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.
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.Unfortunately that kind of reliance leads to misinterpretations and biases. The accuracy of a witness statement can vary greatly because human memory is not like a video camera and is susceptible to distortions, biases, and external influences, rather than being a perfect, unchanging record of an event. Contextual analysis, exegesis, and the correct use of the hermeneutic circle is necessary to weed out the biases and inaccuracies of the writer. In addition our own philosophical objectivity could cause a relative understanding rather than an objective understanding which could lead to presentism.
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.I see Christians from churches that rely on tradition give the ecf’s a cult like recognition to the point that a quotation from one becomes their only proof to prove an argument up above scripture.
Yes, but what's not at all necessarily infallible are the various human interpretations of Scripture.The only corpus of knowledge that is infallible and inspired are the Holy Scriptures not the writings of the ECFs.
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.‘And this would be your interpretation of the ECFs that you have read. In fact, I am willing to suggest that, only from their famous quotes and some paragraphs here and there, you have not read their works in their entirety. I find their writings to be essential both for historical context and edification but they are not united as one in many issues. Their understanding is consistent with the times in which they wrote where communication was limited by several factors including distance.
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.
Some 40 years ago the “Jesus Seminar” was founded, with several eminent bible scholars among the ranks of a group that intended to use modern hermeneutics to distinguish between authentic sayings of Jesus in the bible. It would be mild to say that their findings were cringe-worthy, virtually stripping the gospel of any significant meaning and power while demonstrating a “scientific” anti-supernatural bias. At a seminar I attended I can still remember renowned theologian Raymond Brown saying, generously, that he ‘disagreed with their methodology’, which is why he didn’t accept their offer to participate. While this may be an extreme case, a point here is that exegesis, alone, while having value, isn’t the answer in definitively resolving all theological questions that arise. The lived legacy, the experience, of those who received the message at or near the beginning should carry much weight, especially where a virtual consensus is met.
I haven't seen that at all, while I have seen scripture and tradition compliment each other, and often arriving 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 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?And when I speak of the central aspect of love as being a quite prevalent concept in their writings, I'm only pointing to another distinction that tends to separate those who understand the faith well from those who don't. In fact, this can be summed up by an exceedingly simple while profound quote from a 16th century believer that the Catholic church cites in regard to our "particular judgement", as it's sometimes called:
"At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."
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.Where do we find that in the NT?
Love, without faith in Jesus Christ as we have in Orthodox Jews, will not be the measure by which they are judged.
You are talking about love of God.Love, as God desires of us, is impossible without faith in Jesus Christ
I'm missing the deficiency of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in Scripture.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.
Where God makes an end to teaching, I make an end to learning.And while Jesus certainly affirmed and further clarified the meaning of the greatest commandments in Matt 22 as well as the necessity of obeying the ten commandments in Matt 19, which are fulfilled by the greatest, and John in his letters tells us that we don't even know God if we don't love and that knowledge of God is eternal life in the 17th chapter of his gospel, and Paul tells us that we're nothing without love, scripture is by no means explicit about that being as central as I've presented the matter here.
There is no true understanding of the Christian faith apart from Sola Scriptura.ut it is; and not a sort of side-note, and Christians from the beginning have known that, regardless of how well or how poorly they may have practiced it themselves.
Going by scripture alone some people, such as John Wesley, arrived at an understanding of the message quite well but that requires some growth in understanding, as I've experienced it, at least. In any case, Scripture doesn't definitively seal the deal towards either position while Sola Scriptura can serve to undermine the fullest understanding of the Christian faith, depending on the interpreter.
No, love...both, IOWYou are talking about love of God.
There is also love of neighbor.
I'm missing the deficiency of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in Scripture.
Please explain.
And yet, according to Scripture, His teaching doesn't end with Scripture. 2 Thess 2:15Where God makes an end to teaching, I make an end to learning.
Yes, that's your opinion.There is no true understanding of the Christian faith apart from Sola Scriptura.
I didn't say it wasn't biblical; I said it's dependent on the interpretation; intepretations can undermine the meaning.If the "fullest understanding" of the Chritian faith is actually Biblical, it will not be undermined by Sola Scriptura, for any understanding not taken from Sola Scritpura is not Biblical.
You have no Biblical basis for that assertion.No, love...both, IOW
If a person doesnt believe, going by Scripture, alone that, 'at the evening of life they shall be judged on their love'. then Scripture alone hasn't served to fully inform them.
It doesn't while he is alive and able to correct any errors (Gal 1:6-9).And yet, according to Scripture, His teaching doesn't end with Scripture. 2 Thess 2:15
Backed by the history of Christianity.Yes, that's your opinion.
Correct interpretation is in agreement with all Scripture.I didn't say it wasn't biblical; I said it's dependent on the interpretation; intepretations can undermine the meaning.
That statement was already directly addressed, and the answer given should be incontrovertible for a Christian.Many Orthodox Jews love well, but they will be judged not on their love, but on their faith in Jesus Christ.
That's pure speculation/guess-work, while the Scripture passage quoted stands as true.But after he is gone, and 2,000 years later, his written record is the only authority.
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.We have ample evidence in church history of "oral tradition" contradicting the word of God written.
Which is why there was a Luther.
Backed by some novel theology maybe, not so far back into history.Backed by the history of Christianity.
no doubtCorrect interpretation is in agreement with all Scripture.
Such interpretation does not undermine any correct meaning of Scripture.
And yet the answer was BIblically refuted.That statement was already directly addressed, and the answer given should be incontrovertible for a Christian.
I'm sure you'll understand if today's Christians choose to take their doctrine from the word of God written only.That's pure speculation/guess-work,
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.And yet the answer was BIblically refuted.
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.I'm sure you'll understand if today's Christians choose to take their doctrine from the word of God written only.
So only those in Christ are able to love their neighbor?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.
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.So only those in Christ are able to love their neighbor?
Lotta' folks, including Orthodox Jews, didn't get the memo.
Kinda' like the self-sacrificing love a mother has for her child. . .Jesus calls us beyond a mere human love, Matt 5:46-48. It's to a self- sacrificing love,
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.Kinda' like the self-sacrificing love a mother has for her child. . .
The love to which Jesus calls us is to care about the well-being of our neighbor as we care about our own.
It's not complicated. . .
So until man is without sin, he does not love. . .It's apparently complicated enough that people still sin.
Actually, acting with genuine selfless love will necessarily fulfill the law because it abstains from self.Because it's love that excludes sin, which is why its said that love fulfills the law.
He'd be without sin if he was "perfected in love", doubtfully fully possible until the next life.So until man is without sin, he does not love. . .
Sure...people often tend to think they're already sanctified.I'm thinkin' there are a lot of mothers that would disagree with you.
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.Actually, acting with genuine selfless love will necessarily fulfill the law because it abstains from self.
But it does not mean the practitioner is totally without sin.
Only Jesus was ever without sin.
The nature of that reponse reveals a lot about you. . .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.
Then there is no agape on earth, because we are not sinless until after the resurrection.People in heaven will be without sin. Agape and sin are mutually exclusive so,
Ok. Thanx for the psychoanalysis. Maybe you could even expand on it at some point, help me out here.The nature of that reponse reveals a lot about you
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".Then there is no agape on earth, because we are not sinless until after the resurrection.
Misrepresentation of what was said. . .equating a (n unbelieving) mother's love for her child with her belief that she is sanctified.Ok. Thanx for the psychoanalysis. Maybe you could even expand on it at some point,
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.Misrepresentation of what was said. . .equating a (n unbelieving) mother's love for her child with her belief that she is sanctified.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?