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

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not denying philosophy has a role in the process, but comprehensive systems and perfectly worked out theologies are more problematic than desireable. There's something to be said for being aware of how God has spoken to people, but Christian theology not build on exegesis is simply men grasping in the darkness. When we say things like "absolute goodness" as if we know what that is from the get-go it is idol-building. While we may develop convictions from extensive exegesis, theology serves not to define God but to qualify the God revealed in Scripture. So exegesis is not simply a means for clarification, but about the closest we can get to an objective standard to test our theological ideas against.

I hear what you're saying, Fervent, and we all know some ideas become "idolized" beyond measure, even among Christians (i.e. inerrancy comes to mind as but one example). However, I'm not quite sure I'd identify a use of the qualifier "absolute" in relation to the the Lord as a form of making an idol out of that very same qualifier. I'll admit that such a use isn't how I'd proceed when thinking through various issues pertaining to interpreting the meaning of "hell", but I think it can still fall within the so-called pale of orthodoxy. While I'm not a huge fan of Origen, I've still read about him a fair bit and I've found him interesting, as I also have his predecessor, Clement.

As for being "outside" the acceptable expectation of today's mainstream evangelicals, I faced this and have found that just my invocation of Pascal or Kierkegaard alone gets me in plenty of heat with those who seem to take Norman Geisler as their patron saint. So, I know what it feels like to be accused of 'heresy' or worse yet, the 'F' word.................................'Fideism,' which in my case is a term that I think is a chump charge and one that I'd never, ever accept, especially when it's being purposely used as a pejorative. When I hear that kind of crap, it's enough to make be want to hurl my copy of Millard J. Erickson's, Systematic Theology at that person. (But, I'd only aim for their shins----I promise! )

You're right to say that exegesis is important in how we conceive of and understand the biblical texts. I know that many Christians these days either sneer at it or underestimate the importance of it because---by golly, they have the Holy Spirit beyond measure----- but whatever the case may be, since there isn't an absolute principle or divine system driving any act of interpreting the bible, I can't clearly see how we today can adjudicate a specific error as having a necessary modus operandi that only and inevitably ends in heretical eisegesis. Sure, if someone fails to say, "By the way I'm Trinitarian!" I'm likely to give that person a sideways glance, but I'm not going to assume that they're on their way down the elevator shaft to the basement floor.

 

[Fervent]

I hear what you're saying, Fervent, and we all know some ideas become "idolized" beyond measure, even among Christians (i.e. inerrant comes to mind as but one example). However, I'm not quite sure I'd identify a use of the qualifier "absolute" in relation to the the Lord as a form of making an idol out of that qualifier. Such a use isn't how I'd proceed when thinking through various issues pertaining to interpreting the meaning of "hell" but I think it can still fall within the so-called pale of orthodoxy. While I'm not a huge fan of Origen, yet I've still read about him a fair bit and I find him interesting, as I also do his predecessor, Clement.

My objection isn't in labeling God as "absolute good," because that is certainly true. Where my issue comes in is then proceeding to define what that means primarily through reason and comparing to modern ethical standards. The idea of "greater than" or "less than" presumes we already know the standard of comparison, but ultimately every one of us is thoroughly corrupt in comparison to God. So my objection simply stated is we don't know what absolute goodness entails, and the only way we can discover as much is by examining the textual evidence. To begin by excluding a possibility because it doesn't jibe with our conception of good, and then to take our conception of good and state that it must be "absolute good" or that "absolute good" must conform to it is where I see error.

As for being "outside" the acceptable expectation of today's mainstream evangelicals, just my invocation of Pascal or Kierkegaard alone gets me in plenty of heat with those who seem to take Norman Geisler as their patron saint. So, I know what it feels like to be accused of 'heresy' or worse yet, the 'F' word.................................'Fideism,' which in my case is a term that I think is a chump charge and one that I'd never, ever accept, especially when it's being purposely used as a pejorative. When I hear that kind of crap, it's enough to make be want to hurl my copy of Millard J. Erickson's, Systematic Theology at that person. (But, I'd only aim for their shins----I promise! )

I can certainly be sympathetic to that, evangelicalism has certainly become intolerant of deviation from its methods and doctrines.

You're right to say that exegesis is important in how we conceive of and understand the biblical texts. I know that many Christians these days either sneer at it or underestimate the importance of it because---by golly, they have the Holy Spirit beyond measure----- but whatever the case may be, since there isn't an absolute principle or divine system driving any act of interpreting the bible, I can't clearly see how we today can adjudicate a specific error as having a necessary modus operandi that only and inevitably ends in heretical eisegesis. Sure, if someone fails to say, "By the way I'm Trinitarian!" I'm likely to give that person a sideways glance, but I'm not going to assume that they're on their way down the elevator shaft to the basement floor.

This is a different issue from what I am seeing, because the question isn't over what the texts say for the most part but instead what the value of the text is. There seems to be a common denigration of the text, with the treatment of it as just one among a number of appropriate ways to learn about God. We haven't even gotten to questions of hermeneutic approaches or methods, but the relative value of philosophic exercises vs seeking to understand what is in the text regardless of what it does to our philosophies. The Bible seems to be treated as a supplement to philosophy, rather than the sole arbiter of truth.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My objection isn't in labeling God as "absolute good," because that is certainly true. Where my issue comes in is then proceeding to define what that means primarily through reason and comparing to modern ethical standards. The idea of "greater than" or "less than" presumes we already know the standard of comparison, but ultimately every one of us is thoroughly corrupt in comparison to God. So my objection simply stated is we don't know what absolute goodness entails, and the only way we can discover as much is by examining the textual evidence. To begin by excluding a possibility because it doesn't jibe with our conception of good, and then to take our conception of good and state that it must be "absolute good" or that "absolute good" must conform to it is where I see error.

I can certainly be sympathetic to that, evangelicalism has certainly become intolerant of deviation from its methods and doctrines.

This is a different issue from what I am seeing, because the question isn't over what the texts say for the most part but instead what the value of the text is. There seems to be a common denigration of the text, with the treatment of it as just one among a number of appropriate ways to learn about God. We haven't even gotten to questions of hermeneutic approaches or methods, but the relative value of philosophic exercises vs seeking to understand what is in the text regardless of what it does to our philosophies. The Bible seems to be treated as a supplement to philosophy, rather than the sole arbiter of truth.

I think you make some fantastic points, all the way up until that very last sentence you wrote. The thing is, I wish I could concur with you on it in a more robust way. Instead, I have to latently concur with you in a more existential way, and this is the case for me probably even more than it is for these Universalist Christian brethren being that I take Biblical Criticism seriously, so much so that I find it difficult to just assume a whole lot about the Bible, skeptic that I am.

I can't start with the Bible and attempt to stuff all of the inconsistencies of Reality into it...............So I don't. Rather, I start with existence without the Bible and then move from there. Am I, then, worse than the Universalist Christians? Some fellow Christians would say "yes."

 

[Fervent]

I think you make some fantastic points, all the way up until that very last sentence you wrote. The thing is, I wish I could concur with you on it in a more robust way. Instead, I have to latently concur with you in a more existential way, and this is the case for me probably even more than it is for these Universalist Christian brethren being that I take Biblical Criticism seriously, so much so that I find it difficult to just assume a whole lot about the Bible, skeptic that I am.

I can't start with the Bible and attempt to stuff all of the inconsistencies of Reality into it...............So I don't. Rather, I start with existence without the Bible and then move from there. Am I, then, worse than the Universalist Christians? Some fellow Christians would say "yes."

I'm with you, in a way. I don't disregard the serious challenges and issues in the reception of the Bible, especially when viewing the issue through a secular historical account. My starting point, though, is God. Regardless of the challenges and inconsistencies, the imperfectly perfect Bible is in some sense the word of God. To view it as less than that is to impune the character of God. Being God's word, it is the sole node we can trust regarding who God is and what He desires. Unless, of course, God is an untrustworthy monster but that is a thought too terrible to consider.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm with you, in a way. I don't disregard the serious challenges and issues in the reception of the Bible, especially when viewing the issue through a secular historical account. My starting point, though, is God. Regardless of the challenges and inconsistencies, the imperfectly perfect Bible is in some sense the word of God. To view it as less than that is to impune the character of God. Being God's word, it is the sole node we can trust regarding who God is and what He desires. Unless, of course, God is an untrustworthy monster but that is a thought too terrible to consider.

Well, then, it sounds like you'd have a hard time sliding through life as an existentialist, as would our brethren, the Universalists. Because as hard as I've ever tried, I haven't been able to start with God.

But I am willing to end with Jesus. And that's where I start epistemically, from below the ground floor going up ...

 

[Fervent]

Well, then, it sounds like you'd have a hard time sliding through life as an existentialist, as would our brethren, the Universalists. Because as hard as I've ever tried, I haven't been able to start with God.

But I am willing to end with Jesus. And that's where I start epistemically, from below the ground floor going up ...

I tried as much, and found myself slipping into pessimistic nihilism bordering on solipsism. I start with God, because through God alone does my own existence even begin to make sense. But ultimately, wherever we start we have to ask whether we believe the Bible is God's word or isn't it. And if it's God's word, isn't questioning it tantamount to calling Him an untrustworthy liar?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I tried as much, and found myself slipping into pessimistic nihilism bordering on solipsism. I start with God, because through God alone does my own existence even begin to make sense. But ultimately, wherever we start we have to ask whether we believe the Bible is God's word or isn't it. And if it's God's word, isn't questioning it tantamount to calling Him an untrustworthy liar?

I've never been a nihilist. Yet I have felt like one at various, not to infrequent moments in my life. I don't start with God because I couldn't. But in some kind of sublime way, He started with me. And even though I have to peer upon the time worn, dust covered and ripped pages of His Word as a thirsty soul scavaging the desert ruins, I do still believe in Jesus as the Christ and my Savior.

I know it sounds ironic, but I think ardently questioning the Bible isn't and never can be tantamount to calling Him an untrustworthy liar. It's simply to recognize the sheer obscurity of the Real Life in which He has placed us to exist, one in which the world doesn't bend to the casual wishes and demands of our English, positivistic minds or our English Bibles. Fortunately, like Pascal and Kierkegaard rather than Nietzsche or Sartre, I have learned to bear with it, but not everyone can.

Then again, I also recognize He's blessed me after my earlier storms of life in ways which not everyone else has been, and He has done this through the aid of Christian philosophers and the support of my wife and son, and I am thankful for it.

Anyway, be blessed this week! Just remember who your brothers and sisters are in our Lord.

 

[Fervent]

I've never been a nihilist. But I have felt like one at various not to infrequent moments in life. I don't start with God because I coudn't. But in some kind of sublime way, He started with me. And even though I have to peer upon the time worn, dust covered and ripped pages of His Word as thirsty sole scavaging the desert ruins, I do believe in Jesus as the Christ and my Savior.

I see no other path from the absurd reality I find myself confronted with than to take the self-existent as primary.

But to question the Bible isn't and never can be tantamount to calling Him an untrustworthy liar. It's simply to recognize the sheer obscurity of the Real Life in which He has placed us to exist, one in which the world doesn't bend to the casual wishes and demands of our English, positivistic minds or our English Bibles. But like Pascal and Kierkegaard rather than Nietzsche or Sartre, I have learned to bear with it, but not everyone can.

I'm not sure I agree with this. There's certainly space for uncertainty, but approaching the Bible as a skeptic of any stripe seems to be fraught with mistrust for God Himself. If it is God's word, then the act of questioning it is to introduce the possibility that He is lying. God's word must be true, and all other foundations are sinking sand. Of course, it is on the testimony of the Bible itself that we establish it is God's word but I see no epistemic ground which successfully answers Munchaussen's trilemma so this reality appears to me an unnecessarry trifle. So is the Bible God's word, or isn't it? and if it is God's word, how can there be any falsehood in it without God being a liar?

Of course, then again, I also recognize He's blessed me in some ways after my earlier storms of life in ways that not everyone has been, and He has done this through the aid of Christian philosophers and my wife and son, and I am thankful for it.

Anyway, be blessed this week! Just remember who your brothers and sisters are in our Lord.

Each man is a servant to his own master. Who is my brother except the one who does the will of God?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I see no other path from the absurd reality I find myself confronted with than to take the self-existent as primary.

I'm not sure I agree with this. There's certainly space for uncertainty, but approaching the Bible as a skeptic of any stripe seems to be fraught with mistrust for God Himself. If it is God's word, then the act of questioning it is to introduce the possibility that He is lying. God's word must be true, and all other foundations are sinking sand. Of course, it is on the testimony of the Bible itself that we establish it is God's word but I see no epistemic ground which successfully answers Munchaussen's trilemma so this reality appears to me an unnecessarry trifle. So is the Bible God's word, or isn't it? and if it is God's word, how can there be any falsehood in it without God being a liar?

Each man is a servant to his own master. Who is my brother except the one who does the will of God?

This particular response of yours here is the usual response I get.............................and here it is yet once again, even after I've attempted to lock hands in fellowship and mutual, bilateral understanding. I open my mouth for a few sentences, and then suddenly everyone around me turns into a supreme "bible expert."

Why am I not surprised?

Good night, Fervent. Best of luck on your studies at seminary. You're going to need it!

 

[Fervent]

This particular response of yours here is the usual response I get.............................and here it is yet once again, even after I've attempted to lock hands in fellowship and mutual, bilateral understanding. I open my mouth for a few sentences, and then suddenly everyone around me turns into a supreme "bible expert."

Why am I not surprised?

Good night, Fervent. Best of luck on your studies at seminary. You're going to need it!

I didn't mean to offend, I sincerely appreciate your perspective and find most of what you say refreshing. Nothing in what I said was meant as an attack, and I apologize if my words were dismissive. The part about my brothers especially was not meant to be disparaging, but simply to state that I am not in the business of making judgments on the matter since that is between them and God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No problem, Fervent! Just don't assume (or imply) that you know what my position is "all about" or that it's insubstantial or without merit or without reason, and we'll be fine.

And I'll give you the same consideration in return.