Bertrand Russell quote

[dumpsterdiver45]

I suggest all Biblical Christian doctrine is truth, and yet agree that some Greek thinking doctrine is truth

This is not an uncommon opinion among evangelicals. But whose doctrine is truth....yours, mine or the other guy's?

Some of the greatest mistakes made by Christians stem from supposing that Christian doctrine is equal to truth. Truth in its highest form is pure, harmonious, non-contradictory, perfect. Doctrine possesses these sorts of qualities only fragmentally. On this we'll have to disagree it seems.

 

[agua]

This is not an uncommon opinion among evangelicals. But whose doctrine is truth....yours, mine or the other guy's?

Some of the greatest mistakes made by Christians stem from supposing that Christian doctrine is equal to truth. Truth in its highest form is pure, harmonious, non-contradictory, perfect. Doctrine possesses these sorts of qualities only fragmentally. On this we'll have to disagree it seems.

There is only one correct Biblical doctrine; it isn't arbitrary. If the Christian adhere's to incorrect doctrine it isn't the Bible's fault.

ETA. Oh I forgot to add that because there is one One True God, Yahweh, this implies also that there is only one true doctrine, that we must seek.

 

[Paradoxum]

The worst parts of modern christianity likely aren't Biblical, nor from Jesus' teachings. Any person who believes in sexual liberty ( any sexual contact outside of marriage of man/woman ) will not agree with Jesus teachings on this subject.

I don't agree with Jesus then. Morality that still condemns sex outside marriage isn't based on respect and care for others.

 

[Paradoxum]

In limited contexts maybe...like discussion between friends over coffee...but this is a theology board where participants generally expect to pursue intelligent discussion and debate. Blanket condemnation in this venue sullies the pursuit of truth and adds nothing intelligent to the conversation.

I think blanket condemnations can be intellectually correct. I agree they aren't always right though.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

...when discovering a coherent doctrine, do you believe there is only one truth, that satisfies all the characteristics of God; or do you believe these characteristics are abitrary ?

I don't quite understand the question. I understand God's essence to be Truth (capitalized intentionally) from which all His attributes form. Arbitrariness has no place in the picture.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

There is only one correct Biblical doctrine; it isn't arbitrary. If the Christian adhere's to incorrect doctrine it isn't the Bible's fault.

ETA. Oh I forgot to add that because there is one One True God, Yahweh, this implies also that there is only one true doctrine, that we must seek.

But this leads back to the question, who has the only true doctrine: you, me or some other guy?

I see this issue somewhat differently. Information in created existence is fragmentally falsified or imperfect. Doctrine as we have it is an interpretation or human understanding of God and moral/ethical norms derived from revealed truth (Scripture), from intuited relationship with Him and other sources. Conceding that the Bible contains all prescriptive truth intended by God to be shared with man, this still doesn't lead to a necessary "one true doctrine" because doctrine is a human convention. It follows that there will one day be "one true doctrine" when the creation is made all in all (wholly true in union with Truth). In the here and now doctrine is not identical to truth....some doctrines have more, some less. I believe Christianity has the highest percentage of revealed truth of all the religions, but I was raised in it and not really qualified to adequately judge others.

This being said, I agree that we should seek the highest truth in doctrine. That's the theist's most noble pursuit.

 

[FireDragon76]

I say that non-religious ethics care more about mercy, love, and need. It's the religious who would crush, oppress, and enslave others in the name of enforcing their faith.

You have a very limited perspective on religion.

 

[agua]

I don't agree with Jesus then. Morality that still condemns sex outside marriage isn't based on respect and care for others.

I think then, that you give a lesser value to sexual relationships than Jesus and I do.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You have a very limited perspective on religion.

Religion is superfluous to morality and frequently a catalyst for immorality.

 

[agua]

I don't quite understand the question. I understand God's essence to be Truth (capitalized intentionally) from which all His attributes form. Arbitrariness has no place in the picture.

Yes I agree. Do you believe God's ( The One True God, Yahweh ) charateristics are concrete and knowable ?

But this leads back to the question, who has the only true doctrine: you, me or some other guy?

This is irrelevant to the point imo. Whethre you or I are correct in a particular doctrine doesn't change the truth, does it ?

I see this issue somewhat differently. Information in created existence is fragmentally falsified or imperfect. Doctrine as we have it is an interpretation or human understanding of God and moral/ethical norms derived from revealed truth (Scripture), from intuited relationship with Him and other sources. Conceding that the Bible contains all prescriptive truth intended by God to be shared with man, this still doesn't lead to a necessary "one true doctrine" because doctrine is a human convention. It follows that there will one day be "one true doctrine" when the creation is made all in all (wholly true in union with Truth). In the here and now doctrine is not identical to truth....some doctrines have more, some less. I believe Christianity has the highest percentage of revealed truth of all the religions, but I was raised in it and not really qualified to adequately judge others.

This being said, I agree that we should seek the highest truth in doctrine. That's the theist's most noble pursuit.

Ok cool. I suggest it is a good idea to be certain any doctrine we defend, is coherent with Yahweh's characteristics and not contradictory to any other doctrine we defend/believe, of course.

 

[Vanellus]

I'm not sure what the first question implies, esp. why divine Logos is relevant

Just that Logos was a Greek philosophical concept that the early church made use of (adopted and adapted).

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Do you believe God's ( The One True God, Yahweh ) charateristics are concrete and knowable ?

Yes, as far as,
1) He has chosen to reveal Himself, and,
2) We're able to grasp those characteristics

I suggest it is a good idea to be certain any doctrine we defend, is coherent with Yahweh's characteristics and not contradictory to any other doctrine we defend/believe, of course.

And I agree, as long as one remembers that unless and until a doctrine is completely coherent, non-contradictory and unified, it's not identical to truth. What I've found in the last twenty years as my own theology evolves is that a number of the tenets of moderate to conservative evangelicalism (the position I've most closely identified with) are unnecessarily restrictive and elitist.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, as far as,
1) He has chosen to reveal Himself, and,
2) We're able to grasp those characteristics


And I agree, as long as one remembers that unless and until a doctrine is completely coherent, non-contradictory and unified, it's not identical to truth. What I've found in the last twenty years as my own theology evolves is that a number of the tenets of moderate to conservative evangelicalism (the position I've most closely identified with) are unnecessarily restrictive and elitist.

Isn't all religion somewhat restrictive and elitist in that believers will often claim to possess a privileged connection to the divine that is only obtainable through their religion? You can't have a happy life or a happy afterlife unless you join the believers' club and pay your membership dues.

 

[Vanellus]

God's interventions into this world, as recorded in the Bible, show that Christianity has not just been invented by a group to claim supremacy - but is a response to the real living God.

 

[agua]

Yes, as far as,
1) He has chosen to reveal Himself, and,
2) We're able to grasp those characteristics

Cool !

And I agree, as long as one remembers that unless and until a doctrine is completely coherent, non-contradictory and unified, it's not identical to truth. What I've found in the last twenty years as my own theology evolves is that a number of the tenets of moderate to conservative evangelicalism (the position I've most closely identified with) are unnecessarily restrictive and elitist.

Can you name these conservative tenets that you've found restrictive and elitist ? My experience has been that many Christians baulk at doctrine that they don't like, simply because they don't like them.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Isn't all religion somewhat restrictive and elitist in that believers will often claim to possess a privileged connection to the divine that is only obtainable through their religion?

Yes, all religion is restrictive and elitist in some sense. Restrictive and
elitist only carry negative connotation to the extent those restrictions and elitisms are false. To the degree they're true, restrictions and elitisms are goods and positives.

You can't have a happy life or a happy afterlife unless you join the believers' club and pay your membership dues.

I'm sure you're aware this doesn't fit all religionists. For example I'm a universalist so your snide remarks are already false according to my beliefs.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Can you name these conservative tenets that you've found restrictive and elitist ? My experience has been that many Christians baulk at doctrine that they don't like, simply because they don't like them.

I'm sure I could but see no purpose to it. It's hard enough, given the shortcomings of the message board venue, to tackle one issue at a time without launching into a list of them and have discussion bog down almost immediately beyond salvage.

Agreed, there are lots of Christians who cherry pick their theology. There are also lots of them so indoctrinated to a doctrinal view that instead of searching for the truth of a matter they spend their time memorizing answers orchestrated by others to offer critics, then push them as "truth". And of course there're probably another 500 types of Christians whose categories I don't know or remember....

 

[agua]

I'm sure I could but see no purpose to it. It's hard enough, given the shortcomings of the message board venue, to tackle one issue at a time without launching into a list of them and have discussion bog down almost immediately beyond salvage.

Agreed, there are lots of Christians who cherry pick their theology. There are also lots of them so indoctrinated to a doctrinal view that instead of searching for the truth of a matter they spend their time memorizing answers orchestrated by others to offer critics, then push them as "truth". And of course there're probably another 500 types of Christians whose categories I don't know or remember....

This is why need a coherent method of establishing correct doctrine that's inline with Yahweh's character, and why we must study, as did the Bereans. What methods do you use to establish correct doctrine ?

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

This is why need a coherent method of establishing correct doctrine that's inline with Yahweh's character, and why we must study, as did the Bereans. What methods do you use to establish correct doctrine ?

I'll just say that I'm much more acutely aware of truth as the goal today than I was 20 years ago.

I'd be careful of 'coherent methods', though. The Arminian sticks to his coherent method and the Calvinist his. Both do so despite tensions and declare the other "wrong". Both can't be right because there are not only tensions they are willing to overlook in their own doctrine, but the two have a great obvious tension between them.

Another case in point: there are three soteriological positions in Christianity, Eternal Torment (the most traditional), Annihilationist and Universalist. I'm a Universalist and find my version of Universalism to be superior to the other two. I've gone so far as to post the basis of Universalism here twice and on two or three other boards and asked others to refute it. No one has done so, yet even though truth criteria suggest we should give credence (if not outright warrant) to beliefs that can withstand the most tensions, to my knowledge not a single Annihilationist or traditional eternal hell Christian has even been willing to concede so much as an inch.

What does this say about the typical religionist's regard for truth?

 

[agua]

I'll just say that I'm much more acutely aware of truth as the goal today than I was 20 years ago.

I'd be careful of 'coherent methods', though. The Arminian sticks to his coherent method and the Calvinist his. Both do so despite tensions and declare the other "wrong". Both can't be right because there are not only tensions they are willing to overlook in their own doctrine, but the two have a great obvious tension between them.

Another case in point: there are three soteriological positions in Christianity, Eternal Torment (the most traditional), Annihilationist and Universalist. I'm a Universalist and find my version of Universalism to be superior to the other two. I've gone so far as to post the basis of Universalism here twice and on two or three other boards and asked others to refute it. No one has done so, yet even though truth criteria suggest we should give credence (if not outright warrant) to beliefs that can withstand the most tensions, to my knowledge not a single Annihilationist or traditional eternal hell Christian has even been willing to concede so much as an inch.

What does this say about the typical religionist's regard for truth?

Ah yes this is why I suggest all doctrine must be coherent with Yahweh's character and all other doctrines. Consistency is paramount. It's interesting that I've also never seen a Universalists budge an inch; this is human nature unfortunately, but no indication of if a doctrine is correct, or not.

When did you decide that Universal salvation was correct ?