What is the Christian Philosophy and What are Christian Ethics

Josheb · May 3, 2025

fhansen said:
Can’t agree less right off the bat I guess. The most critical aspect of the faith is love.

You just contradicted yourself.

You disagree faith is the philosophy but subordinate love to faith as a "critical aspect of faith." Would any act of love have any value to God apart from faith in Christ?

Hint: remember the epistolary was written to believers, not non-believers.
.

fhansen said:
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.

Who is the "we" in that statement?

Here's a trio of texts that might help understand the predicate nature of faith.

John 3:18
He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

1 Corinthians 3:11-15
For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for the one who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He proves to be One who rewards those who seek Him.

History, both canonical and post-canonical, is filled with loving people. Most of them died dead in sin with destruction as their only hope. Love is cool. Love is a necessity but it's an ethic, not the philosophy.

fhansen · May 3, 2025

Josheb said:
Thank you.

Do you think loving acts coming from a person who has no faith in Christ merit anything to God?

A good, and not uncontroversial, question

. I think faith may be implicit in a person's love, providing that's truly what it is, as they're responding to and acting upon God's image that still resides within. The Good Samaritan, who turned out to be the real "neighbor", comes to mind, as does a soldier who selflessly sacrifices his life in battle for his peers. Or those simple acts of compassion and mercy where someone forgives another or gives to those needier than themselves, to "the least of these", as per Matt 25. I think we might be finding out that God will be reaping where He doesn't sew in many occasions: also Matt 25. And ignorance of the gospel can migate one's culpability in any case.

Either way, I'd at least rather stand in front of God with those kinds of acts of love behind me and without an explicit faith, than be a person who stands on their faith but has no such love- and the acts that follow. JMO

fhansen · May 3, 2025

Josheb said:
You just contradicted yourself.

Not really. I was obviously using the term "faith" as meaning that which defines Christianity: the Christian body of beliefs, which you were doing as well where I quoted you there.

Josheb said:
Love is cool. Love is a necessity but it's an ethic, not the philosophy.

That's where you fail to more fully understand God and the purpose of Christianity; the reason Jesus came and the reason He sacrificed Himself as He did. Faith is the beginning, the foundation of salvation as it's the ingrafting of the branch to the Vine, our vital bond to God. It's to recognize God's existence first of all, and His mercy, goodness, and love so that we'll turn to and begin to heed Him as man was always meant to do to begin with. But faith, alone, does not put us where God created us to be: hope and, most importantly, love, must accompany, must result. We are to love because He first loved us. Everything God does-everything Jesus did- is marked and motivated by His love and without that existence would have no lasting meaning or purpose or worth. His purpose is for His creation-for us-to come to value and express love as He does. Love is not a sidenote: it's the nature of God and the reason you were created. It's your salvation.

Paul: "...if I have a faith that can move mountains but have not love, I am nothing."

Augustine: "Without love faith may indeed exist, but avails nothing."

Josheb · May 3, 2025

fhansen said:
A good, and not uncontroversial, question . I think faith may be implicit in a person's love, providing that's truly what it is, as they're responding to and acting upon God's image that still resides within. The Good Samartian, who turned out to be the real "neighbor", comes to mind, as does a soldier who selflessly sacrifices his life in battle for his peers. Or those simple acts of compassion and mercy where someone forgives another or gives to those needier than themselves, to "the least of these", as per Matt 25. I think we might be finding out that God will be reaping where He doesn't sew in many occasions: also Matt 25. And ignorance of the gospel can migate one's culpability in any case.

Either way, I'd at least rather stand in front of God with those kinds of acts of love behind me and without an explicit faith, than be a person who stands on their faith but has no such love- and the acts that follow. JMO

fhansen said:
Not really. I was obviously using the term "faith" as meaning that which defines Christianity: the Christian body of beliefs, which you were doing as well where I quoted you there.

That's where you fail to more fully understand God and the purpose of Christianity; the reason Jesus came and the reason He sacrificed Himself as He did. Faith is the beginning, the foundation of salvation as it's the ingrafting of the branch to the Vine, our vital bond to God. It's to recognize God's existence first of all, and His mercy, goodness, and love so that we'll turn to and begin to heed Him as man was always meant to do to begin with. But faith, alone, does not put us where God created us to be: hope and, most importantly, love, must accompany, must result. We are to love because He first loved us. Everything God does-everything Jesus did- is marked and motivated by His love and without that existence would have no lasting meaning or purpose or worth. His purpose is for His creation-for us-to come to value and express love as He does. Love is not a sidenote: it's the nature of God and the reason you were created. It's your salvation.

Paul: "...if I have a faith that can move mountains but have not love, I am nothing."

Augustine: "Without love faith may indeed exist, but avails nothing."

John addressed all of that rather bluntly.

John 3:18
He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Those not believing in Jesus are condemned. The Good Samaritan was more neighborly, more loving than all the others in the story but if he did not believe in Jesus he stood before God condemned. No one can build on any foundation but Jesus crucified dead, resurrected, and ascendant. When you quote Paul and Augustine you are proving my point: those two men had faith. Neither one of them qualifies as a non-believer lacking faith doing loving acts. Paul and Augustine's comments are best understood in the context of the previously cited 1 Corinthians 3 text. Even a person building on Christ can add to that foundation and lose all his work(s). How? Because not every act of love is also an act of faith, or necessarily begotten from faith in Christ.

Ephesians 2:1-10
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Saved by grace.
Saved through faith.
Saved for works.

And the specific works for which we were each saved are works God had for us to perform before He ever saved us. Faith precedes works. That is what separates Christianity from all other philosophies, all other religions,

Btw, it is not possible to stand before God apart from faith. It won't matter the number or the nature of the acts of love. Justification is specifically about the ability to stand before God and plead one's case. No one is justified apart from Christ and justification is by..... faith. Anyone attempting to stand before God and presenting their works absent faith (in the already condemned state) dies.

fhansen said:
Either way, I'd at least rather stand in front of God with those kinds of acts of love behind me and without an explicit faith, than be a person who stands on their faith but has no such love- and the acts that follow. JMO

According to God's word, that is foolishness, and it will result in your destruction.

FireDragon76 · May 5, 2025

Akita Suggagaki said:
It is a personal theistic philosophy with "Love" as the central precept as exemplified in the incarnate God/man, Jesus.

Trivially true, but the real problem is that we live in a fallen world, where our notion of love is often distorted. There's a meme popular on the internet, "there's no hate like Christian love", and unfortunately it is sometimes true. People with psychological problems or evil people just looking to manipulate others can sometimes use the rhetoric of "love" in ways that are counter-intuitive, as a weapon to take away agency, either that of an individual or a group.

fhansen · May 5, 2025

Josheb said:
According to God's word, that is foolishness, and it will result in your destruction.

The problem is when we think that faith does away with the need for me to actually be just in order for me to be considered just, in order for me to be justified, IOW, as if justification consists of forgiveness of sin and a declared righteousness only.

Again, no one standing before God on judgment day without love will be saved. Because, in fact,
“The only thing that counts is faith working through love.” Gal 5:6

Grace precedes everything, whether faith, hope, love, works, justice, mercy, or anything else God may require of us. We're saved by faith, through (and on the basis of-Phil 3:9) faith, because faith is the means to that righteousness, not because it's a reprieve from the obligation of having that righteousness-or because it replaces it or stands in for it or even guarantees it.

fhansen · May 5, 2025

FireDragon76 said:
Trivially true, but the real problem is that we live in a fallen world, where our notion of love is often distorted. There's a meme popular on the internet, "there's no hate like Christian love", and unfortunately it is sometimes true. People with psychological problems or evil people just looking to manipulate others can sometimes use the rhetoric of "love" in ways that are counter-intuitive, as a weapon to take away agency, either that of an individual or a group.

But Firedragon!-that is such a cynical, pessimistic view of man's potential, at least, once linked up to the Vine, no?!

I mean, just because the term "love" is abused, distorted, exploited, etc, doesn't mean the real thing doesn't also exist in this world, issuing from a person's encounter with Love Incarnate. Even if it were only a handful of saints doing it well down through the centuries, or even just my local drug addict friend finally off the stuff and now at least doing it better than she ever did before. Methinks the concept might not be so trivial, but quite crucial, perhaps, in fact.

FireDragon76 · May 5, 2025

fhansen said:
But Firedragon!-that is such a cynical, pessimistic view of man's potential, at least, once linked up to the Vine, no?! I mean, just because the term "love" is abused, distorted, exploited, etc, doesn't mean the real thing doesn't also exist in this world, issuing from a person's encounter with Love Incarnate. Even if it were only a handful of saints doing it well down through the centuries, or even just my local drug addict friend finally off the stuff and now at least doing it better than she ever did before. Methinks the concept might not be so trivial, but quite crucial, perhaps, in fact.

I don't see it as cynicism, I see it as realism. You seem to be promoting an overly romantic view of what is more typical for religion. I don't think organized religion, whether Catholic or Protestant, typically produces moral superheroes in a way suggestive of a unique, supernatural charism, and I think it's unrealistic to expect it to do so, given the nature of things.

fhansen · May 5, 2025

FireDragon76 said:
I don't see it as cynicism, I see it as realism. You seem to be promoting an overly romantic view of what is more typical for religion. I don't think organized religion, whether Catholic or Protestant, typically produces moral superheroes in a way suggestive of a unique, supernatural charism, and I think it's unrealistic to expect it to do so, given the nature of things.

Well, I guess I don't see it as romanticism, or as the production of churches in any direct way for that matter, but as the product of God as a person responds to the message of those churches that are pointing us to Him. Some, maybe a few, take the ball and run with it while others just take up space in the pews, I guess. Either way, our faith is about human contact with the supernatural at the end of the day-and being changed by that encounter-else Jesus had no real reason for coming.

FireDragon76 · May 6, 2025

fhansen said:
Well, I guess I don't see it as romanticism, or as the production of churches in any direct way for that matter, but as the product of God as a person responds to the message of those churches that are pointing us to Him. Some, maybe a few, take the ball and run with it while others just take up space in the pews, I guess. Either way, our faith is about human contact with the supernatural at the end of the day-and being changed by that encounter-else Jesus had no real reason for coming.

Jesus came to proclaim the Kingdom of God. But I guess that's the difference. I start from a bottom-up Christology. I'm interested in Jesus as an historical person first, and situating God within that.

fhansen · May 6, 2025

FireDragon76 said:
Jesus came to proclaim the Kingdom of God. But I guess that's the difference. I start from a bottom-up Christology. I'm interested in Jesus as an historical person first, and situating God within that.

Alright, except I’m trying to see where the difference lies. Jesus came as a historical person first, of course, and we found Him to be more than that.

FireDragon76 · May 7, 2025

fhansen said:
Alright, except I’m trying to see where the difference lies. Jesus came as a historical person first, of course, and we found Him to be more than that.

The difference is that the Jesus of a particular church tradition is very much influenced by the history of that tradition and its contemporary historical context, with all the baggage that entails.

The Protestant reformation tradition has always been interested in critically examining the received tradition. We don't want to just understand the Jesus of the imagination of Roman emperors, Neoplatonic philosophers, medieval monks, or even 19th century German Idealists, we also want to understand the Jesus of history, the Galilean peasant who had a real historical context, if that is possible.

fhansen · May 7, 2025

FireDragon76 said:
The difference is that the Jesus of a particular church tradition is very much influenced by the history of that tradition and its contemporary historical context, with all the baggage that entails.

The Protestant reformation tradition has always been interested in critically examining the received tradition. We don't want to just understand the Jesus of the imagination of Roman emperors, Neoplatonic philosophers, medieval monks, or even 19th century German Idealists, we also want to understand the Jesus of history, the Galilean peasant who had a real historical context, if that is possible.

Guess I'll have to wait longer for the Reformed Jesus then; so far I haven't noticed any improvement anywhere over the one who's been taught historically. Anyway, here's an instance of the supernatural change He can and desires to do in us:
"Anyone who does not love remains in death." 1 John 3:14

Christ is the only one who can lift us out of our loveless lifelessness. I'll just resign myself to forever remaining a diehard romantic I suppose.

Josheb · May 9, 2025

fhansen said:
The problem is when we think that faith does away with the need for me to actually be just in order for me to be considered just, in order for me to be justified, IOW, as if justification consists of forgiveness of sin and a declared righteousness only.

I'm not sure I see the relevance. Who is it, specifically, that thinks faith does away with the need to be just. Who, specifically, thinks "I need to be just in order to be considered just." Who, specifically thinks the forgiveness of sins and declaration of righteousness is what constitutes justification?

fhansen said:
Again, no one standing before God on judgment day without love will be saved. Because, in fact,
“The only thing that counts is faith working through love.” Gal 5:6

That use of Galatians 5:6 is incorrect. that sentence was written to and about those already saved.... those already justified. It has nothing to do with the means of justification. The verse specifies, "For in Christ Jesus...." Those in Christ are all already justified. That is sort of Paul's point. Those in Christ are justified whether they be Jew or Gentile, circumcised or uncircumcised (remember: circumcision is pre-Mosaic Law).

Furthermore, there are at least two means of justification in the New Testament. The first is the justification that comes through Christ, Calvary, and his shed blood. The second is that which come by faith. We are saved through faith. We are justified by faith. The "through" and the "by" should not be conflated. We are saved through faith. No one is saved by faith. Sadly, a lot of people say, "I have been saved by faith," even though scripture never teaches any such thing. They usually do not mean to be making a causal statement but that is that those words mean. Case in point......

fhansen said:
Grace precedes everything, whether faith, hope, love, works, justice, mercy, or anything else God may require of us. We're saved by faith, through (and on the basis of-Phil 3:9) faith, because faith is the means to that righteousness, not because it's a reprieve from the obligation of having that righteousness-or because it replaces it or stands in for it or even guarantees it.

No, we are NOT saved by faith.

So, let's take a break so you can do a search of the Bible to see if that phrase ever occurs in the Bible. Get out your eBible or call up you favorite computer version of the Bible and do a search for the phrase "saved by faith."

OR.....

Save us both some time and acknowledge that is not a phrase found in scripture and not a concept scripture teaches. We need to rid ourselves of that thought and apply ourselves in this conversation actively refraining from employing the belief faith is causally salvific.

Yes?

fhansen · May 11, 2025

Josheb said:
I'm not sure I see the relevance. Who is it, specifically, that thinks faith does away with the need to be just. Who, specifically, thinks "I need to be just in order to be considered just." Who, specifically thinks the forgiveness of sins and declaration of righteousness is what constitutes justification?

That use of Galatians 5:6 is incorrect. that sentence was written to and about those already saved.... those already justified. It has nothing to do with the means of justification. The verse specifies, "For in Christ Jesus...." Those in Christ are all already justified. That is sort of Paul's point. Those in Christ are justified whether they be Jew or Gentile, circumcised or uncircumcised (remember: circumcision is pre-Mosaic Law).

Ok…wading through the various concepts and apologetics I’ve heard and read, sometimes here on these forums, there seems to be some muddy waters surrounding the doctrine of Sola Fide. Am I simul justus et peccator as Luther and others claimed, or am I 'saved by a faith alone that isn’t alone' as Luther also proclaimed? Is justification strictly imputed to me, am I merely forensically declared to be righteous as per John Calvin and others, or do I become actually righteous by virtue of my new faith-born connection with God? And, even if I am transformed for the better, does this even really matter, or is an imputed/declared righteousness all I need in order to be just in the eyes of God and therefore worthy of heaven? Or must I walk justly in order to enter heaven and, if so, is this justice/righteousness guaranteed or can I compromise it, and therefore compromise my salvation, by walking unjustly? And does this involve a one-time act of faith or an ongoing act to begin with?

In the ancient churches these questions hardly had reason to even arise. A person turned to God and away from sin with the understanding that He not only forgives us our sin but frees us from its slavery, unto righteousness, as a gift. We become ‘His people’, and, by the Spirit, He 'puts His law in our minds and writes it on our hearts’ (Jer 31:33). We can also fail; we can walk back away-and remain away- proving ourselves to be poor soil by the end of the day.

When I speak of how faith saves, whether I use the terms “by”, “via”, or “through”, I’m pointing to the fact that faith is the means or vehicle to justice/righteousness as it’s the means to the life of grace, God’s life in us as we’re now connected to the Vine, a union which, itself, is the essence and source of authentic righteousness for man, a righteousness that he must possess in order to enter heaven. Faith is not the end of salvation but the foundation and beginning of it.

So...what, to begin with, does it mean to be "in Christ", and what does it mean to be justifed?

FireDragon76 · May 11, 2025

fhansen said:
Ok…wading through the various concepts and apologetics I’ve heard and read, sometimes here on these forums, there seems to be some muddy waters surrounding the doctrine of Sola Fide. Am I simul justus et peccator as Luther and others claimed..

You know, Fr. Richard Rohr is actually a fan of that phrase, and critiques conservative Catholicism for fostering a "cult of purity". Of course, Protestant can have their own problems, as this kind of thing can kick the football down the road, as he also points out. But Rohr is right, inasmuch as simul iustus et peccator represents integrative thinking, recognizing that mystery and paradox often better describe our lived experience than abstract ideology.

fhansen · May 11, 2025

FireDragon76 said:
You know, Fr. Richard Rohr is actually a fan of that phrase, and critiques conservative Catholicism for fostering a "cult of purity". Of course, Protestant can have their own problems, as this kind of thing can kick the football down the road, as he also points out. But Rohr is right, inasmuch as simul iustus et peccator represents integrative thinking, recognizing that mystery and paradox often better describe our lived experience than abstract ideology.

Right, or he just failed to recoginize or accept the truth. Anyway, of course, purity is a bad thing; God prefers sin. I will acknowledge that Rohr had a good idea or two now and then, however.

FireDragon76 · May 11, 2025

fhansen said:
Right, or he just failed to recoginize or accept the truth. Anyway, of course, purity is a bad thing; God prefers sin. I will acknowledge that Rohr had a good idea or two now and then, however.

ChatGPT has a good take on this:

Richard Rohr’s “purity cult” critique

Fr. Richard Rohr argues that, historically, Western Christianity (both Catholic and many Protestant bodies) often over-valued moral cleanliness over the beauty of brokenness and transformation. He sees three dangers:

Exclusionary holiness: setting up rigid “holy vs. unholy” camps, rather than a hospitable table for all.

Performance pressure: believers striving for a polished exterior, hiding inner wounds, rather than inviting God’s healing.

Neglect of interior transformation: focusing on rules (“Don’ts”) more than the gut-level work of grace that shapes our desires and loves.

Rohr suggests that Jesus Himself didn’t run a “purity cult” but surrounded Himself with tax collectors, sinners, and the marginalized—calling them into deeper life rather than enforcing only clean behavior.

This is exactly how my Lutheran background views God's Word. It calls us into deeper life, but never condemns us for our failures.

fhansen · May 12, 2025

FireDragon76 said:
ChatGPT has a good take on this:

This is exactly how my Lutheran background views God's Word. It calls us into deeper life, but never condemns us for our failures.

Well, they certainly accepted the tranformation part, but they'd doubt that Jesus wants to leave us broken, I'm sure. Either way, Catholic ultra tradionalists follow an ultra-scrupulosity thing. Similarly, I've seen much false piety in Protestant circles. Priggishness and virtue signaling in or outside of churches appears to be a fairly common not-so-positive human trait.

And I somehow believe a "deeper life" would include a moral one-since Jesus came to resolve the separation between man and God caused by sin. He didn't come just to say, "Never mind, feel free to remain in your sins."

FireDragon76 · May 12, 2025

fhansen said:
Well, they certainly accepted the tranformation part, but they'd doubt that Jesus wants to leave us broken, I'm sure. Either way, Catholic ultra tradionalists follow an ultra-scrupulosity thing. Similarly, I've seen much false piety in Protestant circles. Priggishness and virtue signaling in or outside of churches appears to be a fairly common not-so-positive human trait.

And I somehow believe a "deeper life" would include a moral one-since Jesus came to resolve the separation between man and God caused by sin. He didn't come just to say, "Never mind, feel free to remain in your sins."

Morality is important but on a hierarchy of values it ranks relatively low.

What is the Christian Philosophy and What are Christian Ethics

Christian

Oldbie

Oldbie

Christian

Well-Known Member

Oldbie

Oldbie

Well-Known Member

Oldbie

Well-Known Member

Oldbie

Well-Known Member

Oldbie

Christian

Oldbie

Well-Known Member

Oldbie

Well-Known Member

Richard Rohr’s “purity cult” critique​

Oldbie

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Richard Rohr’s “purity cult” critique