Search results

@BreadOfLife is not being considerate. I still forgive him.

Sola Fide in God is the way to go, but fide means only trust. It is a scriptural issue.

I don't propose in meaningful definition for an overrated word. You have blind faith; I do not.

It is not unconditional, it is the equivalent of the equivalent of the English word consideration. Yes, he trusted him and had blind faith. Are you sure they aren't overeducated ignoramuses? James 2:22d ἐκ τῶν ἔργων ἡ πίστις ἐτελειώθη out of some works, a trust it an accomplishes. Sorry but...

Catholic faith doesn't seem to be. It would also seem that per Hebrews 1:1 that pistis is hope, but it, the trust, is about trusting things not yet seen. And don't pretend trust has nothing doing with allegiance.

Scripture please. Otherwise you are just talking out your bottom.

Then it means even less then trust. Which puts the weight on your conceits even greater.

Satan didn't trust YHWH in Job? Why isn't that the Roman Catholic clergy are notorious for knowing nothing? Examples like these are priceless. εμπιστοσύνη is not used in the NT at all which shows the worth of phrases like believe in.

You RCers think agape is unconditional love. It [is] about consideration, selfish or nonselfish both.

2:19 σὺ πιστεύεις ὅτι ὁ θεός εἷς ἐστιν καλῶς ποιεῖς· καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια πιστεύουσιν καὶ φρίσσουσιν Thou thyself trusts how a God the one is. Being what is good, thou does it. Even some demons they are trusting it and they are shuddering [at] it. Further along is thus, [Jas 2:21 NKJV] 21 Was not...

Only in the English language. Thus, the protestant say faith always has loyal works, hence sola fide. And you would say as a Roman Catholic that your faith has to be directed right. But pistis and fide are not the word which is on every federal reserve note. Now if you think the federal reserve...

Faith is a word that did not exist [back] then, and you only prove my point. Consideration without trust is not worthless, but it is more difficult. But this has nothing to do with my point as usual of yours.

Lexicons are known to be wrong, and since James says there is pistis without works, then pistis is not defined by a work or works, i.e. labor.

Yes, and the answer is that pistis does not mean obedience.

Interesting statement.

Let us hope it isn't freezing rain either.

To me, it is both covenants in their most practical form.

Do you really think you are safe or rescued? You can't argue that people are safe when they die, but you can argue for a version OSAS after someone dies. Edit: I am also stretching the definition of the word saved, but it is used in video games.

Other things are more likely too. But if I am not battling for the interpretation that the law is most important thing in the bible, what good would I be?

I don't believe these are still good shibboleths. Evil ones are more likely to object to the law.