Christianity is primarily about a relationship to/with a single Person, the Mediator between God and Man, the God-man Jesus Christ, surely? Accurate knowledge of the Most High is impossible in our messy fallen state, and the fact that we just cannot see the Face of God with our physical eyes. Only holy Job knew this well and longed for it. With his very eyes, he said, "I shall see God". That's only at the last day, however... and "upon the Earth". What does this have to do with justification? Potentially, quite a lot. If our justification before God's perfect moral law can somehow be better attained by having 'accurate knowledge' of highest realities, it's sort of like forcing yourself to do a 'work', albeit an intellectual one. :think: I must respectfully disagree, at least partly! Love is not an emotion, or else divorce would be justified when "that feeling" was gone. Love is something much deeper, and it's God's very ontological being itself. He is love, so He can't just be ephemeral feelings or emotions.
I think you got my drift.... I was not referring to the emotions between people I was referring to love which is much deeper then that.
I know I said I was not going to continue but I must ask you this question - who's accurate knowledge of the highest cosmic reality it the TRUTH? Since joining this forum I have seen your views and I have see other and they don't agree. So which knowledge please tell me how we determine which one is..... is it yours mine or the persons down the street?
Before God can love us, he has to exist. You're avoiding the priority of the issues involved. You're focusing on God's love, without knowing whether God even exists; and certainly without being able to show it to anyone else.
Adam, I think we're on the same track regarding justification. I hope Scottish Knight (OP) can take something good from this thread which has been hopelessly derailed. Anna
It's never hopelessly derailed if the OP can come back and find something renewable in it. Knowing Scottish Knight, that will happen.
I agree with this, and absolutely agree that the sacrmants are means of grace to draw us closer in sancification, so I guess in this sense I coudl accept them being viewed as salvic. I guess the main difference between Christians is the relationship between justification and sancification.
I have often wondered what terms we would be using if the council of Nicea etc took place in the 21st century I've been thinking about justification and I think one can only hold to justification by faith alone if one believes in the perseverance of the saints. There's a problem if we have been made rigth with God and can then lose that justification through our actions then logically oen would have to hold we are justified by faith and works. What do you guys think?
I can tell you used to be presbyterian I really enjoy theology - I find it intellectually stimulating and I enjoy readign and learnign about it, but ultimately you're right, theology should always point us to Christ. I think when I'm trying to understand theology to always have a mind for it's practical outworking in my life. I really do believe theology is practical
Forgive me for interjecting at this juncture and if i have misunderstood forgive me but i think the idea is that there is absolute truth and that truth, has indeed been communicated to us so what one should believe should in fact already be clear ,..i take your point however Gordon and its a problem i think about often ..
I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. However it is you who disclaimed all interest in theology. And it takes a knowledge of theology to be able to show to another person that God exists, with as much certainty as that the chair next to you exists. That's what knowledge and careful patient study will produce -- the understanding of what view is accurate, and has the evidence behind it. I may have my views, but I am also open to evidence from the world external to me; and I expect others to do the same. This interplay between viewpoints, rest upon evidence, and whittling down of the potential options until all you arrive at is the truth -- that is theology.
With respect you are putting words in my mouth again - I have simply said theology is the small stuff - theology is simply other peoples ideas of what scripture means. The big stuff is God...
I appreciate what you are saying here Gordon. You are right that it is God who will take care of justifying sinners. God will win back the world He made through the simple, weak, and foolish means of preaching Christ and Him crucified; and nothing--I mean nothing--will stop His unthwartable hand. That being said, theology is important. Even the statement that "theology is simply other peoples ideas of what scripture means...[t]he big stuff is God..." is a profoundly theological statement. It is a statement that expresses your ideas of what scripture means. So the question is not whether or not theology is "small stuff", but whether or not our theology faithfully witnesses to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Regardless of what we might be tempted to believe, bad theology can be detrimental to faith, i.e., it can damn us. For example, if a preacher teaches his congregation that they are to trust in their works in order to merit justification before God, this is an error which comes straight from the mouth of the devil. As St. Paul warned the Galatians: "All who rely on observing the works of the law are under a curse" (3:10). Yes, it is true that God is love. But this statement by itself helps no one. It is merely an abstraction which doesn't actually do anything. It is only in the concrete delivery of the promise of God in Christ that we know what love is: "By this we know love: Christ gave His life for us" (I John 3:16). That God demands us to grasp hold of this promise by faith alone is no mere theological quibble. For only faith can grasp it; only through faith in this concrete promise do we conquer the world, the devil, and our sinfulness in the One who died and rose again on our behalf.
Tony Campolo suggested the term "red letter Christians" as an alternative to evangelical since the latter term has been co-opted by in the US by conservatives. He explains this in a book of the same name. Tony Campolo is an American Baptist, theologically conservative, and politically liberal. Tony Campolo is a fine writer and speaker. His weekly radio broadcast (and podcast) is available free on Itunes and I would recommend a look-see. In our area, he comes in to speak every couple of years. Our church will host him next month. [quote="nkygreg, post: 3087, member: 815" In an earlier post Gordon pointed toward reading the red letters. There is a group called red letter christians. Interesting thought.[/quote] Please don't use emotionally-laden terms to refer to political groups. This is not a political forum. -Admin
Please don't use emotionally-laden terms to refer to political groups. This is not a political forum. -Admin[/quote] The rule of the First Order of the Society of St. Francis is based purely on the teachings of Jesus... St. Francis was truly a red-letter man... It also looks like our friend brother Admin is also a red-letter man