Works DON'T follow like a caboose (automatically). There are numerous examples of supposed "saved" people who sin grievously, or are indifferent to others and their plight. If love was automatic, then why does Paul say "if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." (1 Cor 13:2)?
I have asked this question about a dozen times on this thread, but have been ignored every time. Apparently, some people here already have their minds made up and would rather not address what the Scriptures say. If faith automatically led to love, then why does Paul suggest that faith can be had, but not love? What does Paul consider more important in the salvation formula?
Regards
I have asked this question about a dozen times on this thread, but have been ignored every time. Apparently, some people here already have their minds made up and would rather not address what the Scriptures say. If faith automatically led to love, then why does Paul suggest that faith can be had, but not love? What does Paul consider more important in the salvation formula?
(My Bible actually uses the word "love" instead of charity.) Perhaps it would be helpful to distinguish the type of love Paul is talking about here. It appears to be agape (Godly) love. This is as opposed to eros (e.g. spousal), or phileo (e.g. friendship), or whatever else my footnote would say if it were longer. :)
If this is right, then I can see Paul saying that faith (in existence of God?), without love for God, is useless. If I am to be consistent, then I know I have to say that love for God is included in the gift of faith. I do say that. So, the only way my explanation works is if Paul meant by "faith" something other than the normal way we have been referring to it on this thread. In 13:2, Paul does say "a faith" rather than just faith. That could be a distinction. (?) Sorry if I couldn't give you a great answer on this one, I thought I would try my best anyway. :)
God bless.