Is Love the Greatest?

[Spockrates]

The eyes are the ability of our heart to comprehend spiritual things (, , ). The heart is the soul and the spirit which is made up of the mind, emotions, will, and conscience ().

What is the name of this ability? What word do we use to describe her? Is she the same as the one Brighthouse suggested?

 

[james1523]

What is the name of this ability? What word do we use to describe her? Is she the same as the one Brighthouse suggested?

The ability has no word describing it that I am aware of, other than "spiritual comprehension". Not it's not the the same as the one Brighthouse suggested, that is something else.

 

[Spockrates]

The ability has no word describing it that I am aware of, other than "spiritual comprehension". Not it's not the the same as the one Brighthouse suggested, that is something else.

If we lack such spiritual comprehension, should we ask God to give it to us?

 

[james1523]

If we lack such spiritual comprehension, should we ask God to give it to us?

Yes, we should pray Eph 1:17-18, but we also need to take care of our heart.. we need a pure heart or we cannot see (Matt 5:8, Heb 10:22).

 

[Spockrates]

Yes, we should pray , but we also need to take care of our heart.. we need a pure heart or we cannot see (, ).

Agreed! And if we ask for forgiveness and genuinely desire to be pure in heart, and then ask for spiritual comprehension, what will God do? Will he be stingy and unforgiving and withhold that of which we ask of him? Or will he generously give it to us without finding fault?

 

[james1523]

Agreed! And if we ask for forgiveness and genuinely desire to be pure in heart, and then ask for spiritual comprehension, what will God do? Will he be stingy and unforgiving and withhold that of which we ask of him? Or will he generously give it to us without finding fault?

Spiritual comprehension is more something we maintain rather than something which God gives us. Spiritual comprehension is an ability of the new heart and new spirit that God gives us when we first become believers in Christ (Ezek 36:26). If we believe in Christ then God has already given us this ability. Even though we receive a new heart and new spirit, often we can lose our ability of spiritual comprehension if we fail to keep a pure heart and clear conscience before God. So all we need to do is confess our sins and maintain a clear conscience and our heart will be pure again. A pure heart is not only about confessing sins but also about having a single eye for God. Purity of heart is more about being wholly for God than for ourselves or the world. Our prayer to receive spiritual comprehension will result in God's Spirit leading us to confess our sins, and renew our emotions and mind to love Christ and devote ourselves to Him.This is how God will answer our prayer.

Purity of heart is about having a single eye as in Matt 6:22:

Matt 6:22

1. The lamp of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. The light of thy body is thy eye. If thyeye be single, thy whole body shall be lightsome. The lamp of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

 

[RJ]

RJ:

My invitation still stands. If you are willing to forgive, I'd be glad to continue our dialog, or discuss something else. Perhaps we may talk about the Socratic method I amateurishly employ? If it is a foolish way for me to learn, you may explain why. I promise to have ears to hear.

How to Argue Using The Socratic Method
The Socratic method can be used to show someone that they are wrong, or at least imprecise, by getting them to agree with statements that contradict their original assertion. Since Socrates believed that the first step to knowledge was recognition of one's ignorance, it's not surprising that his method focuses not so much on proving your point but on disproving the other person's point with a series of questions (elenchus), resulting in their aporia (puzzlement). This method is used in law school to teach students critical thinking skills, and it is also used in psychotherapy, management training, and classrooms.

• Please don't try an evoke the "Love Card" to validate your philosophic methods. Of course I love you but that has nothing to do with agreeing with you.
• I will say it again, your " Spocratic Methods has no part in Cristianity and the inerrant word of God.

1. Colossians 2:8
2. 2 Timothy 3:16

• Respectfully, there is no need for us to continue your dialogue because there is no dialogue other than the word of God.
• This is a TJ forum...Jesus is Lord and Savior....no need for a socratic method here but only that of the Holy Spirit and his method of teaching.

 

[Spockrates]

How to Argue Using The Socratic Method
The Socratic method can be used to show someone that they are wrong, or at least imprecise, by getting them to agree with statements that contradict their original assertion. Since Socrates believed that the first step to knowledge was recognition of one's ignorance, it's not surprising that his method focuses not so much on proving your point but on disproving the other person's point with a series of questions (elenchus), resulting in their aporia (puzzlement). This method is used in law school to teach students critical thinking skills, and it is also used in psychotherapy, management training, and classrooms.

• Please don't try an evoke the "Love Card" to validate your philosophic methods. Of course I love you but that has nothing to do with agreeing with you.
• I will say it again, your " Spocratic Methods has no part in Cristianity and the inerrant word of God.

• Respectfully, there is no need for us to continue your dialogue because there is no dialogue other than the word of God.
• This is a TJ forum...Jesus is Lord and Savior....no need for a socratic method here but only that of the Holy Spirit and his method of teaching.

RJ:

Thank you for the reply. In response, I'd say you are correct. The Socratic method is only as good as the motives of the person using it. Socrates had confrontations with Stoic philosophers who used his method for the evil purpose of winning arguments even when they knew that for which they argued was untrue. Many lawyers and politicians were corrupted by these protagonists of Socrates.

But there is a more noble use of the method, that being a way to separate wheat from chaff, good reasons to believe from poor ones. If a dialog reveals that a reason for believing something is not logical, it does not necessarily mean what is believed is untrue. It might only mean there must be a better reason why what is believed is true.

Forgive me for trying your patience, and I won't take any more of your time. Before you leave, I'd like to say one thing. John wrote to us:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

(1 John‬ *4‬:*1‬)

If there is a better way than the Socratic method to test the spirits of the reasons why people believe, I honestly don't know what that way is.

 

[james1523]

RJ:

Thank you for the reply. In response, I'd say you are correct. The Socratic method is only as good as the motives of the person using it. Socrates had confrontations with Stoic philosophers who used his method for the evil purpose of winning arguments even when they knew that for which they argued was untrue. Many lawyers and politicians were corrupted by these protagonists of Socrates.

But there is a more noble use of the method, that being a way to separate wheat from chaff, good reasons to believe from poor ones. If a dialog reveals that a reason for believing something is not logical, it does not necessarily mean what is believed is untrue. It might only mean there must be a better reason why what is believed is true.

Forgive me for trying your patience, and I won't take any more of your time. Before you leave, I'd like to say one thing. John wrote to us:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

(1 John‬ *4‬:*1‬)

If there is a better way than the Socratic method to test the spirits of the reasons why people believe, I honestly don't know what that way is.

Spockrates, the way to test the spirits is given by 1 john 4:2-3...you only have to read a little further he he he..

 

[Spockrates]

Spiritual comprehension is more something we maintain rather than something which God gives us. Spiritual comprehension is an ability of the new heart and new spirit that God gives us when we first become believers in Christ (). If we believe in Christ then God has already given us this ability. Even though we receive a new heart and new spirit, often we can lose our ability of spiritual comprehension if we fail to keep a pure heart and clear conscience before God. So all we need to do is confess our sins and maintain a clear conscience and our heart will be pure again. A pure heart is not only about confessing sins but also about having a single eye for God. Purity of heart is more about being wholly for God than for ourselves or the world. Our prayer to receive spiritual comprehension will result in God's Spirit leading us to confess our sins, and renew our emotions and mind to love Christ and devote ourselves to Him.This is how God will answer our prayer.

Purity of heart is about having a single eye as in :

1. The lamp of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. The light of thy body is thy eye. If thyeye be single, thy whole body shall be lightsome. The lamp of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

Thank you, James. When you write this,

Spiritual comprehension is more something we maintain rather than something which God gives us. Spiritual comprehension is an ability of the new heart and new spirit that God gives us when we first become believers in Christ.

I think you must mean spiritual comprehension is something we receive when we first believe and something we maintain through a pure heart.

Would it be more precise to say spiritual comprehension is something God first gives when we first believe in Christ and also something he continues to give as we continue to maintain a pure heart? (I'm saying this because I'm of the opinion that such spiritual comprehension is something we receive and continue to receive from him. For mature and pure Christians like yourself seem to have more spiritual discernment than immature and impure Christians like myself!)

 

[james1523]

Thank you, James. When you write this,

Spiritual comprehension is more something we maintain rather than something which God gives us. Spiritual comprehension is an ability of the new heart and new spirit that God gives us when we first become believers in Christ (Ezek 36:26).

I think you must mean spiritual comprehension is something we receive when we first believe and something we maintain through a pure heart.

Would it be more precise to say spiritual comprehension is something God first gives when we first believe in Christ and also something continues to give as we continue to maintain a pure heart? (I'm saying this because I'm of the opinion that such spiritual comprehension, which we receive and continue to receive.)

I believe that the only thing that God gives us is the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13). The result of receiving the Spirit is a new heart and new spirit. This is effectively the joining of God's Spirit to our human spirit (1 Cor 6:17, Gal 4:6, Rom 8:15) and the effects of this union on our mind, emotions, will and conscience. If we have already received the Spirit, then we don't have to ask for it again, and so the ability to comprehend spiritual things is already inside of us. Whenever we ask God for something spiritual He will answer our prayer by the Spirit who is already inside of us. Therefore I think spiritual comprehension is a result or consequence of us maintaining a pure heart, and not exactly something that God gives because of anything we do or ask for. Much like if we are blinded with dirt, we only need to clean the dirt off our eyes in order to see (John 9:11). Rev 3:18 which is spoken to believers, says that we only need to put ointment on our eyes in order to see. But for unbelievers, they need to pray and ask God for the Holy Spirit first and foremost, or they will never see (Luke 11:13).

 

[Spockrates]

Spockrates, the way to test the spirits is given by 1 john 4:2-3...you only have to read a little further he he he..

This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

(1 John‬ *4‬:*2-3)

Thank you James, but the Gnostics of yesterday are not necessarily the deceived of today. For example, compare what Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Calvinists believe. They all believe Christ came in the flesh. Yet, give each of them the King James Bible and have them read the same passage, and the three might never agree on what the words actually mean.

Or take a Calvinist and a Baptist and a Anglican and do the same. Though all three believe in Christ and genuinely seek to maintain a pure heart, they also might never agree on the meaning of a specific scripture.

Since they don't agree, the words alone of the Bible are insufficient. So what does one of the three Christians have that the other two do not?

 

[Spockrates]

I believe that the only thing that God gives us is the Holy Spirit (). The result of receiving the Spirit is a new heart and new spirit. This is effectively the joining of God's Spirit to our human spirit (, , ) and the effects of this union on our mind, emotions, will and conscience. If we have already received the Spirit, then we don't have to ask for it again, and so the ability to comprehend spiritual things is already inside of us. Whenever we ask God for something spiritual He will answer our prayer by the Spirit who is already inside of us. Therefore I think spiritual comprehension is a result or consequence of us maintaining a pure heart, and not exactly something that God gives because of anything we do or ask for. Much like if we are blinded with dirt, we only need to clean the dirt off our eyes in order to see (). which is spoken to believers, says that we only need to put ointment on our eyes in order to see. But for unbelievers, they need to pray and ask God for the Holy Spirit first and foremost, or they will never see ().

I hear what you are saying. Once God gives us spiritual discernment, we don't need to ask for more of it. We already have all we will ever need! So would you then say the new Christian who has a pure heart, at the moment she believes, has no less spiritual discernment than the mature Christian who has been continuously maintaining a pure heart for decades?

 

[B-A-C]

Since they don't agree, the words alone of the Bible are insufficient. So what does one of the three Christians have that the other two do not?

The main thing here is belief in the diety of Christ. This has been covered many times before.
Mormons and JWs simply believe jesus is "a (small g) god".

1 Jn 4:2-3; are specifically about Christ's resurrection.
Obviously everyone has a body when they are born. (flesh) and everyone has a spirit (soul) once they are born. ( 1 Cor 15:44; )
Now everyone's body dies and everyone's soul is eternal. Only Jesus returned after death in the flesh.

John 20:24; But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
John 20:25; So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”
John 20:26; After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus *came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.”
John 20:27; Then He *said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.”
John 20:28; Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
John 20:29 Jesus *said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”

Luke 24:39; See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

 

[Spockrates]

The main thing here is belief in the diety of Christ. This has been covered many times before.
Mormons and JWs simply believe jesus is "a (small g) god".

; are specifically about Christ's resurrection.
Obviously everyone has a body when they are born. (flesh) and everyone has a spirit (soul) once they are born. ( ; )
Now everyone's body dies and everyone's soul is eternal. Only Jesus returned after death in the flesh.

; But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
; So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”
; After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus *came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.”
; Then He *said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.”
; Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
Jesus *said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”

; See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

BAC:

Good to have you back! Is the disagreement between Reformed Theologians, Latter Day Saints and Members of The Watchtower over the deity of Christ or over the meaning of the word deity? I've spent time discussing the Bible with people of each persuasion. All three tell me Jesus is indeed divine, but they each have different ideas of what the words mean.

So I guess what I'm asking is what makes one discern spiritual truth correctly and the other two incorrectly? It cannot be the words of scripture alone, since they all read the same words but each comes away with a different interpretation. So what is the thing that enables us to determine the true interpretation?

 

[B-A-C]

So I guess what I'm asking is what makes one discern spiritual truth correctly and the other two incorrectly? It cannot be the words of scripture alone, since they all read the same words but each comes away with a different interpretation.

I would disagree. It always comes down to context and the correct version of the Bible. i have given both JWs and Mormons dozens of verses they have been unable to reconcile.
There is only one creator of everything, only one God, only one life-giver. According to Merriam Webster, this is the definition of diety/God in Christian religion.
If there are multiple gods and all gods are equal then the word "diety" loses it's meaning because once again we are all the same, so there really is no god.

In other words, if there is no supreme being, there can be no God.

 

[Spockrates]

I would disagree. It always comes down to context and the correct version of the Bible. i have given both JWs and Mormons dozens of verses they have been unable to reconcile.
There is only one creator of everything, only one God, only one life-giver. According to Merriam Webster, this is the definition of diety/God in Christian religion.
If there are multiple gods and all gods are equal then the word "diety" loses it's meaning because once again we are all the same, so there really is no god.

In other words, if there is no supreme being, there can be no God.

Yes, so have I, and I was for some time confused by their lack of concern about such a lack of reconciliation between scriptures. Then I learned that they doubt the reliability of the Bible we read, thinking it has been corrupted over centuries. So I agree with you, there.

But what about the disagreements between those who read the same Bible and have the same confidence in its reliability? I mentioned different denominations having different interpretations, but it might be easier to compare, say Catholics and Evangelicals, each of whom I've spent a good deal of time discussing the Bible.

Take this passage, for example:

Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink."

(*John‬ *6‬:*53-55‬)

Catholics tell me Jesus was speaking literally. We must eat the flesh and blood of Jesus to continue to have eternal life. For his flesh and blood is not symbolic, but is real food and drink.

Evangelicals tell me Jesus was not speaking of literal eating and drinking, but of symbolic eating and drinking. Eating and drinking are metaphors a for believing in him.

Both give logical arguments to support their interpretations. Ask a non-Christian to decide who is right, and you are likely to hear it is not clear. For Christ's words are such that they may be interpreted either way.

(Now please understand I'm not trying to change the topic of discussion. I'm just making the point that sincere people who love and trust the Word can have sincere disagreements over what some of the passages really mean. Haven't you experienced this in your conversations with others?)

 

[B-A-C]

Both give logical arguments to support their interpretations. Ask a non-Christian to decide who is right, and you are likely to hear it is not clear. For Christ's words are such that they may be interpreted either way.

Catholics and Protestants may not agree on everything, in fact there are multiple sub-denominations in both the Catholic and Protestant environs.
For example Protestants have Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, Assembly of God, multiple versions of non-denominational, etc....
And while the groups listed above might give you different interpretations of different verses.. they all agree of one thing. How many Gods there are, and who is God.
Even in the same church, I can tell you I don't agree with every single thing everyone else does. But we do agree on the things that matter. I think it's fairly safe to say
all of the denominations above would agree on the Apostles/Nicene creeeds. However JWs and Mormons would not.

 

[Spockrates]

Catholics and Protestants may not agree on everything, in fact there are multiple sub-denominations in both the Catholic and Protestant environs.
For example Protestants have Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, Assembly of God, multiple versions of non-denominational, etc....
And while the groups listed above might give you different interpretations of different verses.. they all agree of one thing. How many Gods there are, and who is God.
Even in the same church, I can tell you I don't agree with every single thing everyone else does. But we do agree on the things that matter. I think it's fairly safe to say
all of the denominations above would agree on the Apostles/Nicene creeeds. However JWs and Mormons would not.

Yes, I agree with you 100%. Do you also agree with me that the words, grammar and immediate context of some passages of the Bible are not always sufficient to guarantee the reader of them correctly discerns the truth? (John 6:53 cited above, for example.)

 

[RJ]

If there is a better way than the Socratic method to test the spirits of the reasons why people believe, I honestly don't know what that way is.
You know, a true "Born Again" Christian, a person with the spirit of God dwelling in them wouldn't make such a rediculous statement!