What controversial beliefs do you hold?

[mkgal1]

So if you say something like God doesn't know if you will choose A or at some point in the future, some will feel you have contradicted scripture, thinking it says He knows all things (instead of some things) ahead of time.

This particular issue I'm not settled on what or how I believe (and, to me, it doesn't really matter in the long run).

"Time" isn't something God is bound by....so who knows if God knows (ahead of it happening) if we are going to choose the left or right at each fork in the road. Would that be necessary--do you think--to believe that His love and goodness is powerful over all kinds of death and destruction? What I mean is.....do you think that He would have to have pre-knowledge of our actions in order for Him to "make all things new" (eventually) or even, in the shorter-term, to "cause everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to His purpose for them"?

 

[Halbhh]

Hmmmm...this is probably the "controversial" part of open theism:

"He has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions. "

I'm not sure I believe that. I do believe that--eventually--God will bring out the future to His desired purpose....that all things will be reconciled to Him. I believe His love never fails (in the long term of things)....and it seems that if the future were conditional upon humanity's actions, that minimizes the power of His love and goodness.

That highlighted part reminded me of some things I had read in the last year or 2 due to reading Numbers in our bible study group and wanting to understand more of the full picture better -- stuff that was indeed just that, conditional. Deuteronomy 11 (and again in Leviticus 26) -- a wording you can see in the chapters like this:

"If" you do this, then I will do A.

But, "if" you do that, then I will do B.

It's striking in that way, and I don't know that I even have the most prominent example.

I agree with your last paragraph totally though.

 

[Halbhh]

This particular issue I'm not settled on what or how I believe (and, to me, it doesn't really matter in the long run).

"Time" isn't something God is bound by....so who knows if God knows (ahead of it happening) if we are going to choose the left or right at each fork in the road. Would that be necessary--do you think--to believe that His love and goodness is powerful over all kinds of death and destruction? What I mean is.....do you think that He would have to have pre-knowledge of our actions in order for Him to "make all things new" (eventually) or even, in the shorter-term, to "cause everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to His purpose for them"?

He would be able to regardless so far as I can understand. It helps me to see it that way that I've had a 1-second emergency prayer answered in a near-impossible seeming way, to get it that no matter what happens, He could alter the final outcome quite easily.

 

[mkgal1]

That highlighted part reminded me of some things I had read in the last year or 2 due to reading Numbers in our bible study group and wanting to understand more of the full picture better -- stuff that was indeed just that, conditional. Deuteronomy 11 (and again in Leviticus 26) -- a wording you can see in the chapters like this:

"If" you do this, then I will do A.

But, "if" you do that, then I will do B.

It's striking in that way, and I don't know that I even have the most prominent example.

I agree with your last paragraph totally though.

Oh.....okay. When you put it that way, then maybe I can agree with that. Since God will have all of eternity for us (as a whole) to work out all our rebellion (and learn the difficult way)....that could be. It could be said that it's "a future conditional upon our actions".....but, eventually, you could still say that "He will make all things new--and all will be reconciled to Him".

 

[HighwayMan]

Ordination of Women - Not a hill for me to die on, but I don't see any concrete, undeniable Biblical, or societal reason, for why this would be wrong.

Premarital sex is not always sinful - I see the societal reasons. Biblically, I can understand the conservative position, but do not see it as a completely settled matter. I could see it generally as a good rule of thumb, but definitely not "sorry, no matter what the situation or circumstance, if you do it, you are going to hell." So "always" is the key term here.

Same-sex relationships are not sinful - Not a hill for me to die on, but I don't see any concrete, undeniable Biblical, or societal reason for why this would be wrong. Either way, the focus on this is absurdly more than it should be, from both sides.

Theistic evolution - I do not understand how this one is even controversial. It must be very, very specific geographic pockets of believers that actually deny evolution. Biblically, I really do not understand how some can believe Genesis is a scientific account.

Universalism - Well, I am certainly not one who knows the mysteries of heaven and hell. Whatever the reality is, I trust God is just. Biblically, it is complicated, and I understand why some verses lead some to very strongly argue for hell. It is a very difficult subject matter. At the same time, I have not heard a single conservative argument about the logistical workings of who goes to hell that I can fully understand or agree with.

 

[Halbhh]

Universalism - Well, I am certainly not one who knows the mysteries of heaven and hell. Whatever the reality is, I trust God is just. Biblically, it is complicated, and I understand why some verses lead some to very strongly argue for hell. It is a very difficult subject matter. At the same time, I have not heard a single conservative argument about the logistical workings of who goes to hell that I can fully understand or agree with.

Crucial and decisive for many agnostics.

How could it possibly be that salvation and eternal life is *only* for those lucky enough to get the gospel?
That couldn't be, so God must be false, or Christianity false.

Some will then end up believing "Universal Spirit", Buddhism, Taoism, maybe horoscopes (though they won't admit it to most people).

How many would ever learn the surprising answer? Probably less that 0.5% is my guess.

So, they won't find out about Romans chapter 2, verses 6 to 16.

We may need to spread this information, because if we don't, then idealistic nonbelievers will work hard to convert young believers away from Christ.

How many have a clue central commands from Christ are:
"love one another" and "love your enemy"?

Less than we'd think I bet!

 

[PanDeVida]

I don't believe anyone goes to Hell. At least, not permanently.

Armoured, your profiles says you're Catholic, but you don't believe in Hell. The Catholic Church teaches that their is a Hell, so I tell you, are you a true Catholic or by name only?

Armoured, Those who do not believe in Hell, is but one step from not believing in heaven, then where would that leave those, but in hell.

 

[faroukfarouk]

And a few others.

Hi Samantha; there will always be those who hold that what some ppl believe confidently from the Scriptures is supposedly controversial. Good thing we don't live before men rather than before God, right?

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

I was curious what all controversial beliefs are held here on CF so I decided to make a poll about it. Please do not debate the issues themselves, but if you want to reply with what you voted, please feel free.

Oh, I had to respond 'yes' to quite a few!

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm not a Universalist. But I'm not not a Universalist either.

In other words I agree with the historic and orthodox position of the Christian Church, that we cannot say dogmatically or with any certainty that all will, ultimately, be saved; but nevertheless it is the pious hope and prayer of the Church that all will, ultimately, be saved. I do not assume that the perpetuity of hell is a given, Scripture certainly doesn't provide us with enough information to make that assumption (and herein is where my view would be considered by some controversial no doubt). The controversial dimension is likely over the Greek word aionios, the adjective form of the word aion; the word is frequently cited as meaning "eternal" or "without beginning or end", but such is entirely interpretive and likely begins by the assumption of eternality and reading that into the word because of how certain passages are interpreted. Strictly, the word aion means "age", aionios is its adjective form. I would maintain that its eschatological usage should be understood as describing something as pertaining to the future age, ergo aionios life (eternal or everlasting life) refers to that life which is ours in the future age (the Age to Come) when God has made all things new, we have been raised from the dead and made immortal; the everlasting-ness of that life isn't because it is "aionios" but because it is death-less, athanatos, immortal. Likewise the future fire is aionios because it is about the future judgment and destruction the wicked; not, by necessity, that it is forever. It may be forever, but that meaning cannot be ascertained purely by the word aionios. As such the word's significance is eschatological, pertaining to the things that shall come at the Eschaton.

I'd say that there is, fundamentally, sufficient ambiguity to caution against becoming too dogmatic either way; and that we should be open to either possibility--ultimately recogniting it isn't our place to say who is in or out, for such judgment belongs to God alone, and He alone will deal with all of us as He will, in justice, mercy, and goodness.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

Theistic evolution - I do not understand how this one is even controversial. It must be very, very specific geographic pockets of believers that actually deny evolution. Biblically, I really do not understand how some can believe Genesis is a scientific account.

In the US, this is still controversial. I am with you. I do not see how it could be controversial what with all of the scientific data, peer reviews, and experiments done to confirm the Theory of Evolution like the Theory of Gravity. However, in the US most who are categorised as 'Evangelicals' do not believe in evolution. Most Evangelicals are 'creationists' of some variety.

 

[Gojira323]

It always dangerous to assume your views are always the views of the Bible. That's where it gets controversial.

But you have to admit that there are a huge amount of folk who believe they and only they rightly divide the world of God. I've seen it in every denomination I've ever gone too. And it's almost always used as a suggestion the said church is only church to go to cause they do it right. With 1700 different sects in our faith someone's got to be wrong with their certainty. That scares me sometimes