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

[Hmm]

One might sitting next to a universalist at church and not even know it?

It's a scary thought! They say you're never more than ten feet away from a rat and that's probably also true of universalists when you're in church.

 

[Servus]

I'm not asking to be contentious, it seems if the problem was how the text was used rather than that the text was used at all the faulty hermeneutic would be idenifiable and the questions would point to it.

You're making absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. That's the problem.

 

[Halbhh]

What is it that makes your "guesses/ideas" superiour to other "guesses/ideas"?

The only way for you or me to make our 'guesses' better guesses than other guesses would be to have very little ego and a lot of desire to learn, and to refrain from saying much until we learn a lot. To say the obvious (which I'm sure you already know, but you did ask)

And it's so beneficial if people (everyone) writing/saying their doctrines -- their ideas/doctrines/guesses/theories -- have the awareness to communicate what they are saying is only just an idea/doctrine/guess/theory.

That would be good. That would be humble, honest, virtuous, etc.

 

[Fervent]

You're making absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. That's the problem.

I'm just asking you what you took Steve's point to be. You say his objection was how the text was used, which I fail to see anything about how the poster used the text in his reply. So if there is an objection to how the text was used, rather than attempting to cast suspicion on the use of the text in general, what is that specific objection? What is wrong with how the text was used?

 

[Saint Steven]

Really, evidence for how the churches were organised durring the early years is limited, certainly the churches in the NT were independant, but looked for leadership from the apostles.

Seems to me that denominations didn't come about until the advent and development of Protestantism.

As far as denominations go, It depends how the local church both preaches and practises what it preaches.

And if they happen to not be to your liking, then what?

 

[Servus]

I'm just asking you what you took Steve's point to be. You say his objection was how the text was used, which I fail to see anything about how the poster used the text in his reply. So if there is an objection to how the text was used, rather than attempting to cast suspicion on the use of the text in general, what is that specific objection? What is wrong with how the text was used?

The text of the text didn't match the text except for where the hemanutic of the text was texually similar to other text containing the same or a different conclusion that was derived from text.

 

[Tolworth John]

And if they happen to not be to your liking, then what?

Not my liking, my understanding of what Christianity is.
Those churches I don't go to.
example. Methodist churches here in the uk will preach about the cross, but never say why Jesus died on that cross.

I don't expect perfection, I do expect a rational preaching of the bible and an acceptance that there are ' grey ' areas where we can disagree.

 

[Hmm]

The text of the text didn't match the text except for where the hemanutic of the text was texually similar to other text containing the same or a different conclusion that was derived from text.

That's easy for you to say.

 

[Saint Steven]

Not my liking, my understanding of what Christianity is.
Those churches I don't go to.
example. Methodist churches here in the uk will preach about the cross, but never say why Jesus died on that cross.

I don't expect perfection, I do expect a rational preaching of the bible and an acceptance that there are ' grey ' areas where we can disagree.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

There are the different human institutions (denominations), and there are individuals that call these places/people "their" church.
But we could probably agree that there is only one "church" that Jesus spoke of building, the Body of Christ.
The people of God, not a human institution or building that they meet in.

I too wouldn't regularly attend certain churches for a variety of reasons, but not (or rarely, perhaps) a refusal due to spite.
Being a Protestant, I used to argue with Catholics about doctrine I disagreed with. I figured that they were ignorant of the Bible.
And if I straightened them out, they would gladly embrace my views instead. Wrong. They had biblical reason for what they believed.
Consequently, I decided to tear that wall down and accept them as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

All this to say that I have learned to accept other believers that I find somewhat "disagreeable" doctrinally.
I'm glad that you understand the view of doctrinal "grey" areas. Rare for me to find someone write about that on a forum. Thanks.

Curious about the phrase in your last sentence; "I do expect a rational preaching of the bible".
How do you measure what is "rational" or "irrational" preaching of the bible?
Are your "grey" areas rather narrow? Or... ???

 

[Saint Steven]

Not my liking, my understanding of what Christianity is.

Does that mean you divide the church on doctrinal lines?
Even to the point of claiming those who don't agree doctrinally aren't Christians?
Building walls, instead of bridges? Keeping enemies out?

Saint Steven said:
And if they happen to not be to your liking, then what?

 

[Fervent]

The text of the text didn't match the text except for where the hemanutic of the text was texually similar to other text containing the same or a different conclusion that was derived from text.

I'll take this to mean you can't clearly state what was supposedly wrong with how the text was used.

 

[Servus]

I'll take this to mean you can't clearly state what was supposedly wrong with how the text was used.

Okey dokey.

 

[Fervent]

Does the sovereignty of God mean that he's done or will do whatever some say he's done or will do because he can?

Brringing up God's sovereignty in this case isn't about what people have claimed He has done or will do, it is about how theology is being conducted. Theology that circumscribes God is necessarily invalid, because God is ultimately incomprehensible. So the only valid use of theology is to qualify what has been revealed. Which means if we start from something other than Scripture(such as defining how a certain characteristic must look in God or building ideas from an human-centric perspective) we are engaging in an invalid theological endeavor.

 

[Saint Steven]

Brringing up God's sovereignty in this case isn't about what people have claimed He has done or will do, it is about how theology is being conducted. Theology that circumscribes God is necessarily invalid, because God is ultimately incomprehensible.

I would say that a reference to God's sovereignty is not limiting God at all. The word doesn't limit WHAT he is sovereign over, it means over "all", whatever "all" may encompass. At the very least, all of his created universe. What is beyond that, we don't know, obviously.

 

[Fervent]

I would say that a reference to God's sovereignty is not limiting God at all. The word doesn't limit WHAT he is sovereign over, it means over "all", whatever "all" may encompass. At the very least, all of his created universe. What is beyond that, we don't know, obviously.

Mentioning God's sovereignty doesn't limit Him, but your critics who bring it up are doing so because your question implies a limit. There's a fine line to walk in issues of morality regarding God, because it is true that our morality should properly reflect a quality of God, but we cannot impose a moral constraint upon God due to His inscrutability. So your question has a very limited value, and easily can overstep into trying to hedge God into human terms rather than leaving God to be God.

 

[public hermit]

There's a fine line to walk in issues of morality regarding God, because it is true that our morality should properly reflect a quality of God, but we cannot impose a moral constraint upon God due to His inscrutability

God is absolute goodness. So, while it's true that we cannot treat God like a moral agent who is constrained by conditions and limitations, and thus judge God's particular acts in the world as we would a moral agent (our cognitive limitations can't know why God does or allows specific states of affairs at any given time), we can judge grand narratives concerning God in light of God's absolute goodness.

If a grand narrative states that absolute goodness created beings destined for eternal torment, we can reject that narrative based on absolute goodness.

Divine inscrutability does not entail that divine goodness somehow becomes divine evil. Divine goodness transcends our conception of goodness, but not in such a way that goodness now becomes evil. If our apophaticism works in such a way that turns divine goodness into evil, then we might as well abandon any notion of God, goodness, and evil.

 

[Saint Steven]

If a grand narrative states that absolute goodness created beings destined for eternal torment, we can reject that narrative based on absolute goodness.

EXACTLY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We cannot excuse any action purportedly attributed to God that violates our own God-given sense of right and wrong. (conscience)
God should exhibit an even higher standard than he holds us to, if he is to be God at all.

 

[Fervent]

God is absolute goodness. So, while it's true that we cannot treat God like a moral agent who is constrained by conditions and limitations, and thus judge God's particular acts in the world as we would a moral agent (our cognitive limitations can't know why God does or allows specific states of affairs at any given time), we can judge grand narratives concerning God in light of God's absolute goodness.

If a grand narrative states that absolute goodness created beings destined for eternal torment, we can reject that narrative based on absolute goodness.

Divine inscrutability does not entail that divine goodness somehow becomes divine evil. Divine goodness transcends our conception of goodness, but not in such a way that goodness now becomes evil. If our apophaticism works in such a way that turns divine goodness into evil, then we might as well abandon any notion of God, goodness, and evil.

When was it decided that absolute goodness could not accomodate eternal conscious torment? Seems you're smuggling in a premise that you intend to prove by invoking absolute goodness.

 

[Fervent]

EXACTLY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We cannot excuse any action purportedly attributed to God that violates our own God-given sense of right and wrong. (conscience)
God should exhibit an even higher standard than he holds us to, if he is to be God at all.

So whose conscience is God supposed to be bound to, exactly? Yours? Mine? Saddam Husseins? Hitlers? Which human being's sense of right and wrong is the guiding light for all creation?

 

[public hermit]

When was it decided that absolute goodness could not accomodate eternal conscious torment? Seems you're smuggling in a premise that you intend to prove by invoking absolute goodness.

Here's what I said:

If a grand narrative states that absolute goodness created beings destined for eternal torment, we can reject that narrative based on absolute goodness.

If you think I need additional premises to show the inconsistency in absolute goodness creating beings destined for eternal torment, then I question your ability to understand the terms. And, frankly, that's being nice. The real question would concern one's moral sensibilities that didn't allow one to see the inconsistency.

But, if you think there's nothing inconsistent there, then you will need to provide a premise showing its consistency. As it stands, its glaringly inconsistent.