Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
One might sitting next to a universalist at church and not even know it?
You're making absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. That's the problem.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.
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.What is it that makes your "guesses/ideas" superiour to other "guesses/ideas"?
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?You're making absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. That's the problem.
Seems to me that denominations didn't come about until the advent and development of Protestantism.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.
And if they happen to not be to your liking, then what?As far as denominations go, It depends how the local church both preaches and practises what it preaches.
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'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?
Not my liking, my understanding of what Christianity is.And if they happen to not be to your liking, then what?
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.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.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.
Does that mean you divide the church on doctrinal lines?Not my liking, my understanding of what Christianity is.
I'll take this to mean you can't clearly state what was supposedly 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.
Okey dokey.I'll take this to mean you can't clearly state what was supposedly wrong with how the text was used.
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.
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
EXACTLY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!If a grand narrative states that absolute goodness created beings destined for eternal torment, we can reject that narrative based on absolute goodness.
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.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.
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?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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?