals of their existence; the achieving of unity of the faith. A reader of that book might potentially walk away with multiple definitions and be worse off then s/he was before reading the book and things might even be considered worse because the forum discussion of sanctification added even more definitions. I also discovered that posters who considered themselves ardent Calvinists were not. At least one "Contemplative" turned out to be extraordinarily Reformed.



For my part I believe the Christian philosophy starts with faith, not love. I do think those that appealed to loving God and then, by extension loving others are on the correct track but loving God and others is not exclusive to Christianity. What separates Christianity is it assertion faith, not works, is preeminent. The Christian is that because we believe and are then indwelt by God Himself, we are inspired, enable, empowered to love Him and others.


So......

I hope for a couple of things. One might be the admins of the forum define the term as they intend it to be discusses so that members do not end up talking past each and unwittingly deluding themselves and each other. Another is that if there is no specific forum-provided definition then any member choosing to post on the subject defines his/her use of the term(s) so that everyone is working from a shared understanding (if if there is some disagreement on the definition). The third, and perhaps the most important, is the matter of practicality because philosophy is fairly useless if it's not applicable and applied.


In the Christian philosophy the most critical aspect of the faith is faith. No matter what happens to each of us during our respective lives THE one critical aspect of Christianity is that we draw our last breath still believing in God and the salvation He has provided for us through His incarnate, dead, resurrected, and ascendant Son, Jesus Christ.

So.....

I wouldlike to suggest

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

In the Christian philosophy the most critical aspect of the faith is faith. No matter what happens to each of us during our respective lives THE one critical aspect of Christianity is that we draw our last breath still believing in God and the salvation He has provided for us through His incarnate, dead, resurrected, and ascendant Son, Jesus Christ.

Thoroughly agreed about the plethora of definitions. However, I cannot think that the forum management should demand a single set, because we are talking about words spoken by God Himself, about Himself, and therefore only such definition directly from Him, can be sufficient.

Also, I will have to suggest that although Romans and sympathizers and a number of others sometimes say that their favorite magistration or church is the most critical aspect of their faiths, and many others say that faith is the most critical aspect of faith, I will suggest that God Himself has said:

But He answering said, “It has been written: Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word coming forth from the mouth of God.”
Matthew 4:4

which means that neither faith nor church are nearly the most important, but instead, every word coming forth from the mouth of God.

 

[Stephen3141]

I agree with the comment by Josheb, on the lack of definition of "Christian Philosophy".

I would suggest, without trying to offend some Christians, that

1. Philosophy is not just "thinking about different topics", which is what some
Christians think it is. Historically, philosophy has a number of different
disciplines, including Ontology, Moral Theory, Formal Logic, and others.

Christian groups that do not embrace the intellectual heritage of Christianity
(I assert), do not even recognize these historic disciplines. And so, their
definition of "philosophy" (I assert) CANNOT BE DISTINGUISHED FROM
THEOLOGY. They have no idea what "Philosophy" means.

2 There are many philosophical models that are historic, in the different
disciplines of philosophy (for example, in Moral Theory). Some of these
models are COMPATIBLE with Christianity, and some of them ARE NOT.
A "Christian Philosophy" must use models THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH
CORE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES.

For example, there are a couple of Moral Theory models that are compatible
with core Christian doctrines. There are philosophical models of Moral Theory
that are NOT COMPATIBLE with Christianity.

I deal with the most common moral theory models, in "Christian Logic, Wuest,
2024, 224-275. If you are not familiar with these common historical moral
theory models, THEN your assertions about morality-ethical matters are NOT
using historical "philosophical" definitions.

3. (The same question can be asked about formal logic. What can be defined
as "Christian Logic"? The answer to this question is tied up in using Christian
definitions and rules in the Assumption part of a proof/argument. I start to
deal with this question in "Christian Logic, Wuest, 2024, 46-.
---------- ----------

Although "Christian Logic" is NOT explicitely defined in this site, IT IS USEFUL
for the site to allow Christians who have no idea what historical philosophy is, to post
on this site. OTHERWISE, they may never discover that they do not know what
historical philosophy is. Or, Christian philosophy.

 

[fhansen]

What is the Christian Philosophy and What are Christian Ethics

1) If you were asked to provide a single thesis statement defining or describing the "Christian philosophy," what would be your version of that statement? Try wording it in a single sentence but, for the sake of this discussion, I'll allow but limit the definition to one to three sentences.
. here're a few short ones of mine
2) Using the definition provided, what would you list as the basic points of Christian ethics. List the principles you think qualify as the ethics of Christianity. For the sake of this thread let's make the list at one to ten principles in length.

Please do not merely quote scripture unless the verse quoted explicitly uses the word "ethic." Use scripture to support any statement by citing the text reference in parentheses ().

Here is an example of what I am requesting using US political conservativism:

Thesis statement:

Conservatism is a political philosophy that seeks to preserve what has proven to work in society.

Ethical Principles:

1. Following the Rule of Law with the Constitution being the chief authoritative statement of that Law.
2. Mistrust of Power
3. Limited federal government, as stipulated by the Constitution.
4. Majority rule with an obligation to preserve and protect the rights of any minority.
5. Fiscal responsibility.
6. Change effected gradually based on what has previously proven to work, specified goals, and confined to the stipulations of the Constitution.
7. Reliance on all the institutions of society as viable agents of change rather than a sole reliance on the government as the chief agent of change.

I could make that list a little longer but that will serve as an illustrative example for what is being requested in this op. The point being that policies are not principles. Policies are governed by principles, not the other way around. Maintaining a balanced budget is not a principle; it's a policy arrived at through the application of already existing principles. Deciding whether or not to implement law prohibiting panhandling on traffic medians is not something a conservative would/should support if there already exist laws prohibiting that conduct. This is because there is a governing principle that restricts the expansion of government and the enforcement of existing laws over the addition of new laws that are unnecessary.

And please do not get distracted by this example. This op is about Christian philosophy and Christian ethics in the Christian Philosophy & Ethics board. Feel free to quote my content and paste it into an op in the Politics board. Have that discussion there. Thank you.



What is a thesis statement describing or defining Christian philosophy, and what are some of the basic, fundamental ethical principles thereof?

I haven't read through everything here on this thread so forgive me if I'm repeating any thoughts already stated. Here're a few short ones of mine in any case:

1)
Loving God with one's whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and their neighbor as themselves is the means to human wholeness, moral integrity, meaning of life, peace, happiness-and eternal life.


2)
Knowledge of God resulting in faith in Him is the precursor to and foundation of this love as faith is the doorway to union with God, the essence and source of love. Jesus Christ reveals that true God.

The Decalogue serves as a guide for behavior motivated by love.

God is the ultimate, true Good, who wants more for us than we can begin to imagine. Value Him above all else

Cause no harm to neighbor,

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Serve/help those in need.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

The Decalogue serves as a guide for behavior motivated by love.

Have you read the Second Commandment?

 

[fhansen]

Have you read the Second Commandment?

Yes

 

[Stephen3141]

As I have said above, and in other posts, "philosophy" is different than
just a Christian thinking about different topics.

Philosophy has established disciplines, and many of these disciplines
have multiple historic models (such as in Moral Theory). In the historic
definition of philosophy", many of the posts in theis thread would fall into trying to
flesh out the details of a moral-ethical model, in the philophical subdiscipline
of Moral Theory.

My point is that those who comment in this thread, posting what they think
are core moral-ethical commands in Christianity, AND CALLING THAT ALL
OF PHILOSOPHY, are unfamiliar with the historical definition of "philosophy".

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

My point is that those who comment in this thread, posting what they think
are core moral-ethical commands in Christianity, AND CALLING THAT ALL
OF PHILOSOPHY, are unfamiliar with the historical definition of "philosophy".

Some are interested in declaring and serving an imagined nonexistent single solitary universal historical human definition of "philosophy". Others look at a list of very different dictionary definitions, and remember that in all things philosophical, we of Christ are devoted to that which He has said.

 

[Hazelelponi]

My apologies for the absence.

I originally posted this op because I was wondering if anyone, or how many Christians can identify a "Christian philosophy." I was wondering why have a board on the topic if the term is not defined by the forum. One of the most frequently occurring problems when a diverse group of people get together to discuss something is the failure to define the subject and/or the relevant terms. When that happens, the result is people start talking past each other with each participant thinking they have communicated something of substance when that hasn't actually occurred. I give two example.

When we talk about "Jesus Christ," there are a lot of different definitions of that term. Christians who subscribe to the historical, orthodox position in Christianity hold to a Trinitarian definition of "Jesus Christ." Non-trins reject that premise. They use the phrase, "Jesus Christ," but mean something entirely different from the Trinitarian when they do so. The modalist, the JW, the LDS, and the allegorist all hold a different definition of Jesus the Christ so if one of the Trinitarian members of the forum is discussing who and what is Jesus, then they MUST define the term and come to some sort of agreement so that at least some of the conversation is about the same person.

Another example is one I had recently in another board. The topic of discussion was sanctification, and the op had asserted a book on comparative views, "Christian Spirituality: Five views of Sanctification." I read the book specifically so I would be familiar with the positions asserted by the five different theologians, each of whom comes from a different theological tradition. I had my own viewpoint before reading the book, one I could articulate referencing scripture alone. Although I enjoy extra-biblical theology, I endeavor to always base my views on rightly-rendered scripture alone wherever possible. One of the most remarkable parts of the book is that all five theologians held different definitions of sanctification. The end result is a book that isn't actually comparative and a book for which there is little mutually shared conclusion. I immediately thought of Ephesians 4.

​

Ephesians 4:11-13​

And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.​

Those authors, imo, failed to achieve one of the basic goals of their existence; the achieving of unity of the faith. A reader of that book might potentially walk away with multiple definitions and be worse off then s/he was before reading the book and things might even be considered worse because the forum discussion of sanctification added even more definitions. I also discovered that posters who considered themselves ardent Calvinists were not. At least one "Contemplative" turned out to be extraordinarily Reformed.



For my part I believe the Christian philosophy starts with faith, not love. I do think those that appealed to loving God and then, by extension loving others are on the correct track but loving God and others is not exclusive to Christianity. What separates Christianity is it assertion faith, not works, is preeminent. The Christian is that because we believe and are then indwelt by God Himself, we are inspired, enable, empowered to love Him and others.


So......

I hope for a couple of things. One might be the admins of the forum define the term as they intend it to be discusses so that members do not end up talking past each and unwittingly deluding themselves and each other. Another is that if there is no specific forum-provided definition then any member choosing to post on the subject defines his/her use of the term(s) so that everyone is working from a shared understanding (if if there is some disagreement on the definition). The third, and perhaps the most important, is the matter of practicality because philosophy is fairly useless if it's not applicable and applied.


In the Christian philosophy the most critical aspect of the faith is faith. No matter what happens to each of us during our respective lives THE one critical aspect of Christianity is that we draw our last breath still believing in God and the salvation He has provided for us through His incarnate, dead, resurrected, and ascendant Son, Jesus Christ.

So.....

I wouldlike to suggest

I love God's law, I really do, but none of us can live up to it. We are all saved by Grace through faith .

It doesn't mean we don't give God our best though! He first loved us after all .

 

[fhansen]

In the Christian philosophy the most critical aspect of the faith is faith. No matter what happens to each of us during our respective lives THE one critical aspect of Christianity is that we draw our last breath still believing in God and the salvation He has provided for us through His incarnate, dead, resurrected, and ascendant Son, Jesus Christ.

Can’t agree less right off the bat I guess. The most critical aspect of the faith is love. Without it we’re nothing, not even on the road to God’s desire and purpose for man. Faith is the beginning, the foundation, but only as it serves as that connection to the Vine, the essence and the source of love, the love on which we’ll be judged.