Theological option for the "I don't know, and that's okay" crowd.

[Saint Steven]

It is glaringly irrational as a perspective, jumping to unwarranted conclusions and assuming unnecessarily limited options.

Why would you assume that humans are omniscient?
Wouldn't that be glaringly irrational and unwarranted?

 

[fhansen]

The OP isn't about the things we CAN understand, but the things we can't.

Job 37:5 NIV
God’s voice thunders in marvelous ways; he does great things beyond our understanding.

Well...of course we cannot understand all the things of God, but revelation is all about giving us understanding -that which He wants us to have. That's why Jesus came, to fully reveal the nature and will of God to the extent that we can and need to understand it. To the extent that we do possess understanding we're simply better off, better equipped. And people argue about many relevant beliefs, often with plausible arguments from either side.

 

[Saint Steven]

And...another non sequitur. Also, a false dichotomy.

You appear to have some prejudices against sequiturs and dichotomies.

 

[Saint Steven]

Well...of course we cannot understand all the things of God...

Well...that's the point here.

 

[PaulCyp1]

God didn't give us a "theological option". He wanted each of us to know God's truth without doubt and without variation. There is no such thing as conflicting truths. Truth cannot conflict with truth, which is why Jesus Christ founded one Church, said it was to remain one, and promised that one Church "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". You either accept truth where Jesus said we would find it, or you accept untruth from other sources, like the thousands of conflicting denominations of Protestantism.

 

[Saint Steven]

God didn't give us a "theological option". He wanted each of us to know God's truth without doubt and without variation. There is no such thing as conflicting truths. Truth cannot conflict with truth, which is why Jesus Christ founded one Church, said it was to remain one, and promised that one Church "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". You either accept truth where Jesus said we would find it, or you accept untruth from other sources, like the thousands of conflicting denominations of Protestantism.

So, you are condemning all Protestants? How Christian of you.

And... God did give us a theological option. It's called the honesty to admit when we don't know.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Uh, this is a huge non sequitur. And doesn't comport with the facts found in the Bible.



Again, a huge non sequitur.



And...another non sequitur. Also, a false dichotomy.



It is glaringly irrational as a perspective, jumping to unwarranted conclusions and assuming unnecessarily limited options. I would not be part of a church that encouraged such thinking.

I guess the above post is an example of the fallacy fallacy. Stating something is wrong, but contributing nothing to the subject matter.

For example, a non-sequitur and false dichotomy is stated. However, this is not elaborated upon, and also what is perceived to be the correct interpretation by the poster is also missing.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Given the three issues presented in the OP, do we have an obligation to pick a side and give it a relentless defense?

What if someone examines the relevant positions for each, and after having examined each thoroughly can truthfully say, "I don't know," have they shirked some obligation? It's hard to see how.

Isn't it safe to say the thief on the cross held no position in regard to these issues and yet still entered paradise?

Could it be that consuming one's energies on these issues, defending them with zeal, feeling self-satisfied in one's commitment is simply another way to avoid the more demanding task of working out one's own salvation with fear and trembling?

These are the questions I live in, they present themselves as I study the scriptures and live life.

I live in them, since they are there to contemplate, but not answer per se.

These questions when answered tend to lead to disagreement, but if people get the point of the questions I have been presented with as I have, it may lead to greater edification and unity in the body of Christ.

Maybe.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I think Christianity has to stand for something-or else it stands for nothing. Does God exist? Does it matter? Is Jesus God? Does it matter? Does it matter what we do, or only if we believe? Some truths may be more critical than others but any can be challenged. It's all a matter of where we draw the line-and perhaps who draws it.

Well said.

 

[Tigger45]

Interestingly this is even written in the single person.


Romans 14:
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.

8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Interestingly this is even written in the single person.


Romans 14:
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.

8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Thank you for posting relevant scripture.

Blessings.

 

[CMDRExorcist]

I just wanted to jump in and say that this is such a refreshing discourse to see. Personally, I think that one of the greatest signs of humility that a Christian defending their faith can express is simply saying: I don't know. Sometimes we just simply don't know the answer to a question and that's OK. It's our faith, not our academic aptitude, that holds us to Jesus. Many blessings to you all for the wonderful insights into these questions.

 

[aiki]

Why would you assume that humans are omniscient?

I don't know. Why would I?

 

[Saint Steven]

I don't know. Why would I?

Doctrinal dis-comport, I suppose. - lol

 

[nolidad]

Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,
Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. (Ephesians 3:20-21)

God is able to do exceeding abundantly above or immeasurably more than we could imagine or think. Therefore,

I don't really believe in eternal torment, annihilationism, or universalism. And that is okay, because God will do immeasurably more than we can imagine or think. All the people are probably wrong.

I don't really believe in free will or pre-destination arguments. And that is okay, because God will do immeasurably more than we can imagine or think. Both are probably wrong.

I don't believe in theologies that say how it will end. And that is okay, because God will do immeasurably more than we can imagine or think. Everyone is probably wrong, as it is written: May God be true and every human a liar.

The idea came to me as a theological option, how would this affect your church if everyone started applying this idea? And also, what do you think of it?

Well rippiong a passage out of its context and misapplying it to other things will allow anyone to come up with all sorts of crazy ideas that are simply not real!

And He does according to teh power in us which is god. God will not deny HImself or His Word! and If we toss out the bible- then you have to toss out this passage as well!

For the God who is able to do more than we can think or ask- also laid out doctrine, hell, eschatology and predestination!

 

[aiki]

Stating something is wrong, but contributing nothing to the subject matter.

I did "add to the subject matter" by pointing out that the sort of reasoning you employed in your OP was fallacious.

Therefore,

I don't really believe in eternal torment, annihilationism, or universalism. And that is okay, because God will do immeasurably more than we can imagine or think. All the people are probably wrong.

It doesn't follow (non sequitur) that because God can do immeasurably more than we can ask or think, therefore orthodox Christian doctrine is false and "all people are probably wrong." This is like saying, "I've never been to Japan, but I'm sure that a personal, first-hand experience of Japan will be far greater, far beyond what I believe I know about Japan by second-hand means, and, therefore, I'm probably wrong about everything I think I know about Japan." It doesn't follow that because a first-hand experience provides data that second-hand knowledge of that experience cannot that, therefore, everything one knows by second-hand means is false. When my wife and I traveled to Japan on holiday, all we had researched about the country we found to be true, but in a flat, one-dimensional sort of way. Being in the country brought alive all our research rather than contradicting it and added to our knowledge of Japan without dissolving what we already had learned by second-hand means. This, it seems to me, is far more likely to be the case with God and the doctrines (at least, some of them anyway) you mention, than the non sequitur you've proposed.

How do you know that God will do "immeasurably more than we can imagine or think"? Because you read it in the Bible. But the Bible is the same text from which the doctrine of eternal conscious torment is derived. Why are you not placing Ephesians 3:20-21 under the same cloud of doubt as you are all the verses that indicate eternal conscious torment of the unrepentant wicked? If you're going to apply Ephesians 3:20-21 the way you are, why should the passage itself be exempt from your application? It is at least inconsistent to place other declarations of Scripture under serious doubt but not the passage you're using to assert (speciously, I think) that doubt. But, of course, if you did so, then your whole line of reasoning collapses. When this is true of a line of reasoning, it is often a cue to its fallaciousness.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Well rippiong a passage out of its context and misapplying it to other things will allow anyone to come up with all sorts of crazy ideas that are simply not real!

And He does according to teh power in us which is god. God will not deny HImself or His Word! and If we toss out the bible- then you have to toss out this passage as well!

For the God who is able to do more than we can think or ask- also laid out doctrine, hell, eschatology and predestination!

Yeah, but God is not the author of confusion, and the faith didn't begin with the ideas you're talking about.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I did "add to the subject matter" by pointing out that the sort of reasoning you employed in your OP was fallacious.



It doesn't follow (non sequitur) that because God can do immeasurably more than we can ask or think, therefore orthodox Christian doctrine is false and "all people are probably wrong." This is like saying, "I've never been to Japan, but I'm sure that a personal, first-hand experience of Japan will be far greater, far beyond what I believe I know about Japan by second-hand means, and, therefore, I'm probably wrong about everything I think I know about Japan." It doesn't follow that because a first-hand experience provides data that second-hand knowledge of that experience cannot that, therefore, everything one knows by second-hand means is false. When my wife and I traveled to Japan on holiday, all we had researched about the country we found to be true, but in a flat, one-dimensional sort of way. Being in the country brought alive all our research rather than contradicting it and added to our knowledge of Japan without dissolving what we already had learned by second-hand means. This, it seems to me, is far more likely to be the case with God and the doctrines (at least, some of them anyway) you mention, than the non sequitur you've proposed.

How do you know that God will do "immeasurably more than we can imagine or think"? Because you read it in the Bible. But the Bible is the same text from which the doctrine of eternal conscious torment is derived. Why are you not placing Ephesians 3:20-21 under the same cloud of doubt as you are all the verses that indicate eternal conscious torment of the unrepentant wicked? If you're going to apply Ephesians 3:20-21 the way you are, why should the passage itself be exempt from your application? It is at least inconsistent to place other declarations of Scripture under serious doubt but not the passage you're using to assert (speciously, I think) that doubt. But, of course, if you did so, then your whole line of reasoning collapses. When this is true of a line of reasoning, it is often a cue to its fallaciousness.

Actually, in the bible it is said that "May God be true and every man a liar" so it's basically saying "everyone is probably wrong" it's not unscriptural.

 

[public hermit]

I think Christianity has to stand for something-or else it stands for nothing. Does God exist? Does it matter? Is Jesus God? Does it matter? Does it matter what we do, or only if we believe? Some truths may be more critical than others but any can be challenged. It's all a matter of where we draw the line-and perhaps who draws it.

I agree with you. The issues presented in the OP only make sense with certain affirmations, e.g. God's existence, Christ's supremecy, etc.

I think what you're saying makes good sense, if we see the faith as a set of propositions whose integrity depends on logical coherence.

Now, I'm a huge fan of coherence. So, don't mistake what I'm about to say.

Our faith is not dependent on a set of coherent propositions. Our faith depends on the radical free agency of the Divine. God created the conditions for logical coherence. God is not bound by that which God created. So, we always have to be open to the unexpected, lest we be like the 1st century Judean leadersip who didnt recognize their own Messiah.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

So, we always have to be open to the unexpected, lest we be like the 1st century Judean leadersip who didnt recognize their own Messiah.

Indeed.