Upon this rock/Keys

dingoling.

Well-known member
yes:
Was not our ancestor Abraham VINDICATED by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?"


Why not just except the view of the early Church and agree James 2:21 is talking about vindication/proved?

"the Greek language had no other word that meant vindication in the present tense"

Cyril of Alexandria
, a native Greek speaker, on the issue of the meaning of the term edikaiōthē (translated “justified” in Ancient Christian Commentary on the Scripture, New Testament VI), clearly explains that he believes that it refers to vindication, and not literal justification:

Clement
, who writes at a time contemporaneous enough with James’ to have a thorough understanding of edikaiōthē and the doctrine of the Apostles that is surrounding it. Citing James 2:23, and likely having the whole section in mind when exegeting Hebrews 11, he writes that Abraham proved his faithfulness in the performance faithful acts:
Not only does Clement endorse the view that Abraham was vindicated by his sacrifice of Isaac, as he was found faithful in our sight because of it, he linguistically uses the term “justified” to mean “vindicated” elsewhere in the letter.Cyprian of Carthage writes:
“men are tried by God for this purpose, that they may be proved.”

A later Latin writer, Hilary of Poitiers,
Abraham had proved, by the sacrifice of his son,

Obviously there is a disagreement. So who has the authority to settle the issue?
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
By dividing yourself from other Christians who don't agree with your interpretation you are placing your interpretation above that of scripture.
That doesn't follow in any example
pure non-sequitur nonsense

If disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution
that does NOT mean I place my interpretation above that of the Constitution
 

dingoling.

Well-known member
That doesn't follow in any example
pure non-sequitur nonsense

If disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution
that does NOT mean I place my interpretation above that of the Constitution
But that is not the same in the Christian faith. In the Christian faith when the nCCs disagree with the Catholic Church or some other church the dismiss their "Supreme Court" and establish a new one that agrees with their interpretation.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
But that is not the same in the Christian faith. In the Christian faith when the nCCs disagree with the Catholic Church or some other church the dismiss their "Supreme Court" and establish a new one that agrees with their interpretation.
Yes it is the same;
No one (other than God) can force someone to believe something they think is in error.

The Supreme Court is in error on many rulings
The Catholics Church is in error on many rulings..

Now let's take it to the next level:
Catholics don't even interpret their Church rulings the same.
ex: Trent; Unam sanctam, Amoris laetitia
 

dingoling.

Well-known member
Yes it is the same;
No one (other than God) can force someone to believe something they think is in error.

The Supreme Court is in error on many rulings
The Catholics Church is in error on many rulings..

Now let's take it to the next level:
Catholics don't even interpret their Church rulings the same.
ex: Trent; Unam sanctam, Amoris laetitia
We haven't even gotten through this level yet.

So if we don't agree with the Supreme Court's ruling what do you do? Do we have another "Boston Tea Party" and establish another Supreme Court?
 

Johan

Well-known member
I think IThess521's point was that Abraham was justified before works.
Which he was. He was justified by faith.

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Rom. 4:1–3)
 

dingoling.

Well-known member
Jesus drove a Honda , but didn't want to talk about it:

actual words = "I speak not of my own Accord"

Now tell us again how the actual meaning isn't more important than the actual words!!

Anyone can make scripture say whatever they want it to say. The question is who has the authority to tell us what the actual meaning of scripture is? If Christians disagree on the actual meaning of scripture and no one has the authority to tell which one is correct then all we are left with is what God says in scripture - the actual words of scripture.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
Anyone can make scripture say whatever they want it to say. The question is who has the authority to tell us what the actual meaning of scripture is? If Christians disagree on the actual meaning of scripture and no one has the authority to tell which one is correct then all we are left with is what God says in scripture - the actual words of scripture.
nope: YOU are responsible to know what the Scripture mean:

Jesus said to those who memorized Scriptures:
“You are err because you do not know the Scriptures"
Jesus is not speaking about the actual words; is He?

Step up
defend your premises:
address the implications of your beliefs
 
Last edited:

dingoling.

Well-known member
nope: YOU are responsible to know what the Scripture mean:

Jesus said to those who memorized Scriptures:
“You are err because you do not know the Scriptures"
Jesus is not speaking about the actual words; is He?

Step up
defend your premises:
address the implications of your beliefs

This is the premise:

In Matthew 16 Jesus was giving authority over his church to make decisions, settle issues.... It an office that functions as Prime Minister of the Kingdom. That authority is passed on to Peter's successors till Jesus returns.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
This is the premise:

In Matthew 16 Jesus was giving authority over his church to make decisions, settle issues.... It an office that functions as Prime Minister of the Kingdom. That authority is passed on to Peter's successors till Jesus returns.
Jesus was giving authority over his church to make decisions, settle issues..
False
It an office that functions as Prime Minister of the Kingdom.
false
That authority is passed on to Peter's successors till Jesus returns.
False

Start with the first premise and prove it is true: without appealing to what the Church said about itself
 

RayneBeau

Well-known member
This is not said, before Genesis 15:6

"Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness"

And it was not repeated in Genesis 22. The point being made is that Abraham was justified because he BELIEVED God, not because he left a country. Or because he put Isaac on an alter.

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

The words "belief" and "believe" are synonyms for the word "faith" . Scripture says God credited righteousness to Abraham on account of Abraham "believing" God.

ok, now, Genesis 15:4-5 says

Then the word of the Lord came to him: “This man will not be your heir, but a son who is your own flesh and blood will be your heir.” 5 He took him outside and said, “Look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”

When God said this, Abraham believed God. (verse 6) Even though Abraham had no children at that time. Isaac is not mentioned until chapter 21.
Using the example of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac, do you think it is suggested that God called Abraham to violate moral law in slaying his own son? For some, Abraham's willingness to "suspend" his ethical convictions epitomized the leap of faith that is demanded of everyone. Others choose to believe that the incident proved that "the single individual [Abraham] is higher than the universal [moral law].
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Using the example of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac, do you think it is suggested that God called Abraham to violate moral law in slaying his own son?
God never called Abraham to slay his own son. This is just an assumption on Abraham's and the reader's part. In the Hebrew it doesn't actually say anything about offering Isaac as a sacrifice. This is simply inferred by the reader. When Abraham and Isaac are about to begin their assent to the top of the mountain, Abraham tells his servant that the two of them will return.
For some, Abraham's willingness to "suspend" his ethical convictions epitomized the leap of faith that is demanded of everyone. Others choose to believe that the incident proved that "the single individual [Abraham] is higher than the universal [moral law].
It proves what the text explicitly states, i.e. that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son to God.
 

dingoling.

Well-known member
Using the example of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac, do you think it is suggested that God called Abraham to violate moral law in slaying his own son? For some, Abraham's willingness to "suspend" his ethical convictions epitomized the leap of faith that is demanded of everyone. Others choose to believe that the incident proved that "the single individual [Abraham] is higher than the universal [moral law].
Abraham was already in violation of the moral law - he was married to his sister.
 
Top