Doctrine is not necessary?

[Isaiah45_9]

Well perhaps this is due to imprecise definitions.

What is love?

Since you have a liking of Scripture, let us turn to 2 John 1:5-6

“But now, dear lady, I ask you, not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but one we have had from the beginning, let us love one another. And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment just as you have heard it from the beginning—you must walk in it.”

Now we may know his commandments by infused, revealed, learned knowledge but that is just it. commandments are knowledge and hence there can be no love without knowledge.

The reason why you and Sirach seem to dislike this is because you have understood the passages you quoted as being against knowledge when they simply acknowledge the truth that while knowledge is necessary for love, it is not sufficient.

In your zeal, you are reading too much into it. Nowhere does it say love is not sufficient.

In fact, since you brought up real meanings:

Commandments:

Matthew 22:36-40
36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”

Further,

John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

1 John 4:19
19 We love, because he first loved us.

Doctrine follows love - not the other way around.

 

[Jaberwocky]

From that link: [although he may not know it as “Doctrine” and “Catholic”]

I think that begs the question.

Huh? There is nothing to beg the question since nothing is questioned. It is just stating an observation. Just because you know that murder is wrong does not mean you know it as Catholic or Doctrine. That is all that has been said.

You are misusing the term.

 

[Jaberwocky]

My response, Jabber: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11408799&postcount=79

It unfortunately reads more like a plea than an actual response though. So can you provide an actual response that addresses the concerns and arguments raised by me?

 

[Jaberwocky]

**In your zeal, you are reading too much into it. Nowhere does it say love is not sufficient.
**

Let me stop you right there.

You haven’t either read my post or you just missed what I was saying.

I said

knowledge is necessary, but not sufficient for love.

There is no such thing as love without knowledge. It is a nonsensical statement to speak of love without knowledge and is the same thing as speaking of square circles.

Doctrine tells you how to love. Did you perhaps miss the fact that what you quoted to me as Scripture is also doctrine or have you mistakenly ignored that fact?

Oh and I noticed how you completely ignored the Scripture passage I quoted to you. I have already explained why I ignore yours i.e. I claim that they only show that knowledge is not sufficient. But you on the other hand did not mention what is wrong in my understanding of 2 John 1:5-6.

Why is that? To me it seems plain as day that he is saying to love is to follow God’s commandments. Since God’s commandments are not ours, we must come to know them as knowledge. Hence, without Doctrine (knowledge), there can be no love.

In all of this, I feel that those who are arguing this truism are doing so because they already have an agenda against the Church’s doctrine.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Huh? There is nothing to beg the question since nothing is questioned. It is just stating an observation. Just because you know that murder is wrong does not mean you know it as Catholic or Doctrine. That is all that has been said.

You are misusing the term.

The thread itself is a question wherein “doctrine” is very broadly defined.

How much doctrine is necessary?

 

[Jaberwocky]

The thread itself is a question wherein “doctrine” is very broadly defined.

How much doctrine is necessary?

That is actually not the topic. Suffice it to say that more doctrine one knows, the more perfectly one can love.

In other words, the more one knows what God desires of them, the more one can satisfy that desire and in doing so, love him.

Doctrine is defined and understood in this thread as knowledge that God has revealed to us.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Let me stop you right there.

You haven’t either read my post or you just missed what I was saying.

I said

knowledge is necessary, but not sufficient for love.

There is no such thing as love without knowledge. It is a nonsensical statement to speak of love without knowledge and is the same thing as speaking of square circles.

Doctrine tells you how to love. Did you perhaps miss the fact that what you quoted to me as Scripture is also doctrine or have you mistakenly ignored that fact?

Oh and I noticed how you completely ignored the Scripture passage I quoted to you. I have already explained why I ignore yours i.e. I claim that they only show that knowledge is not sufficient. But you on the other hand did not mention what is wrong in my understanding of 2 John 1:5-6.

Why is that? To me it seems plain as day that he is saying to love is to follow God’s commandments. Since God’s commandments are not ours, we must come to know them as knowledge. Hence, without Doctrine (knowledge), there can be no love.

In all of this, I feel that those who are arguing this truism are doing so because they already have an agenda against the Church’s doctrine.

You need to go back to your OP.

So far this is where the matter stands. A proposition has been set forth that

“Doctrine is not important. Love is what is important”.

Doctrine vs Love.

You are now moving into knowledge. Understandably so, because doctrine alone does not stand against love.

John 3:16 doesn’t say that because God so indoctrinated the world that He gave His only Begotten Son.

The knowledge that we receive from God is because He loved us first. The Love of God precedes everything. Doctrine follows the love of God. Without His Love we have nothing, absolutely nothing.

You can ask: How do you know God loved first?

I’ll answer: My knowing does not affect or invalidate the love God had first.

From the Catechism:

733 "God is Love"124 and love is his first gift, containing all others. "God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us."125

Not knowledge, or doctrine.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That is actually not the topic. Suffice it to say that more doctrine one knows, the more perfectly one can love.

In other words, the more one knows what God desires of them, the more one can satisfy that desire and in doing so, love him.

Doctrine is defined and understood in this thread as knowledge that God has revealed to us.

You should not get to define terms in your own manner.

**Doctrine: **
a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

Or from Merriam-Webster.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doctrine

 

[Jaberwocky]

You need to go back to your OP.

Doctrine vs Love.

You are now moving into knowledge. Understandably so, because doctrine alone does not stand against love.

John 3:16 doesn’t say that because God so indoctrinated the world that He gave His only Begotten Son.

The knowledge that we receive from God is because He loved us first. The Love of God precedes everything. Doctrine follows the love of God. Without His Love we have nothing, absolutely nothing.

You can ask: How do you know God loved first?

I’ll answer: My knowing does not affect or invalidate the love God had first.

From the Catechism:

733 "God is Love"124 and love is his first gift, containing all others. "God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us."125

Not knowledge, or doctrine.

Well by Doctrine I thought it was obvious that we are speaking of knowledge regarding what God has revealed to us.

No one has also disagreed that God loves you. God certainly knows you more than you do and therefore he is the only person that can love you like he does. So the fact that God loves you shows nothing to oppose the idea that YOU need knowledge to love God. In fact, even God can love you and all things because he has knowledge of you and all things.

I feel like you are somehow diverging away and away from the topic now as well.

 

[Jaberwocky]

You should not get to define terms in your own manner.

**Doctrine: **
a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

Or from Merriam-Webster.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doctrine

Sure. As a Catholic you should know that the beliefs held and taught by the Church is based on knowledge revealed from God.

Hence my definition was not lacking. Do you have a point to make with this line of analysis?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

That is actually not the topic. Suffice it to say that more doctrine one knows, the more perfectly one can love.

In other words, the more one knows what God desires of them, the more one can satisfy that desire and in doing so, love him.

Doctrine is defined and understood in this thread as knowledge that God has revealed to us.

Alll knowledge revealed to us is not doctrine.

You are saying love is a function of knowledge. Quite often just the opposite is true.
Those with the most love may be the simplest and least knowledgeable.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Well by Doctrine I thought it was obvious that we are speaking of knowledge regarding what God has revealed to us.

And how are we supposed to know what you thought?

No one has also disagreed that God loves you.

And you as well.

God certainly knows you more than you do and therefore he is the only person that can love you like he does.

And you as well.

So the fact that God loves you shows nothing to oppose the idea that YOU need knowledge to love God.

And you as well.

In fact, even God can love you and all things because he has knowledge of you and all things.

And you as well.

I feel like you are somehow diverging away and away from the topic now as well.

This is your thread, you are free to ignore me.

I have presented how our best doctrinal authorities tell us that Love is first. If love is first knowledge obviously follows, and doctrine obviously follows knowledge.

The biggest problem is that you dichotomy is faulty, it is similar to faith vs works. Except that in this case without love YOU have nothing. And me as well.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I have presented how our best doctrinal authorities tell us that Love is first. If love is first knowledge obviously follows, and doctrine obviously follows knowledge.

1 Corinthians 13

13 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Certainly love is primary.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Alll knowledge revealed to us is not doctrine.

You are saying love is a function of knowledge. Quite often just the opposite is true.
Those with the most love may be the simplest and least knowledgeable.

I think the problem here is terms and definitions.

Love, as defined by the Catechism, is to will the good of another. To do good to another is to do what God commands of us toward others.

Now God’s commands are not arbitrary or grounded in our feelings. They are grounded in his revelation and even in the law written in our hearts. All of this is Doctrine (or knowledge).

Which part of this is not agreeable to you?

All knowledge, scientific for an example, is not doctrine. Ironically however, even without such knowledge, one cannot love perfectly in some circumstances.

So I am still trying to understand what is the stumbling block for you in admitting this truism.

 

[Jaberwocky]

1 Corinthians 13

13 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Certainly love is primary.

No. Your passage proves that love is the end, yes! It also proves that knowledge is not sufficient for love.

What Scripture does say and indicates is that knowledge is necessary for love. Why do I say this? Because to love is to keep God’s commands, as St. John indicates.

 

[Jaberwocky]

I have presented how our best doctrinal authorities tell us that Love is first. If love is first knowledge obviously follows, and doctrine obviously follows knowledge.

You have not done so, at least in this thread. All that you have shown in this thread is that knowledge is not sufficient for love and that God loves you first. None of that proves that love is first before knowledge. That is logically impossible.

The biggest problem is that you dichotomy is faulty, it is similar to faith vs works. Except that in this case without love YOU have nothing. And me as well.

Huh? Mine is faulty? If anything, I am insisting that love without knowledge does not exist. You are the one trying to put love on a pedestal such that it opposes doctrine.

In all of this, you have not presented a single definition of the word love. Yet you continue to argue. How is that reasonable? Am I to just concede and accept that which seems to have no reasonable basis because you compare my thoughts to a Protestant heresy?