Does God operate at a lower standard of morality/ethics than he requires of us?

[Servus]

So...whataboutism?

Whether others are guilty of the same error or not in defense of their doctrine, the issue is in the handling of Scripture. It is not that there are verses that present challenges, but how those verses are handled(either ignored entirely or distorted through intentional re-interpretation aimed at making them agreeable or demeaned by appealing to their human authorship).

I'm looking for a better objection/argument than ones that are applied across the board for doctrine A vs doctrine B, such as the ones I mentioned plus several others. As far as I've seen the Christian doctrine of universalism is reasonably sound enough for me to consider it a possibility.

As coincidence has it, I just got a reply from someone in another thread regarding how heresy was originally defined in the early church. Which I've heard before from good authority.

Roymond said:
The early church considered heresy to be quite the opposite: heresy was a term that only applied to a teacher whose presentation of who Jesus is was so far off they had a different Jesus. And they addressed those teaching very logically and objectively, always asking, "Who do the scriptures say the Redeemer must be?" In other words, heresy was something that taught so wrongly about Jesus that their preaching could bring no one to the faith because no one would understand what it meant to have a Savior.

 

[Fervent]

I'm looking for a better objection/argument than ones that are applied across the board for doctrine A vs doctrine B, such as the ones I mentioned plus several others. As far as I've seen the doctrine of universalism is reasonably sound enough for me to consider it a possibility.

As coincidence has it, I just got a reply from someone in another thread regarding how heresy was originally defined in the early church. Which I've heard before from good authority.

Roymond said:
The early church considered heresy to be quite the opposite: heresy was a term that only applied to a teacher whose presentation of who Jesus is was so far off they had a different Jesus. And they addressed those teaching very logically and objectively, always asking, "Who do the scriptures say the Redeemer must be?" In other words, heresy was something that taught so wrongly about Jesus that their preaching could bring no one to the faith because no one would understand what it meant to have a Savior.

My criticisms aren't aimed at universalism, per se, but rather to the specific approach of this thread to broach the subject. While I do believe that there may be a Scripturally defensible Christian universalism, it has been my experience on these boards and in my reading of universalist literature that sentimentality and secular text-critical approaches to Scripture drives modern drive the movement, rather than being driven by principled exegesis.

 

[Tolworth John]

Is that love?
To take revenge on your own flesh and blood for not agreeing with your personal beliefs?
Nullifying their inheritance to punish them for having their own mind?
Do you suppose this would bring them closer to God?
What sort of tyrant would behave this way? Please don't say, "God."

Who said anything about revenge, that is your emotional responce.

 

[Tolworth John]

What did God say about everything he created on the sixth day?

How can our God-given conscience be faulty? Hopefully there was a warranty. - LOL

Genesis 1:31 NIV
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

I suspect you are being funny, but I'll answer you.

Yes God declared that everything he had created was very good. But the bible doesn't stop there it goes on to tell of Adams rejection of God and his instructions.
It also tells of the consquence for mankind, that we are marred because of Adams fall.

People today are Not morally nuetral, they are all sinners.

 

[Saint Steven]

I believe a key to understanding this is found in Genesis.

Gen 6:5-8 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them." But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

We see God was sorry he had made man, because man turned out to be evil "every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually".

Because God puts limits on man's life we don't often see the same degree of evil that God saw at the flood.

Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."

God actually does have the attributes of patience, mercy, etc. So we as believers can rely upon His goodness. But there is still some unchangeable law in God's economy that can not allow evil in His creatures.

Thanks for joining the discussion.

You may be onto something here, but the basis is wrought with theological problems.

Based on what we know about God's character attributes from the rest of the Bible, the statements made about him in the Flood account are more narrative than informative.

For instance, we know that God is omniscient, so how could he be surprised and saddened by how things turned out before the Flood? As if he had no prior knowledge that it would happen? Or that his planning was flawed to the point of scrapping the whole idea? And then in order to "correct' the problem, engaged in global genocide as the solution? Wow. Like I said, wrought with theological problems.

Does that make sense?

I would like to hear more from you on this. Could you address the topic title question more directly? Thanks.

 

[Saint Steven]

Who said anything about revenge, that is your emotional responce.

Explain the reason why the children received no inheritance.
Was it not withheld (revenge) due to not agreeing with the father's opinions?

Saint Steven said:

Is that love?
To take revenge on your own flesh and blood for not agreeing with your personal beliefs?
Nullifying their inheritance to punish them for having their own mind?
Do you suppose this would bring them closer to God?
What sort of tyrant would behave this way? Please don't say, "God."

 

[Saint Steven]

I suspect you are being funny, but I'll answer you.

Yes God declared that everything he had created was very good. But the bible doesn't stop there it goes on to tell of Adams rejection of God and his instructions.
It also tells of the consquence for mankind, that we are marred because of Adams fall.

People today are Not morally nuetral, they are all sinners.

Glad you brought that up, the Fall.
Are you familiar with the scripture below?
The salvation of humankind hangs on the acts of two men. Adam 1 and Adam 2.

Romans 5:18-19 NIV
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

 

[Hmm]

I said He's fine by definition of Himself, which is why I was not question his simplicity

Jesus is the Son of God. As the Son of God he is perfect, thus he can do no wrong. So when Jesus is simple the simplicity must be correct since he does no wrong

Because it embodied his statement and the connection to the verse about him coming with a sword. What he said was not changed though like you are implying.

Would you agree that scripture says both things, that He came both to bring peace and with a sword?

If so, what do we make of it? IMO it's interesting to learn the fact that scripture has to be interpreted and that there are mundane issues such as translation errors to be considered. And also that we have much to learn from the early church, which is something I'd never considered before joining CF. But I think all this can only take us so far and can never resolve the big questions, otherwise after 2000 years of scholarship and arguing we would have found the answers by now.

The only way I can see that can take us forward after we've reached an impasse in trying to resolve the ambiguities or mysteries in scripture is to look beyond it to the person of Jesus, God's perfect image of HIm and proceed from there.

For all of the above reasons, I have embraced Christian universalism as the only interpretation that is not contradictory about the big questions such as the nature of God and His purpose for us on earth. But because my belief depends heavily on how I see the person of Jesus, I can't produce any knockdown arguments for it, and nor would I want to. But I'd say that this is true of every other tradition in the church too. We all create God in our image to some extent. For me, the important thing is the quality of the personal relationship we have with God. If it's something that brings the fruits of the Spirit - love, joy, peace etc - even to a small extent, that's great and it says to me that we've got the right beliefs for us. But if our beliefs make us anxious, fearful, excessively guilty or judgemental that I'd say we've got it wrong somewhere and we need to reassess things. As Einstein said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results".

That's a pretty liberal view I suppose but, then, I'm from Europe where the word liberal does not have the same negative connotations that it does in the US. I think that's why I seem to end up in so many pointless arguments here on CF but it's been good for me - iron sharpening iron!

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Is that a fact?
How does that work?

Do you not think what God does could be anything but righteous or from love? That goes against His very character. 1 John 4:8

First you need to remember that God’s will is not different in heaven than it is on this earth.

God’s government is based on His law. where He minsters in His sanctuary Hebrews 8:2 His holy law written alone by the finger of God Exodus 31:18 is placed inside the ark of the covenant the Ten Commandments that is in heaven Revelation 11:19

At the end of days we will either have the seal of God or the mark of the beast. End times will be about worship- do we worship Him in Truth and Spirit John 4:23-24 or worship the beast Revelation 13 and Revelation 14. Those who have the seal- God's law sealed on His people Isaiah 8:16 which represent His character. To counter the mark of the beast those who have the seal of God keep the commandments of God and faith in Jesus. Revelation 14:12

Why is God’s judgement a judgement of love?

It’s twofold really. Many people do not love God’s commandments. Jesus said if you love Me keep My commandments similar to what God said right in the Ten. Showing mercy to thousands who love Me and keep My commandments. Exodus 20:6. Not everyone will be happy in heaven being governed by God’s commandments, Lucifer wasn't. God is a God of love and would never force anyone against their will to keep something they don’t love or want to do.

Those who willfully sin and not keep the commandments are not going to be fireproof. If we go to the book of Daniel he refused to bow down to the golden statue breaking one of God’s commandments and he and his friends were thrown into the extra hot furnace. You also have to keep in mind Daniel is a prophetic book. Jesus protected him and his friends from the fire and they became fireproof and could stand with Jesus in the fire unharmed.

God is described throughout the scripture as a consuming fire. Hebrews 12:29 The Israelites couldn’t even look at Him and asked that Moses be the mediator between Him and God. His glory is so bright and a consuming fire that is one is not fireproof, they will not be able to stand in front of God.

Isaiah 66:15 For, behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. 16 For by fire and by his sword will the Lord plead with all flesh: and the slain of the Lord shall be many.

The wages of sin is death- the punishment will be death and not an eternal burning, but the flames will go out and sin and sinners will be no more.

Isaiah 47:14 Behold, they shall be as stubble, The fire shall burn them; They shall not deliver themselves From the power of the flame; It shall not be a coal to be warmed by, Nor a fire to sit before!

The condemned will want the fire to go out and His judgement is righteous and from love.

We are saved through our faith Eph 8:10 but faith establishes the law Romans 3:31 and those who have faith in Jesus keep the commandments of God Revelation 14:12. Does saving faith believe the teachings of Jesus Christ who said If you love Me, keep My commandments and He doesn’t require us to do it alone for those who wish to obey Him. John 14:15-18, Acts 5:32

 

[Saint Steven]

Do you not think what God does could be anything but righteous or from love? That goes against His very character. 1 John 4:8

On that point we agree. After that... not so much.

 

[Saint Steven]

Why is God’s judgement a judgement of love?

Well... if the choice is between original recipe and extra crispy... I get a bit suspicious. Just sayin'.

 

[Saint Steven]

The condemned will want the fire to go out and His judgement is righteous and from love.

I would say; No mercy = no love
It's the double standard again. Would God tolerate behavior like that from us? (nope)

... Mercy triumphs over judgment. - James 2:13 NIV

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I would say; No mercy = no love
It's the double standard again. Would God tolerate behavior like that from us? (nope)

... Mercy triumphs over judgment. - James 2:13 NIV

Who does God show mercy to? Exodus 20:6. There is no scripture that says we can continually sin (break God’s law 1 John 3:4) and be saved. We are warned there remains no more sacrifice who practices sin. Hebrews 10:26 Matthew 7:21-23. Jesus came to save us from our sins, not in them. Matthew 1:21. Jesus tells us If we love Him, keep His commandments, if one is having a hard time with the commandments, they may have a love problem. Ask Jesus for more love to Him, Jesus wants to answer our prayers especially when they are His will. God bless.

 

[Clare73]

The obvious answer is no.
But I suppose that depends on who you ask.
Of course, it would be unusual for someone to state it as bluntly as I have, but the inference is epidemic. IMHO
My favorite example is what Jesus taught us about godly behavior toward our enemies. See Matthew 5:43-48 below.
If we are required to love our enemies, why would God incinerate his enemies? Sounds like a double standard.

And worse than that, a lower standard for God. Which puts pagans and tax collectors (traitors) at a higher level.
That can't be right.
Does God operate at a lower standard of morality/ethics than he requires of us?

Only in the mind of man who judges the divine God by his own human thinking and standards.

Isa 55:8-9.

 

[David's Harp]

Does that mean that we should incinerate our enemies?

What does God mean by saying He will make His enemies His footstool?

That;s a great question, thanks.
Did you have an answer in mind, or don't you know?

Sorry for the delay @Saint Steven, I'm not really finding it useful to put a question into a comment without the ability to reply outwith the post - otherwise we could get into a debate within a post.
Thanks to @Rajni I've got a little workaround for replying to both our comments outwith the post, although it's not practical for daily use. I feel the option to quote comments would be helpful. @public hermit has already raised the issue in the New Upgrade Feedback forum.

Well, it's a big question that could maybe use a thread of it's own, but I can only come to the conclusion that the final state of completion of being all in all rests in a hierarchical way with Father God at the top, and His enemies at the bottom. (1 Corinthians 15:20-28). For me, this implies a separation - the outer darkness (Matthew 25:30), the great gulf between Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31).

In the context of your thread, to ask if God operates at a lower level of morality is to question His ultimate Authority in making all things subject to Himself. To address loving your enemies, blessing them that curse you etc. I look at this is as for our 'training' in a sense. It's about taking our rightful place as children of God and how we act in the kingdom here, now, and in the future. It's understanding that your enemies will be made subject to God's Authority - which is loving, and just. God is love, yes, but that also includes the love to let some choose to turn away, therefore taking their rightful place.

We could also look at this hierarchy, or gulf between God and his enemies, as a case against Universalism, in that God rightfully puts things in their place, with those who love most closest to Him.

 

[UsernamedNamedUser]

Would you agree that scripture says both things, that He came both to bring peace and with a sword?

Jesus sword does not bring peace to the world. It severs the Christian from the world and it also condemns the world.

John 15:24-25

"If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have seen and hated both Me and My Father. 25But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated Me without reason.’"

So in a way it would have been better for the world if Jesus did not come, because now that he came it is left without excuse.

 

[Saint Steven]

God’s government is based on His law.

Do you use the definition of "God’s government" from Armstrongism?
(former Church of God, WCOG and RCOG - Herbert W. Armstrong)

 

[Saint Steven]

In the context of your thread, to ask if God operates at a lower level of morality is to question His ultimate Authority in making all things subject to Himself. To address loving your enemies, blessing them that curse you etc. I look at this is as for our 'training' in a sense. It's about taking our rightful place as children of God and how we act in the kingdom here, now, and in the future. It's understanding that your enemies will be made subject to God's Authority - which is loving, and just. God is love, yes, but that also includes the love to let some choose to turn away, therefore taking their rightful place.

We could also look at this hierarchy, or gulf between God and his enemies, as a case against Universalism, in that God rightfully puts things in their place, with those who love most closest to Him.

But doesn't this make God out to be a tyrant?
This is the double standard that I have been talking about.

Shouldn't we expect a MORE godly character from God than even he expects from us?
One can answer, "No, we shouldn't.", which is what the quoted post seems to indicate.
Or would it be best to rethink it in that light?

 

[Fervent]

But doesn't this make God out to be a tyrant?
This is the double standard that I have been talking about.

Shouldn't we expect a MORE godly character from God than even he expects from us?
One can answer, "No, we shouldn't.", which is what the quoted post seems to indicate.
Or would it be best to rethink it in that light?

Are parents tyrants for telling their children not to hit when they turn around and spank their children? God is not a human being, so it's not entirely surprising that there are restrictions on human beings that He does not hold Himself, as God is not our peer.

 

[Clare73]

Sorry for the delay @Saint Steven, I'm not really finding it useful to put a question into a comment without the ability to reply outwith the post - otherwise we could get into a debate within a post.
Thanks to @Rajni I've got a little workaround for replying to both our comments outwith the post, although it's not practical for daily use. I feel the option to quote comments would be helpful. @public hermit has already raised the issue in the New Upgrade Feedback forum.

I am able to quote your post (see above) in this reply.

Simply click on "Reply" on the bottom right of the post to which you wish to reply.
The whole post will appear in a new screen.

To respond to part of it, as I am doing here, simply press, anywhere within the post, the "enter" key on your keyboard, and a lightly colored empty space below will appear below it, in which you can type your response.

You can repeat the process with parts of the rest of the post to which you are replying.

Then to post it, hit Post reply on the bottom right of the post to which you are responding.

You can also edit with the Edit button on the bottom left.

Well, it's a big question that could maybe use a thread of it's own, but I can only come to the conclusion that the final state of completion of being all in all rests in a hierarchical way with Father God at the top, and His enemies at the bottom. (1 Corinthians 15:20-28). For me, this implies a separation - the outer darkness (Matthew 25:30), the great gulf between Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31).

In the context of your thread, to ask if God operates at a lower level of morality is to question His ultimate Authority in making all things subject to Himself. To address loving your enemies, blessing them that curse you etc. I look at this is as for our 'training' in a sense. It's about taking our rightful place as children of God and how we act in the kingdom here, now, and in the future. It's understanding that your enemies will be made subject to God's Authority - which is loving, and just. God is love, yes, but that also includes the love to let some choose to turn away, therefore taking their rightful place.

We could also look at this hierarchy, or gulf between God and his enemies, as a case against Universalism, in that God rightfully puts things in their place, with those who love most closest to Him.