Search results

Thanks. The trouble with testing things against Scripture is that it has multiple interpretations - so we keep going round in circles on this issue!

The context is the Epistle of James, and the discourse on the need for a true and lively faith evidenced by works. That's pretty clear too. No butchery, just reading what's written in the context in which it's written. Why don't you try it?

Then you grossly misrepresent me. You are making all kind of false assumptions about me. I don't for example 'worship' tradition; I worship God alone. I value Tradition as a tool to teach and explain the truth of the Scriptures and it was my experience here that led me to value it: I had been a...

I think the Apostle James did that: "Was not our ancestors Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did etc" There it is: in black and white...

Ah, but I do follow those who follow the Bible....just not your interpretation of it. Do you see the difference?

I'm not sure that there is merit in seeking to separate the physical, emotional and psychological etc parts of Christ's nature in that way.

The Bereans are interesting, as is the Ethiopian eunuch: both were searching the Scriptures but both needed the Scriptures opened to them through the preaching of someone who was already established and recognised within the Church. They didn't come to Christ on their own but were led, using the...

Well, for example, initially, when He was an infant, His ability to speak. [cp: reply to Steaver re Divine attributes]

He did not at anytime cease to be God nor did He 'lose' His divine attributes, rather the passage makes clear that He laid them down (in the same way that He laid down His life for his sheep etc); that's why we sing worship songs like "You Laid Aside Your Majesty"

I am fully aware of that; however, my point stands that Protestants/ evangelicals have a major epistemological problem with this approach.

On this we agree - but Steaver seems to think otherwise.

Um...yes it is - read Phil 2:7 again!

But the very nature and one of the points of the Incarnation is that He appeared. As to how He saw Nathaniel, that could equally have been in the same way that Saul saw Ananias in Acts 9

So - what - He appeared simultaneously in every location in the world for 33 years?

Have you never heard of the doctrine of kenosis? Again, this is pretty basic stuff.

Never.

Proof-texting is what evangelicals do too. You might claim to be interpreting in context but how does that explain the multiplicity of interpretations, often mutually-contradictory, that exist amongst evangelicals. And your comparison to suicide bombers is very poor taste, particularly in the...

You say 'abuse', I say 'interpreting the Word of God aright'. Who is to judge between us as to whose interpretation is correct? If only we had a teaching authority to do that.... Oh, wait

I'm really surprised that we're even having this debate: I thought that what has been said here is pretty foundational to basic Christian Christology. The fact that it's even up for discussion surely demonstrates the theological bankruptcy of sola scriptura: here is the blind alley to...

He was fully God but lowered Himself to be Incarmated to our humanity. Re-read Phil 2: 6-12