Folks Of Non-Christian Faith Traditions

artybloke · Sep 13, 2011

They both have a good grasp on certain aspects of God's nature, but for whatever reason, they reject other important points revealed through Christ.

Oh I love statements like this. So clear and certain. Like any of us know the true nature of God... Maybe we should remember that we perceive through a glass, darkly and not clearly, and we don't grasp as much of the ineffable as we like to think we do...

MKJ · Sep 13, 2011

artybloke said:
Oh I love statements like this. So clear and certain. Like any of us know the true nature of God... Maybe we should remember that we perceive through a glass, darkly and not clearly, and we don't grasp as much of the ineffable as we like to think we do...

You are creating a false dichotomy. God is above human knowing. But as Christians a very basic part of our belief is that God revealed some very specific, important, and really knowable truths about himself to us.

This is the point of Christianity. God at once is above knowing, and actually Incarnate, where he could be seen, touched, and teach us in person.

MKJ · Sep 13, 2011

wayseer said:
How so - because it does not fit in with your personal view of things?

Or are you suggesting there is more than one God?

If there are 'false' Gods as you allege, how would you know the difference between a 'false' God and any other God?

Again you draw a long bow without any theological argument.

If the idea of 'happenstance and accidental fates' (an oxymoron) is somehow unChristian then you must subscribe to the whole gambit of predestination. Is such is the case then we would inherently be nothing more than puppets on strings - which negates free will and reduces God's love and mercy to role playing activities.

If there is no 'free will' then you whole argument collapses.

If such is the case then why did Jesus need to go to the cross? His whole life would have served no purpose.

Chaos and chance play a role in Creation. Or are you suggesting God sends hurricanes, cyclones and tsunamis as part of some divine plan? Are you suggesting 9/11 was part of God's plan?

God took a risk with Creation. We take a risk with faith. It does not always work out as one plans. Puppets are not engendered with trust.

I wouldn't say that these things are opposed. In general in Christian history, up until the Reformation, the answer has been not "predestination or free-will" but rather "predestination and free will".

Everyone of course knows what Augustine says about predestination in response to the Pelagian heresy, but less often do we hear how he clearly affirms free-will in the Retractions.

So yes, I would say there is a sense in which all that crazy stuff is part of God's plan - it is encompassed within his Divine Providence. I think this problem is most clearly expressed and treated in Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy.

MKJ · Sep 13, 2011

I tend to think that there is a difference between an ecumenical/inter-religious service, and a community even which includes prayer from a number of traditions at the same time. In the latter we are primarily coming together as a civil community which we understand includes diverse religious views, where the former can be an attempt to say that the diversity of views is actually not substantial or meaningful.

There are probably some times when such a gathering is in a bit of a gray area in between as well.

gurneyhalleck1 · Sep 13, 2011

Great points, MKJ. Right now I'm analyzing predestination a great deal and it's a stumbling block with me. Would you mind chracterizing and elaborating on what you read from Augustine regarding this synthesis of free will AND predestination in Retractions? I'd really be interested in it!

MKJ said:
Everyone of course knows what Augustine says about predestination in response to the Pelagian heresy, but less often do we hear how he clearly affirms free-will in the Retractions.

So yes, I would say there is a sense in which all that crazy stuff is part of God's plan - it is encompassed within his Divine Providence. I think this problem is most clearly expressed and treated in Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy.

wayseer · Sep 13, 2011

MKJ said:
I wouldn't say that these things are opposed. In general in Christian history, up until the Reformation, the answer has been not "predestination or free-will" but rather "predestination and free will".

Everyone of course knows what Augustine says about predestination in response to the Pelagian heresy, but less often do we hear how he clearly affirms free-will in the Retractions.

So yes, I would say there is a sense in which all that crazy stuff is part of God's plan - it is encompassed within his Divine Providence. I think this problem is most clearly expressed and treated in Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy.

While I have some admiration for Augustine, and Anslem for that matter, along with Ockham, they were products of their own society just as you and I are products of a 21st century Western society. There is some difference.

And as Pelikan observes - we are dealing with 'a philosophical treatment of church doctrine, relevant here for its dogmatic import rather than for its logical analysis' (Christian Tradition Vol 4 p 35).

The point I am making it is not logical to claim some doctrine of 'predestination' alongside 'free-will' - despite the theological summersaults of past theologians. I am waiting for an Augustine like theology of earthquakes, tsunamis and nuclear power station meltdowns but I suspect claiming it's all God's fault wont wash in today's society. Can we really blame God for building nuclear plants on known faultlines?

MKJ · Sep 13, 2011

wayseer said:
While I have some admiration for Augustine, and Anslem for that matter, along with Ockham, they were products of their own society just as you and I are products of a 21st century Western society. There is some difference.

And as Pelikan observes - we are dealing with 'a philosophical treatment of church doctrine, relevant here for its dogmatic import rather than for its logical analysis' (Christian Tradition Vol 4 p 35).

The point I am making it is not logical to claim some doctrine of 'predestination' alongside 'free-will' - despite the theological summersaults of past theologians. I am waiting for an Augustine like theology of earthquakes, tsunamis and nuclear power station meltdowns but I suspect claiming it's all God's fault wont wash in today's society. Can we really blame God for building nuclear plants on known faultlines?

I'm afraid that I can't really make much sense of this, though to say that Augustine (or other early Christian theologians) were somehow less developed in their ability to argue logically is IMO totally nuts. It can be hard for us at times to unpack their logic, because they tend to present it rather differently than we expect, but it is there.

I am very suprised that you think that such people were somehow unaware of natural disasters and the like - if anything, such things were far more part of their common experience than they are for you and me.

God's providence includes free will, and it includes what seems to us to be random acts. Are they really random? No, of course not - everything as a cause. Even little particles which seem to us to wink in and out act according to their own logos. And when we make a decision which effects things, through the capacity God has given us to do such things, that is also a kind of cause. In a way that is what being human is about - being able to be a conscious cause. We don't need to claim God causes these things for them to be within his providence.

Having spent most of the four years of my undergraduate degree studying the logic of Anselm, Agustine et al, I certianly don't agree with the quote you have presented here in the way you have presented it. There is undoubtably a logic and reason to their thinking on this issue, although they also as a matter of faith accept the teaching of the Church on the point. I also, after looking up the passage, don't think it at all suggest that there is no logic to the position of the thinkers it addresses. That would seem too to be a very unlikely position for the author to take.

MKJ · Sep 13, 2011

gurneyhalleck1 said:
Great points, MKJ. Right now I'm analyzing predestination a great deal and it's a stumbling block with me. Would you mind chracterizing and elaborating on what you read from Augustine regarding this synthesis of free will AND predestination in Retractions? I'd really be interested in it!

Oh my, I'm not sure I can. I'll have to re-read it if I can find it online.

He does say pretty clearly that whatever good we choose, we do so through God's grace. But when we choose evil, that is a completely human choice. I don't know if that helps or not.

wayseer · Sep 13, 2011

MKJ said:
I'm afraid that I can't really make much sense of this, though to say that Augustine (or other early Christian theologians) were somehow less developed in their ability to argue logically is IMO totally nuts.

You do me a diservice - I have not suggested anyone is 'nuts'.

What I have suggested is that Augustine et al were products of their time just as we are products of the 21st century. If our theology and thinking have not advanced over the intervening years then something is seriously wrong.

I am very suprised that you think that such people were somehow unaware of natural disasters and the like - if anything, such things were far more part of their common experience than they are for you and me.

Again you misread me.

What I have suggested is that the 'logic' of predestination would conclude that God causes tsunamis and nuclear meltdowns. I question that logic - and theology.

God's providence includes free will, and it includes what seems to us to be random acts. Are they really random? No, of course not - everything as a cause. Even little particles which seem to us to wink in and out act according to their own logos. And when we make a decision which effects things, through the capacity God has given us to do such things, that is also a kind of cause. In a way that is what being human is about - being able to be a conscious cause. We don't need to claim God causes these things for them to be within his providence.

I disagree with your assumptions here.

Particles can be in two places at once depending on the questions being asked. Don't ask me to explain that but read Polkinghorne.

The point I make is, we live in an age of science and technology, not a feudal class system - our worldview is considerable different to that of past generations - however brilliant they may have been.

Having spent most of the four years of my undergraduate degree studying the logic of Anselm, Agustine et al, I certianly don't agree with the quote you have presented here in the way you have presented it. There is undoubtably a logic and reason to their thinking on this issue, although they also as a matter of faith accept the teaching of the Church on the point. I also, after looking up the passage, don't think it at all suggest that there is no logic to the position of the thinkers it addresses. That would seem too to be a very unlikely position for the author to take.

Then you will understand that the worldview of Augustine et al was somewhat different to ours.

Of course, again following Pelican, being saved by 'faith' would mean little as we are 'predestined' for such salvation. What then of God's 'grace'?

MKJ · Sep 13, 2011

wayseer said:
You do me a diservice - I have not suggested anyone is 'nuts'.

What I have suggested is that Augustine et al were products of their time just as we are products of the 21st century. If our theology and thinking have not advanced over the intervening years then something is seriously wrong.

Again you misread me.

What I have suggested is that the 'logic' of predestination would conclude that God causes tsunamis and nuclear meltdowns. I question that logic - and theology.

I disagree with your assumptions here.

Particles can be in two places at once depending on the questions being asked. Don't ask me to explain that but read Polkinghorne.

The point I make is, we live in an age of science and technology, not a feudal class system - our worldview is considerable different to that of past generations - however brilliant they may have been.

Then you will understand that the worldview of Augustine et al was somewhat different to ours.

Of course, again following Pelican, being saved by 'faith' would mean little as we are 'predestined' for such salvation. What then of God's 'grace'?

As I said, predestination does not imply God causes nuclear meltdowns, nor does it imply lack of free will. Free will, OTOH, doesn't imply a blot on what the Reformed like to call God's sovereignty.

And no, I wouldn't really say we have learned a lot about thinking since the time of Augustine. Or if we have, we've forgotten just as much. People have had different ways of thinking about things to some extent, but it is IMO very much a matter of the more things change the more they stay the same - it is the same old arguments again and again, just put into different language.

I think the language of predestination is bad - it tends to make it seem too fixed. To talk about Divine providence is much less prejudiced and avoids the unfortunate dichotomies some of the Reformers fell into.

Tell me specifically, how is it that you think the worldview of the ancients makes their thinking on this issue less clear? "Science and technology" make little difference when discussing God's relation to creation.

wayseer · Sep 13, 2011

MKJ said:
As I said, predestination does not imply God causes nuclear meltdowns, nor does it imply lack of free will. Free will, OTOH, doesn't imply a blot on what the Reformed like to call God's sovereignty.

And no, I wouldn't really say we have learned a lot about thinking since the time of Augustine. Or if we have, we've forgotten just as much. People have had different ways of thinking about things to some extent, but it is IMO very much a matter of the more things change the more they stay the same - it is the same old arguments again and again, just put into different language.

I think the language of predestination is bad - it tends to make it seem too fixed. To talk about Divine providence is much less prejudiced and avoids the unfortunate dichotomies some of the Reformers fell into.

Tell me specifically, how is it that you think the worldview of the ancients makes their thinking on this issue less clear? "Science and technology" make little difference when discussing God's relation to creation.

Well, I a little more optimistically than you perhaps as I think we have learnt a lot.

I agree that the language does seem fixed - and that is my issue - we need to unfix it - to unpack exactly what we mean.

Past thinking is just that - past. Yes, those who have gone before have been our pathfinders but it we who have to carry on where they left off.

I'm afraid that as an anthropologist I am firmly of the view that we are all encased in our culture - whether we recognize as much or not. We take on those attributes, those beliefs and those ways of doing things, of speaking and being spoken to without thinking too much about the process. This is understandable and serves its purpose - we get on with life.

So when we read of past accounts I am always conscious of the culture which spawns such accounts and thinking. What might have been 'clear' back then is now questioned.

I hesitate to suggest that we throw out tradition as a matter of course. But if particular theories and theologies no longer serve their purpose then we need to re-think what was previously 'clear as mud'.

I think science does have a great impact on how we think of God. We no longer think of the earth as flat or that the moon is made of cheese or that climate is effected by appealing to the spirits.

So how do we fit God into the 21st century?

Not by insisting on old techniques I would have thought.

But here I get well and truly off thread.

gurneyhalleck1 · Sep 13, 2011

We're actually talking about this topic in TAW right now. I'm stuck in a mindset where I can't rationalize how free will wouldn't inhibit God's sovereignty? It seems that for God to be sovereign and omipotent and awesome, He would know exactly what is going to happen to us long before it happens. Well, we all agree that he is prescient and knows the future and is outside of linear time. That being said, for free will to exist in a way He would have to make Himself ignorant to our natures and predispositions and proclivities when designing us in order for free will to take place, wouldn't He? When He designs us, He knows us intimately and makes us a certain way PLUS He is in control of our surroundings and I can't fit a scenario into my mind where God doesn't not only control the nature, but the nurture! He puts stumbling blocks in our way, He puts good in our path, He allows evil on our path. So between designing us and being the potter and we the clay (as Paul says in Romans 9), and knowing and controlling our environments and interactions (God makes things happen for a reason), and being aware of our outcomes before He designs us, I can't see how free will could ever enter the scene?

MKJ said:
As I said, predestination does not imply God causes nuclear meltdowns, nor does it imply lack of free will. Free will, OTOH, doesn't imply a blot on what the Reformed like to call God's sovereignty.

And no, I wouldn't really say we have learned a lot about thinking since the time of Augustine. Or if we have, we've forgotten just as much. People have had different ways of thinking about things to some extent, but it is IMO very much a matter of the more things change the more they stay the same - it is the same old arguments again and again, just put into different language.

I think the language of predestination is bad - it tends to make it seem too fixed. To talk about Divine providence is much less prejudiced and avoids the unfortunate dichotomies some of the Reformers fell into.

Tell me specifically, how is it that you think the worldview of the ancients makes their thinking on this issue less clear? "Science and technology" make little difference when discussing God's relation to creation.

mark46 · Sep 13, 2011

As our priests used to teach us "it's a mystery" or later "the bible includes both paradoxy and orthodoxy"

I re-read the part of the thread at TAW that became a second thread. You were given lots of good sources. You were also given the advice that you might put the issue aside for awhile and move on with your journey. For Orthodox, TULIP is heresy, as determined by Council. The whole line of argument is also so very foreign to EO sprituality. They write about it because so many from the West need to understand. In the Orthodox tradition, you weren't give many arguments, you were given sources. As you well know, the issue is complex. All seem to claim to agree with Augustine. Of course, the other choice was Pelagius.

There are folks on TAW who used to be Calvinists. They have felt your pain with regard to this subject. They might be willing to discuss this by PM or may be willing to dig up old threads.
======================================
I find that this issue was well-argued at the time of Wesley and Whitehead. I have seen almost nothing better since, other than those who wrote about the debates of the time and about Wesley. Everyone has Scriptural backing. Everyone has Traditional backing. Everyone has Reason and Experience as backing.
=================
In the end, you might allow the Holy Spirit to tell you whether it makes any sense at all that God created men who have no possible end but eternal damnation. You might also consider the life consequences of each view: double-predestination and prevenient grace (and cooperation). I have seen what each world means to folks. Even though the analogy is not perfect, consider the understanding of God and theology of the Reformed Churches compared to the Lutheran Churches. For me, the difference is enormous.

I have encounted many who cannot deal with this paradox. The bible has many, after all. My advice is that of my professor of Medieval Philosphy, so many years ago. "Act as if" you have free will. Cooperate with God the best you can!

We can never know whether we are puppets on a stage or not. We may be part of someone's dream or computer program. We may be asleep. We may be following the plans of a God who has decided our every step at the beginning of Creation. For me, all these views are interesting, but ultimately useless. God gave us faith. He also gave us the free will to accept or reject that faith. Everything comes from God.

We can all discuss this issue more. There is certainly much more discussion of this issue out there than of any other.

If you need a thought to ponder. Consider that in Romans, God foreknew BEFORE he predestined. God is outside of time after all.

=====================================
Personally, I find Wesley's discussions most helpful. He dealt with these debates on a daily basis. Prevenient Grace is the solution. You might consider reading (or re-reading) the debates between Whitehead and Wesley and/or some the stuff listed below.
========================
Oden on John's Wesley's Scriptural Christianity.
You can read the chapter online.

John Wesley's scriptural ... - Google Books

===========================
You might find this discussion supporting prevenient Grace interesting.
Predestination and Free Will - Do They Go Together?

===========================
The Armininian position.
7. We believe that Gods saving grace is resistible, that election unto salvation is conditional on faith in Christ, and that persevering in faith is necessary for final salvation.

Statement Of Faith | Society of Evangelical Arminians
======================================
Wesley speaking against double predestination. There is lots and lots of other stuff by Wesley.
Global Ministries - John Wesley, Sermon 128, Free Grace
==========================================
As you might have guessed, I stand with most of the ECF's on this, and with John Wesley.

gurneyhalleck1 said:
We're actually talking about this topic in TAW right now. I'm stuck in a mindset where I can't rationalize how free will wouldn't inhibit God's sovereignty? It seems that for God to be sovereign and omipotent and awesome, He would know exactly what is going to happen to us long before it happens. Well, we all agree that he is prescient and knows the future and is outside of linear time. That being said, for free will to exist in a way He would have to make Himself ignorant to our natures and predispositions and proclivities when designing us in order for free will to take place, wouldn't He? When He designs us, He knows us intimately and makes us a certain way PLUS He is in control of our surroundings and I can't fit a scenario into my mind where God doesn't not only control the nature, but the nurture! He puts stumbling blocks in our way, He puts good in our path, He allows evil on our path. So between designing us and being the potter and we the clay (as Paul says in Romans 9), and knowing and controlling our environments and interactions (God makes things happen for a reason), and being aware of our outcomes before He designs us, I can't see how free will could ever enter the scene?

gurneyhalleck1 · Sep 14, 2011

Mark,

I really enjoyed your post. Thanks, brother. I appreciate the advice and thoughts. Good stuff.

Can you elaborate on the Lutheran vs. Reformed comment below? You said "I've seen the difference" between them, etc. Elaborate a little for me.

thanks again for the input...I agree that in Orthodoxy it's heresy. I don't pretend to know it all. I'm on a journey myself. It might end with me staying put. Never know! Or I might grow a ZZ Top beard, hard telling!

Just kidding. That's not happenin'! I'll vote for Rick Perry before I do that....no, cancel that, facial hair is better than mental illness!

The justification journey is also a tough one for me. I think the Protestants and Catholic/Orthodox have solid arguments around. It's not that clear-cut.

Again, thanks very much

mark1 said:
As our priests used to teach us "it's a mystery" or later "the bible includes both paradoxy and orthodoxy"

I re-read the part of the thread at TAW that became a second thread. You were given lots of good sources. You were also given the advice that you might put the issue aside for awhile and move on with your journey. For Orthodox, TULIP is heresy, as determined by Council. The whole line of argument is also so very foreign to EO sprituality. They write about it because so many from the West need to understand. In the Orthodox tradition, you weren't give many arguments, you were given sources. As you well know, the issue is complex. All seem to claim to agree with Augustine. Of course, the other choice was Pelagius.

There are folks on TAW who used to be Calvinists. They have felt your pain with regard to this subject. They might be willing to discuss this by PM or may be willing to dig up old threads.
======================================
I find that this issue was well-argued at the time of Wesley and Whitehead. I have seen almost nothing better since, other than those who wrote about the debates of the time and about Wesley. Everyone has Scriptural backing. Everyone has Traditional backing. Everyone has Reason and Experience as backing.
=================
In the end, you might allow the Holy Spirit to tell you whether it makes any sense at all that God created men who have no possible end but eternal damnation. You might also consider the life consequences of each view: double-predestination and prevenient grace (and cooperation). I have seen what each world means to folks. Even though the analogy is not perfect, consider the understanding of God and theology of the Reformed Churches compared to the Lutheran Churches. For me, the difference is enormous.

I have encounted many who cannot deal with this paradox. The bible has many, after all. My advice is that of my professor of Medieval Philosphy, so many years ago. "Act as if" you have free will. Cooperate with God the best you can!

We can never know whether we are puppets on a stage or not. We may be part of someone's dream or computer program. We may be asleep. We may be following the plans of a God who has decided our every step at the beginning of Creation. For me, all these views are interesting, but ultimately useless. God gave us faith. He also gave us the free will to accept or reject that faith. Everything comes from God.

We can all discuss this issue more. There is certainly much more discussion of this issue out there than of any other.

If you need a thought to ponder. Consider that in Romans, God foreknew BEFORE he predestined. God is outside of time after all.

=====================================
Personally, I find Wesley's discussions most helpful. He dealt with these debates on a daily basis. Prevenient Grace is the solution. You might consider reading (or re-reading) the debates between Whitehead and Wesley and/or some the stuff listed below.
========================
Oden on John's Wesley's Scriptural Christianity.
You can read the chapter online.

John Wesley's scriptural ... - Google Books

===========================
You might find this discussion supporting prevenient Grace interesting.
Predestination and Free Will - Do They Go Together?

===========================
The Armininian position.
7. We believe that Gods saving grace is resistible, that election unto salvation is conditional on faith in Christ, and that persevering in faith is necessary for final salvation.

Statement Of Faith | Society of Evangelical Arminians
======================================
Wesley speaking against double predestination. There is lots and lots of other stuff by Wesley.
Global Ministries - John Wesley, Sermon 128, Free Grace
==========================================
As you might have guessed, I stand with most of the ECF's on this, and with John Wesley.

brightmorningstar · Sep 14, 2011

MKJ,

Did you know, brightmorningstar, that some theologians

Let me stop you there, I have just referred to what Jesus says as opposed to what some theologians, the Jews, and some theologians, the Muslims think. Why have you immediately ignored what Jesus said and referred me to some theologians?

Your treatment of this really doesn't make sense theologically, or philosophically, or from the treatment of other religions historically in the Church. It's pretty much a modern fundamentalist approach.

Well thank you for your opinion but to me that means you believe theologians that think contrary to Jesus rather than Jesus.

If people recognize that there is one true God, without parts or passions, outside of time and space, unchanging, the origin of all things, do you not think they are recognizing the True God?

As we see with Allah and Islam, obviously not. Sure the two gods both have similarities, one of which you have pointed out, but if things have opposite differences they are hardly the same. Why abandon logic all of a sudden?

I think modern Jews and Muslims are in pretty much the same position. They both have a good grasp on certain aspects of God's nature, but for whatever reason, they reject other important points revealed through Christ. Muslims do I guess add things, but OTOH they also accept some important points that the Jews don't really, for example understanding Islam as a universal religion.

Hmmn. Really? If God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and Allah isnt, the two might have similar characteristics but you refer to their two dieties as the same God. Why?

= Muslims also accept Jesus as one of their most important prophet, accept the virgin birth, and have a great revervence for Mary.

Except that Jesus is the risen Son of God which Muslims dont accept, so in the terms of the way you have put it no they don’t accept Jesus for who He is.

brightmorningstar · Sep 14, 2011

Wayseer,

Theologically, there is no real issue. If God is one then we all pray to the one God. The rest is cultural expression of how one prays.

Not so, what about Baal? What about a different Jesus that the NT warns against.

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me (KJV).

So atheists believe in Jesus? This was Jesus speaking, you wont find Muslims agreeing with that.

We might now say 'humanity'.

Yes we would, what you are proposing is seen by many as humanism and I agree.

How so - because it does not fit in with your personal view of things?

Or yours? Having cited the scriptures, and not least the differences between the Holy Biblical testimony and the Quran for Islam, how can you attribute either to gurneyhalleck1?

Or are you suggesting there is more than one God?

Having affirmed there is only one true God how can you assume he is suggesting their is? Can you read carefully what he has written, namely that there are false gods but only one true God?
　

If there are 'false' Gods as you allege, how would you know the difference between a 'false' God and any other God?

The Biblical testimony refers to false gods and a different Jesus, asking questions like this is only going to invite the logical response how come you dont believe the Bible?

kiwimac · Sep 14, 2011

God has revealed Godself in a myriad of ways to differing peoples, to assert, as some have done here that this is not the case is to both belittle God's work in others cultures and times and to make God particular. Neither is a theological position I can take because, quite simply, Jesus made it clear in the parable of the Sinner & the Pharisee that it is not a position God takes.

brightmorningstar · Sep 14, 2011

God has revealed Godself in a myriad of ways to differing peoples,

Godself? What do you mean?

to assert, as some have done here that this is not the case is to both belittle God's work in others cultures and times and to make God particular.

I think you have misunderstood. God has and does frequently revealed Himself, indeed amongst Muslims Jesus Christ is revealing Himself frequently at this time.. praise God.
I dont think anyone is saying God doesnt reveal Himself, what they are pointing out from God's word is that what some claim to be God, isnt God.

mark46 · Sep 14, 2011

Facial hair is definitely better than mental illness. Even the idea of voting for Perry could cause uncontrollable nightmares.
============================
With regard to my view of Reformed and Luther views of God, let me first say that this is somewhat of a caricature. Both Calvin and Luther were holy men who understood Scripture well. However, we are dealing with uberCalvinism adn Lutheranism as it is expressed in the 21st century. Personally, I believe that Calvin might not recognize his views as expressed by his followers in today's world. Luther might be somewhat surprised at how little change his followers have made to his confession of faith.

Simply put, when I think of uberCalvinism, I think of God as judge, as One to be feared. I think of a frown. I think of fatalism, although one can get around this issue. I think of those watching my behavior to see evidence of whether I am one of the elect and one of them, or one of the non-elect and therefore bound to hell no matter what I do. Calvinistic theology is NOT difficult, in the sense that they are very consistent in their views. When I think of uberCalvinism, I think of right action because I ought, and I must. And yes, I think of Q judging mankind. When I think of uberCalvinism, I see no theosis. What's the point after all, other than out of obedience? I would never think of becoming more and more conformed to Jesus in a Calvinist mode. These are my views and impressions. There are many wonderful, loving and God-fearing Calvinists. But in the end, the worst is that what we do with God's gift seems to be unimportant. All that seems to matter is the one-time "decision" for Christ, a decision predetermined before the foundation of history.

When I think of Lutheranism, I think of the God of Love who has revealed Himself to us, and has given us the gift of faith. Thsi God of Love wants us to accept his marriage proposal so he gives us the free will to reject his holy gift. There are nuances of theology that get around the paradoxes. They are not quite good enough for me. Wesley makes the necessary corrections.

Lutherans also want us to make the decision for Christ, but here the decision is a free one. Lutherans open the churches and heart to the world, to welcome those into his family, to disciple and help all be more conformed to Christ.

Wesley and Whitefield argued for decades. They had great respect for each other. But in the end, we must have the freedom to cooperate with God's gift or God has given us nothing but the ability to play out the game that he has predetermined in every detail. We are not puppets. For me, life makes no sense unless we have choice, and we can be Christ to the world, that the Holy Spirit might work within the hearts of those who we reach.

I believe that Wesley's views are consistent. But, perhaps an underlying issue for you might be your understanding of Orginal Sin. The Orthodox understanding makes theology much, much more straightforward (as one of my Protestant pastors taught me). The Cross and Resurrection are now about Reconciliation and Eternal Life, first and foremost. Jesus freed us from the chains. He made it possible for us to reconcile ourselves with the Father. The candle of the Holy Spirit that is within us all can be fanned. Utter depravity is poor doctrine. We are created in the image and likeness of God. Some of this (however faint) remained after the Fall. Again the Orthodox are clear. Wesley must dance a bit to satisfy those in his age.
=========================
For a second, let us accept the image of God as judge, and the guilty sentence is on our head. Jesus is the judge and also our Advocate. He passes the judgement. Call the sentence $1 BILLION. Jesus then writes the check for the full amount and hands it to us. We are free to cash the check, or not. We can give it to the cashier. It is a free gift. This is the explanation that Nicky Gumball (Holy Trinity Brompton in London) uses in our alpha courses. It works for me, and for many of our guests at alpha.

gurneyhalleck1 said:
Mark,

I really enjoyed your post. Thanks, brother. I appreciate the advice and thoughts. Good stuff.

Can you elaborate on the Lutheran vs. Reformed comment below? You said "I've seen the difference" between them, etc. Elaborate a little for me.

thanks again for the input...I agree that in Orthodoxy it's heresy. I don't pretend to know it all. I'm on a journey myself. It might end with me staying put. Never know! Or I might grow a ZZ Top beard, hard telling! Just kidding. That's not happenin'! I'll vote for Rick Perry before I do that....no, cancel that, facial hair is better than mental illness!

The justification journey is also a tough one for me. I think the Protestants and Catholic/Orthodox have solid arguments around. It's not that clear-cut.

Again, thanks very much

Colabomb · Sep 14, 2011

mark1 said:
We all live in countries where the numbers of non-Christian faith traditions are increasing. There are more Buddhists, Hindu and Muslims than ever before. And then of course, there are also Jews and those of native religions. Finally, there are those of "unorthodox" spiritualities. For esample, in the US, 90% state that they believe in God. As Bishop Wright has noted, the battle against atheism is not what should drive us all. That battle is past in the US; that is, unless one simply labels all non-Christains as atheists as many do. Of course, this certainly not an issue that is just a US one. Certainly the UK has its own issues.

How should be interact with them? Should we consider them fellow seekers? Should we respect their traditions? Should we fight to protect their rights to worship? Should we work with others in charities and in other social welfare endeavors? Should we encourage our children to interact with them and learn about their faith traditions, "what makes them tick".

Define fellow seeker. Yes, most of them are seeking God, and should be respected for that. But we still have the responsibility to share the Way with them should we have the opportunity.

We should respect them and their traditions. Mocking a man for praying will not show him Christian love. Desecrating their holy books will not show them Christian Love. We are to Love all men, regardless of whether they are on the Way.

We should absolutely protect their rights. Firstly, it ties into Christian love, do unto others what you would have them do to you. I would want people to come to my aid if my religious liberties were taken, so I will do the same for them.

Secondly, and more pragmatically, in the United States it becomes easier to unravel Constitutional law once there is precedent. If Muslims cannot build a mosque, it becomes easier to ban the building of a church.

We definitely should work with them regarding charity and the like. Doing our master's work is always good, no matter who does it. Hungry children need fed, and it doesn't matter if its a Muslim, Christian, or Jewish Hand ladeling the soup.

I love learning about other religions personally, and if I ever have children I would certainly encourage them to learn about the world around them. But we should be certain to remember the Truth that has been revealed to us, and not lose sight of it or compromise it.

I bring this up on 9/11 because I sense a growing negativism of Christians towards those of other faiths, a growing moving inward to wanted to associate only with folks very much like themselves. This is very evident in US evangelicals as they attack our Muslim brothers and sisters.

But I have have said enough. How do you all see this issue?

I do see an insular attitude from many Christians recently, no question. I believe it is important to love (and not in a condescending manner either) all people, and show them the respect and compassion we would want for ourselves.

This is particularly relevant to me as some of my closest friends are nonbelievers. Through these relationships, and one in particular, I have learned how to engage with people who believe differently than me, without downplaying or ignoring the difference.

Folks Of Non-Christian Faith Traditions

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Reader

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Reader

Well-Known Member

Reader

brightmorningstar

Guest

brightmorningstar

Guest

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian

brightmorningstar

Guest

Well-Known Member

I seek sin like a moth towards flame, save me God.

Similar threads