Are These Mainstream Doctrines In Need of Reform?

[JAL]

How do you like Holy Ghost (since that was the usual wording until recently)?

I place ghost on a par with spirit. Both terms tend to connote immaterialism.

 

[SkyWriting]

At some point after His awakening, Yahweh probably intuited several important realizations.

The "I Am" is timeless and eternal. There is no "timeline" with Him.

 

[Albion]

I place ghost on a par with spirit. Both terms tend to connote immaterialism.

OK

 

[JAL]

The "I Am" is timeless and eternal. There is no "timeline" with Him.

There is only one possible definition of merit: freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause over an extended period of time. For example if the cross were timeless, devoid of even one single instant of suffering, it would have no merit and merit no praise.

The other problem is that all the biblical data documents chronological experience. I don't see any clear scriptural support for the notion of timelessness. God's anger flared up on Moses at the TIME of the burning bush, for example. I see no evidence that He was angry with Moses 'from eternity' much less 'from eternity to eternity'. In fact Scripture describes the Lord as a merciful God who will not remain angry with His people forever. All such biblical language betokens chronology.

 

[HatGuy]

Jal, I've read through your responses here and all I can say is that the problem is that all of your responses / musings seem based on philosophical premises rather than theological ones.

In other words, you're just not quoting or engaging the Bible. Except in your word study for "Spirit", which as far as I'm concerned is nitpicking somewhat. Your notion of timelessness and time night also have Biblical merit too. But you'd need to be more explicit, IMO, with actual handling of texts.

As to the rest, you even seemed to imply that God "learned" over billions of years how to be holy. All this is philosophically possible and lots of it philosophically logical, perhaps, but simply not theological. There's nothing in the Bible that says that, anywhere, unless you've found something hidden somewhere like the Prayer of Jabez or something. (Please do let us know then)'

What gave the Reformation the power it had was it's "back to the Bible" stance. I'd say that any doctrines in need for reformation need to be reformed on the basis of the Bible, and not philosophy.

Philosophy has its part, sure, and I do love philosophy. But when it begins to be the driver for Christian doctrine and practice rather than one of several tools for life and study then you're simply creating a monster.

 

[JAL]

Jal, I've read through your responses here and all I can say is that the problem is that all of your responses / musings seem based on philosophical premises rather than theological ones.

In other words, you're just not quoting or engaging the Bible. Except in your word study for "Spirit", which as far as I'm concerned is nitpicking somewhat. Your notion of timelessness and time night also have Biblical merit too. But you'd need to be more explicit, IMO, with actual handling of texts.

As to the rest, you even seemed to imply that God "learned" over billions of years how to be holy. All this is philosophically possible and lots of it philosophically logical, perhaps, but simply not theological. There's nothing in the Bible that says that, anywhere, unless you've found something hidden somewhere like the Prayer of Jabez or something. (Please do let us know then)'

What gave the Reformation the power it had was it's "back to the Bible" stance. I'd say that any doctrines in need for reformation need to be reformed on the basis of the Bible, and not philosophy.

Philosophy has its part, sure, and I do love philosophy. But when it begins to be the driver for Christian doctrine and practice rather than one of several tools for life and study then you're simply creating a monster.

Actually I think the opposite is true. I think that concepts such as immaterial spirit came from Platonic philosophy contrary to the bulk of evidence in scripture. As Augustine noted, every theophany in the Bible was God appearing as a physical substance. It takes quite a bit of philosophical ingenuity (read here Platonic philosophy) to impose immaterialism into the pages of Scripture.

And that' s just one example. I can show point by point that my propositions consistently are driven by scriptural backing whereas the opposing views are driven by biblically unbacked philosophy.

I'm at work at the moment, so my time is limited.

 

[JAL]

I'm still at work but I'll try to respond as time permits.

Jal, I've read through your responses here and all I can say is that the problem is that all of your responses / musings seem based on philosophical premises rather than theological ones.

In other words, you're just not quoting or engaging the Bible. Except in your word study for "Spirit", which as far as I'm concerned is nitpicking somewhat. Your notion of timelessness and time night also have Biblical merit too. But you'd need to be more explicit, IMO, with actual handling of texts.

As to the rest, you even seemed to imply that God "learned" over billions of years how to be holy. All this is philosophically possible and lots of it philosophically logical, perhaps, but simply not theological. There's nothing in the Bible that says that, anywhere, unless you've found something hidden somewhere like the Prayer of Jabez or something. (Please do let us know then)'

What gave the Reformation the power it had was it's "back to the Bible" stance. I'd say that any doctrines in need for reformation need to be reformed on the basis of the Bible, and not philosophy.

Philosophy has its part, sure, and I do love philosophy. But when it begins to be the driver for Christian doctrine and practice rather than one of several tools for life and study then you're simply creating a monster.

Seems to me you can't see the forest for the trees. Let's not lose sight of one important point, namely the law of non-contradiction. Meaning, I don't care if you've got a million verses that 'seem' to backup your position - it's STILL WRONG if it contains any logical inconsistencies.

Take for example your aversion to the idea of God learning. God's knowledge merits no praise if He didn't labor/suffer to learn what He did. To deny this leads to a logical inconsistency, as it contradicts the unanimously held definition of merit.

Also your aversion to God learning leads to another logical problem, regarding the incarnation. Unfortunately my hands are a bit tied here - Staff has already deleted this thread once so I'm not 100% sure what I'm allowed to say in this Controversial/Unorthodox forum. So I won't go into a full analysis. I'll keep this point short. If God's knowledge isn't learned, if it is innate, inescapable, immutable, inextricably part of His essential definition (not sure how many ways to put it), then it raises doubts as to whether an incarnation as an ignorant babe is logically possible. I'm well aware mainstream Christianity postulates the hypostatic union as the solution, but no one even knows what 'hypostatic union' actually means. Theologians concur that it is a theory which cannot be humanly understood. Whereas, no such logical problems exist for my own theological system - I can give you a (non-mainstream) theory of the incarnation as simple, lucid, and unproblematical as 3 + 0 = 3.

Here too, note that the driving force here is SCRIPTURE, not philosophy. That is to say, Jesus experienced ignorance as a babe and then LEARNED. This strongly suggests that it is in God's NATURE to LEARN. There is no potential discord here, no potential disharmony, no need to 'search for (humanly incomprehensible) solutions' such as the hypostatic union. My theology flows NATURALLY with the actual text.

 

[Albion]

That is to say, Jesus experienced ignorance as a babe and then LEARNED. This strongly suggests that it is in God's NATURE to LEARN. There is no potential discord here, no potential disharmony, no need to 'search for (humanly incomprehensible) solutions' such as the hypostatic union. My theology flows NATURALLY with the actual text.

Are you certain that Jesus' learning wasn't just evidence of his human nature, and not anything as concerned his divine nature?

 

[JAL]

Are you certain that Jesus' learning wasn't just evidence of his human nature, and not anything as concerned his divine nature?

You're speaking of the hypostatic union. The concept of two natures is postulated in no intellectual arena other than in mainstream christianity - and with the disclaimer that it is a humanly incomprehensible concept. In all other intellectual arenas, any notion of a reality having two conflicting natures is immediately dismissed as a contradiction in terms.

So I'm not sure how I can have a meaningful discussion with you on a concept that neither you nor I could possibly understand, nor am I sure whether I can attempt to analyze it in some depth without evoking the deletion of this thread by Staff.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I'm confused with the new ideas this thread introduces.

 

[JAL]

I'm confused with the new ideas this thread introduces.

Just accept anything I say as gospel, and you'll be fine.

 

[SolomonVII]

How do you like Holy Ghost (since that was the usual wording until recently)?

Lol. I remember my Grade 1 teacher explaining to us why the term 'ghost' had to be dropped because it was potentially too scary for kids.
Being a kid at the time, it seemed to me that her explanation had a lot of holes.



Holey Ghost maybe?

 

[hedrick]

I only see two possibilities here - feel free to chime in if you think I'm missing something.
(1) God made this (potentially) dark world out of a perceived NEED for it. He felt that His back was against the wall. Caught between a rock and a hard place, He saw no choice in the matter. In this case, His act of creation is a perfectly understandable move on His part.
(2) He created this world just for the FUN OF IT. He WANTED a world where it's possible for man to fall to the extent that even infants and adolescents suffer rape, murder, starvation, and disease. He WANTED a world where men have enough freedom to condemn themselves to punishment and hellfire. This is His form of ENTERTAINMENT.

There are several alternatives, though perhaps you're including omnipotence as a premise and these don't include that premise.

The simplest is to say that God can't have a world of responsible beings that is also free of suffering, either because it's logically impossible or because he isn't omnipotent. There are at least three reasonable alternatives:
(3) He created the world because he thought having men who are saved was worth the cost of having some people suffer. This is most plausible when coupled with annihilationism or universalism, but might be justifiable without it.
(4) The best he can do is make it better, which he has done.
(5) He can make it perfect, but it takes time, either because it really does or because he has chosen to do much of his work through us. This is most plausible when coupled with annihilationism or universalism, but might be justifiable without it.

I think some versions of 3 and 5 can be made orthodox, though perhaps they are most attractive when combined with universalism. I suspect there are alternatives I haven't thought of.

I believe most people hold something like (3).

 

[JAL]

There are several alternatives, though perhaps you're including omnipotence as a premise and these don't include that premise.

The simplest is to say that God can't have a world of responsible beings that is also free of suffering, either because it's logically impossible or because he isn't omnipotent. There are at least three reasonable alternatives:
(3) He created the world because he thought having men who are saved was worth the cost of having some people suffer. This is most plausible when coupled with annihilationism or universalism, but might be justifiable without it.
(4) The best he can do is make it better, which he has done.
(5) He can make it perfect, but it takes time, either because it really does or because he has chosen to do much of his work through us. This is most plausible when coupled with annihilationism or universalism, but might be justifiable without it.

I think some versions of 3 and 5 can be made orthodox, though perhaps they are most attractive when combined with universalism. I suspect there are alternatives I haven't thought of.

I believe most people hold something like (3).

Although you see yourself as proposing alternatives, I'm not convinced that you managed to do so. Again, there seems to be only two BASIC options:
(1) He created this world because He NEEDED it (He felt He had no choice, at the risk of His own peril and/or ours, for example).
(2) He did NOT need it (in which case He created this world just for the fun of it).

In the sense of the basics, those two options seem EXHAUSTIVE. Meaning. Any supposed 'alternative' option is not REALLY an alternative because it must fall into one of those two categories.

So if you REALLY want to propose a third alternative, please demonstrate that the two are NOT exhaustive. Fill in option 3 below:
(1) God NEEDED us.
(2) He did NOT need us.
(3) ????? What's the third possibility?
I doubt that a third possibility exists.

 

[hedrick]

So if you REALLY want to propose a third alternative, please demonstrate that the two are NOT exhaustive. Fill in option 3 below:
(1) God NEEDED us.
(2) He did NOT need us.
(3) ????? What's the third possibility?
I doubt that a third possibility exists.

He wanted us.

 

[JAL]

He wanted us.

Ok so He wanted us for his pleasure (just for the fun of it). But He is infinitely self-sufficient, right? Isn't that the mainstream view? As such, isn't He capable of affording Himself the same level of pleasure without us?

So you mean to tell me - just for the fun of it - He created the kind of world potentially culminating in the nailing of His own Son to the cross?

In your view, is God a sadist? A [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]? Or both?

 

[JAL]

I'm confused with the new ideas this thread introduces.

Was there a specific question you wanted to ask?

 

[InterestedApologist]

Ok so He wanted us for his pleasure (just for the fun of it). But He is infinitely self-sufficient, right? Isn't that the mainstream view? As such, isn't He capable of affording Himself the same level of pleasure without us?

So you mean to tell me - just for the fun of it - He created the kind of world potentially culminating in the nailing of His own Son to the cross?

In your view, is God a sadist? A [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]? Or both?

If I may be so bold, I think you are falling into the trap of forcing God into human restraints. When thinking of God, it is important to understand He is a being free of the limitations of humanity, time and space. His characteristics of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence cannot be fully grasped by the mind of the finite human anymore than a 3 year old can fully comprehend quantum mechanics. Even God’s makeup is foreign to us, as He is a trinity. Due to this, human philosophy will never be capable of answering all the questions about the character and reasoning of God. It is important that any philosophical endeavor related to God be scripturally based, as it is the only resource available to reveal what we can know about the character of God.

As to this world and why he created man, it seems scripturally evident to me that God desired to create us out of love and for fellowship and intimacy with him. Remember, this world was created perfect for us, and man himself chose to fall. Why the ability to choose disobedience, then? Because God is Love, and desired to be loved by man. There can be no true love without the ability to choose not to love. The ability to choose was an act of love.

 

[HatGuy]

Let's not lose sight of one important point, namely the law of non-contradiction. Meaning, I don't care if you've got a million verses that 'seem' to backup your position - it's STILL WRONG if it contains any logical inconsistencies.

I'll engage with you on some of your other points when I have a little extra time, as they're interesting and it seems like it'll be a lively discussion.

However, I think this main point is worth addressing first.

Because I disagree.

I have a friend whose professor could logically justify infanticide. Very well. I think the professor is a nutter, but you come away realising that it's very easy to logically justify many things that we know are wrong, even if we can't logically say why they are wrong.

So logic does not always equal truth. Especially when there are things you simply don't know. Since we live in a fallen world, there are things about God we'll only know in the new heavens and new earth. Because these things don't make logical sense to us now, that does not mean they aren't logical, only that we don't possess all the relevant information.

I don't believe, theologically speaking, that a position is wrong if it cannot be reconciled logically in every way. In some ways, sure, but by overlaying the law of non contradiction into theology is insisting that a philosophical method proves a doctrine as true or not. I think that's a wrong way to go about forming or affirming doctrine. The Bible presents many doctrines that may or may not contradict, and we do have to learn to live in that, since we have to learn to live in an imperfect world.

The fact that an infinite God can come to us as an ignorant babe is perhaps logically incomprehensible, yet at the same time it is not illogical or impossible. Some things appear to be better learned relationally rather than logically. It seems illogical, for example, to turn the other cheek, until you do it and you find out why it's true experientially.

 

[aiki]

"You foolish Galatians!" (Gal 3:1). As human beings of very limited knowledge, all of us are potentially susceptible to doctrinal error.

BUt significantly less so as we are in God's word carefully studying and living out its commands, wisdom, truth and spiritual principles.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Psalms 119:105
105 Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path.

The mainstream teachings in question here are problematical for various reasons. Seemingly, at least:
- They do not appear to always cast Yahweh in the best possible light, potentially leaving an uninformed reader with doubts about the supreme excellency of His character and His unqualified desert of praise.

What mainstream teaching, exactly, does this?

- They seem unaware of Yahweh's most costly, unselfish, altruistic sacrifice, mistaking it for the cross. Sadly, Yahweh doesn't seem to be getting any credit/praise for His most self-sacrificial work.

Which is what, in your estimation?

- They seem unaware of why Yahweh created us.

I see. Who is "they" exactly?

- They seem unaware of the Third Person's true name and nature. Surprisingly, after 2,000 years the church still refers to Him as "The Holy Spirit" or "The Holy Ghost". As a result of such apparent mistakes, mainstream theologians are still mystified even by a verse as lucid as John 3:5.

In Scripture, "Holy Spirit" is a common title/name/descriptor given to the third Person of the Trinity. Is the Bible making a mistake when it refers to him in this way? If not, why is it a mistake for Christians to follow the Bible's lead in referring to the Holy Spirit as the Holy Spirit?

- They seem unaware of what an intimate relationship with the Father entails and thereby potentially steer our prayer lives in inappropriate directions.

But you've got it all figured out? An interesting belief coming from someone who wrote:

"As human beings of very limited knowledge, all of us are potentially susceptible to doctrinal error."

The most important point of all, however, is that church leaders should abstain from any pretense of infallibility in their teachings. When a pastor preaches a sermon with the aura or disposition of, "I've studied my Bible and therefore KNOW exactly what I'm talking about", he's actually hindering revival by building on a platform of intellectual dishonesty. The truth is that he merely has OPINIONS (see my signature), just like the rest of us.

How very...postmodern of you. Not a very biblical way of thinking, however. I assume that you realize that your comments here undercut everything you write. If you hold yourself to the same standard as you do these "intellectually dishonest" pastors, then all you've written in your OP is really nothing more than your opinion. We've all got opinions. Why should anyone give yours any more weight than their own? Basically, if all you've got to share is your opinion, you've said nothing more significant, really, than that you like coffee rather than tea, or that you prefer foreign-made cars over domestic ones. So? Why should anyone care? Do you see the problem with relegating everything ultimately to opinion?