Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
www.christianpost.com
Presentism is a real danger even when one is aware of the threat it can pose- especially here where historical testimonies close to the source are apparently summarily thrown out the door and the historical context surrounding the scriptural writers isn't well known to begin with. As a result, we cannot rely totally on bible scholarship to answer these questions because, again, great, highly credentialed exegetes sincerely disagree with each other on many key biblical concepts. For example, going by Scripture alone, experts, not just armchair theologians, plausibly disagree on baptismal regeneration which isn’t even a question in the ancient churches because the matter was settled from the beginning, on the real presence, on justification, on eternal security; even the deity of Christ can be argued plausibly enough either way which is why Arianism held sway for so long in Christendom for centuries-and why the action of the church was necessary in order to-eventually- defeat it, even while it still rears its head in some circles today. We’re dealing with many supernatural truths in Scripture, which, itself, make discernment more difficult. But on top of that anyone taking an honest look will acknowledge that the bible was not structured as some kind of perspicuous, systematic, exhaustive catechism. It’s often vague on certain matters, seemingly ambiguous, and even apparently contradictory at times.
I haven't seen that at all, while I have seen scripture and tradition compliment each other, and often arrive at conclusions others have reached going by Scripture alone.
Yes, but what's not at all necessarily infallible are the various human interpretations of Scripture.
I never said the ECFs were unanimous, just close enough on many significant matters that it should mean something to any objective observer. And, no, I'm no expert on the ECFs (I understand there were something like 18 million words written by them depending on the cut-off time employed) but I've read them, and read them apart from agendas meaning to sway opinions. And in general, as a sidenote, they leave one with a decided "taste" consistent with that of contemporary churches that haven't far departed from the ancient traditions and teachings. Most identify this sense quite readily. I've heard objections to the ECFs from some based on that fact alone.
Where do we find that in the NT?
Love, as God desires of us, is impossible without faith in Jesus Christ simply because it's not possible apart from Him, apart from union with the Vine. And this is actually one reason why I brought that church teaching up, because it helps to highlight the deficiency of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura IMO.
You are talking about love of God.
I'm missing the deficiency of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in Scripture.
Where God makes an end to teaching, I make an end to learning.
There is no true understanding of the Christian faith apart from Sola Scriptura.
No, love...both, IOW
And yet, according to Scripture, His teaching doesn't end with Scripture. 2 Thess 2:15
Yes, that's your opinion.
I didn't say it wasn't biblical; I said it's dependent on the interpretation; intepretations can undermine the meaning.
You have no Biblical basis for that assertion.
It doesn't while he is alive and able to correct any errors (Gal 1:6-9).
Backed by the history of Christianity.
Correct interpretation is in agreement with all Scripture.
That statement was already directly addressed, and the answer given should be incontrovertible for a Christian.
That's pure speculation/guess-work, while the Scripture passage quoted stands as true.
Nope, Luther threw the baby out with the bathwater when he started messing with doctrine, rather than sticking to the abuse or ignoring of doctrine which certainly prevailed at various times by certain church members and leaders.
Backed by some novel theology maybe, not so far back into history.
no doubt
And yet the answer was BIblically refuted.
I'm sure you'll understand if today's Christians choose to take their doctrine from the word of God written only.
No, you just said that Orthodox Jews love too and that's somehow comparable to the supernatural gift of love given to believers. Uninformed opinion there. But the real, and sad, truth, is that people don't understand it that the love God gives, and our acting on that love, is what will grow in us unto eternal life. Love is the definition of the holiness that results in that life.
I hope you understand that many of today's Christians disagree with you on the very topic at hand in this thread based on the word of God written only.
Jesus calls us beyond a mere human love, Matt 5:46-48. It's to a self- sacrificing love, the kind of love described in 1st Cor 13, which is not common to this world. And that's why we have the kind of world we have, that's why we have sin. And that love is meant to intensify. And produce great fruit. Augustine speaks in general about the differences in love, and it's relationship to righteousness.
Kinda' like the self-sacrificing love a mother has for her child. . .
It's apparently complicated enough that people still sin. Because it's love that excludes sin, which is why its said that love fulfills the law. Now, if that mother would sacrifice herself for someone else's child or for you or me or her enemy, that would be more consistent with the kind of love that God is drawing us to.
So until man is without sin, he does not love. . .
Actually, acting with genuine selfless love will necessarily fulfill the law because it abstains from self.
He'd be without sin if he was "perfected in love", doubtfully fully possible until the next life.
Sure...people often tend to think they're already sanctified.
People in heaven will be without sin. Agape and sin are mutually exclusive so, to the extent that we love, with the divine gift of that virtue, the less we will sin. If Adam had loved God in Eden, he never would've disobeyed, in fact. That love must be cultivated in us, and it's a patient work of God's.
Ok. Thanx for the psychoanalysis. Maybe you could even expand on it at some point, help me out here.
Well, haven't you heard of John talking about being perfected in love (1 John 4:17-19)? I actually referenced it at least once here. And that ties in with the rest of my quote, that you cited only the first part of: "to the extent that we love, with the divine gift of that virtue, the less we will sin".
You were saying that a mother's love equates to everything Jesus means and says when he tells us we must love and I'm saying no, good as that love is, that's not biblical, and it minimizes the meaning of agape and what Jesus wants for humankind.
