Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2017 16:10:34 GMT -6
This thread was inspired by this one. I saw this movie on the night it premiered. (I have not read the entire book though.) I found it a rather enjoyable and emotional movie that did a good job illustrating the way that God heals people from emotional struggles. It did a fantastic job outlining the Christian principles of grace and forgiveness. However, many people have had theological issues with the movie, and I can say that I am one of them. I recall at one point the main character Mack asking the character who represents God about the wrath of God. She (yes, she) replied, "What wrath?" The Bible makes it clear that the wrath of God still exists, as God does not change. Additionally, at one point, Mack is struggling with the reasoning behind why a certain tragedy in his life happened (I won't spoil what exactly it was, because that isn't relevant). One of the characters (I forget which) told him that God does not create the bad situations, but He makes the best out of them when they occur. This, as far as I am aware, is contrary to orthodox Christian teachings, which state that God sometimes does bring hard times into our lives to build our character, or perhaps for other reasons altogether. I forget where exactly the Biblical basis for this is, but it makes more theological sense to me than The Shack's explanation does. Other than that, nothing particularly stuck out to me as being theologically incorrect, but I have only seen the movie once, so it's very possible that I missed something. Have any of the rest of you seen this? What did you think of the theology behind it?
|
|
|
Post by drawnsword on Mar 14, 2017 21:04:45 GMT -6
From one of the co-writers, Who’s Afraid of The Big, Bad Shack? www.lifestream.org/whos-afraid-big-bad-shack/ "Is THE SHACK Heresy?" www.lifestream.org/is-the-shack-heresy/ I'd like to see it when it comes in my country. I like how Wayne said in the vid below, that he hopes that people walk out of the film with a sense that God is looking for them, If our hope is wrapped up in i'v got to find God then that's not a lot of hope. But if God is looking for me at my most broken and my most fallen place where i'v got lost in sin, hurt and pain. If God's not coming to find us there, what hope have we? (find at 3:53 mins)
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Mar 14, 2017 23:29:35 GMT -6
However, many people have had theological issues with the movie, and I can say that I am one of them. I recall at one point the main character Mack asking the character who represents God about the wrath of God. She (yes, she) replied, "What wrath?" The Bible makes it clear that the wrath of God still exists, as God does not change. Additionally, at one point, Mack is struggling with the reasoning behind why a certain tragedy in his life happened (I won't spoil what exactly it was, because that isn't relevant). One of the characters (I forget which) told him that God does not create the bad situations, but He makes the best out of them when they occur. This, as far as I am aware, is contrary to orthodox Christian teachings, which state that God sometimes does bring hard times into our lives to build our character, or perhaps for other reasons altogether. I forget where exactly the Biblical basis for this is, but it makes more theological sense to me than The Shack's explanation does. That's the huge theology thing wrong with it? Wow. I can definitely think of much bigger reasons/movies to shield (new) believers from. I mean, if someone is going to shelter believers from those quotes, we might as well shelter them from action movies because they might take a gun and shoot someone. Is The Shack even meant to be a "for Christians, by Christians" film? Or is it just getting scrutinized as one because it talks about God? Ever seen The Last Temptation of Christ? Man, I'd consider that film to be WAY more controversial. My "Bible as Literature" college professor, who's also a preacher, loves that movie by the way... and we watched it in class. I really dug his "artistic dream interpretation" view of it rather than gasping when it didn't match with the bible and recoiling from it as if he put his hand in a flame. Some of the scenes were awkward to see in a Bible class attended by mostly women though... LOL Brown chicken brown cow. I tell you one movie I wouldn't recommend. That new Noah movie. Cause there's rock monsters. I'm not kidding. Not because of biblical whatever, but because rock monsters hanging out with Noah is just a ridiculous notion. HAHA!!! Other than that, nothing particularly stuck out to me as being theologically incorrect, but I have only seen the movie once, so it's very possible that I missed something. So... you're not going to watch it again JUST to search for inaccuracies, are you? I wouldn't be able to recommend this movie because, I don't watch this genre of movies. Nothing against what it says or doesn't say. Can't imagine digging a movie that doesn't mention God at all and then running away from The Shack though. The thought of that just blows my mind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 7:18:59 GMT -6
That's the huge theology thing wrong with it? Wow. I can definitely think of much bigger reasons/movies to shield (new) believers from. I mean, if someone is going to shelter believers from those quotes, we might as well shelter them from action movies because they might take a gun and shoot someone. I don't consider it a "huge" problem though. To me, those are slight issues. I enjoyed the movie, and I think I would recommend it to most people. What I was trying to say was that others seem to have disliked it more and found more theological issues with it than I did, so maybe I missed something along the way because I've only seen it once. And no, I don't plan on watching it again just to pick out theological inaccuracies, lol. I'll have to read the article and watch the video that Drawnsword posted. Maybe that will give me a better idea of what some people disliked.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Mar 15, 2017 9:47:03 GMT -6
I read a few commentaries regarding the controversy of this movie. Seems like anyone calling this heresy is grabbing at straws, especially since this is NOT even intended to be a "Christian movie" and its being scrutinized as one. There's obviously some artistic/creative approaches at work here, and I think Christians should be thrilled that a SECULAR MOVIE made a positive nod towards their faith. I thought this commentary, made a lot of sense. "What's so bad about The Shack?" www1.cbn.com/books/whats-so-bad-about-the-shack....makes me think that if YOU tried to make a movie about God, you'd ultimately include some inconsistencies which other try-hards would consider heresy, because "describing" God (especially if you're even an ounce artistic), is theologically impossible because you're describing the indescribable. My gut feeling however, the Christians reading this will auto-dismiss CBN.com as heresy for this or some other reason, so my point is moot anyway. I really don't understand why some people of faith do what they do...
|
|
|
Post by barabbas on Mar 16, 2017 10:58:19 GMT -6
One of the theological criticisms of the book (I've heard it's in the movie, too) is that it portrays patripassionism. This is a heresy, in the sense of having been condemned at an official council. The heresy is that God the Father suffered when Christ died on the cross. The book/film portray this as the Father bearing the wounds of the Son in her/his hands.
In the book/film, it could just be a way to show that redemption was a work of the Trinity and not divine child abuse. They wouldn't have to portray it that way if they didn't make the members of the Trinity separate individuals (which may have some problems in its own right).
The problem with patripassionism is that it messes with the doctrine of the Trinity.
Still, it's a fictional portrayal, and shouldn't be pressed too hard on such things.
My main criticism of the book was that it was bad as a book.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 10:39:36 GMT -6
No one really has any authority to make that statement, being that there are so many interpretive views, and diverging perspectives. condemned at an official council Any official council would have been Catholic. Unless one is Catholic, these councils are not necessarily binding, or are more-or-less so, depending on who one talks to. the doctrine of the Trinity Not all Christians are Trinitarian. Trinitarian Christians making the claim that only Trinitarian Christians are true/real Christians, basically monopolizes the faith in favor of those who agree, ostracizing those who may not. People are allowed to view things differently, and that brings me to the subject of the OP. Many people are quick to jump on anything they see as heresy, while neglecting to see that their own view is, or may be, heretical to someone else. A lot of people are talking about this book in recent years, and while I haven't read the book, nor seen the movie, I have read LOTS of commentary (mostly by people who have neither read the book, nor seen the movie either). What this does show me, is the quickness with which many people have the tendency to pounce on anything they think is wrong, more often than not getting pretty nasty with words over how superior their own view is over all else (which is basically 'individual popery,' in my opinion; everyone has become their own pope, and dictates what dogma all others are to follow). So, what about the book? I dunno. Maybe it can be used for God's glory, or maybe it's dangerous. Maybe it's a bit of both. "Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God." - 1 Corinthians 4:5
|
|
|
Post by Kerrick on Mar 17, 2017 10:41:41 GMT -6
Many people are quick to jump on anything they see as heresy, while neglecting to see that their own view is, or may be, heretical to someone else. Is heresy subjective?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 10:49:51 GMT -6
I've never really thought of it that way, but... that would depend on how one looks at it, haha. Seriously though, one can hardly say that there is general consensus among Christians except on a few major doctrinal points, let alone on what does/doesn't constitue as heresy. Now, I say this as someone who has actually done a lot of "calling out heretics" in the past. Further research and study into various groups, denominations, and ideologies within Christianity has shown me that, despite what we think, how we view Scripture, or our respective views on whatever... ...we basically do the best we can with what we've got, and hold to our convictions the best we can. That's only a bad thing in direct ratio to how much we bite/devour one another, which is a sad occurrence.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrick on Mar 17, 2017 11:07:50 GMT -6
I've never really thought of it that way, but... that would depend on how one looks at it, haha. [rofl] Seriously though, one can hardly say that there is general consensus among Christians except on a few major doctrinal points, let alone on what does/doesn't constitue as heresy. Now, I say this as someone who has actually done a lot of "calling out heretics" in the past. Further research and study into various groups, denominations, and ideologies within Christianity has shown me that, despite what we think, how we view Scripture, or our respective views on whatever... ...we basically do the best we can with what we've got, and hold to our convictions the best we can. That's only a bad thing in direct ratio to how much we bite/devour one another, which is a sad occurrence. I agree with that... but where do you draw the line? (This is a theme that has come up elsewhere too.) There have to be boundary lines somewhere that distinguish Christianity from other religions. Carving a stump, worshiping it, and calling it "god" is heresy because it is outside the boundaries of orthodox Christianity. Paul has very strong words in his letters for people who twist and contort the Truth into something that still uses "God" and "Jesus" by name but not in line with Scriptures. Just because someone claims they worship "Jesus" doesn't mean they are in fact worshiping the true Jesus. It all comes down to where to draw that line! IMO it would be wrong for the Calvinist to call the Armenian a heretic, but right to call a Mormon a heretic because Calvinism and Arminianism are within the boundaries of orthodox Christianity and Mormonism lies beyond those boundaries. Not all Christians are Trinitarian. Trinitarian Christians making the claim that only Trinitarian Christians are true/real Christians, basically monopolizes the faith in favor of those who agree, ostracizing those who may not. Perhaps this is a topic for another thread... but what is the alternative to believing in the Trinity with regards to Christianity? Honestly I am just completely ignorant of any other "Christian" understanding that rejects the Trinity but am very curious.
|
|
|
Post by barabbas on Mar 17, 2017 11:54:43 GMT -6
People are allowed to view things differently, and that brings me to the subject of the OP. Many people are quick to jump on anything they see as heresy, while neglecting to see that their own view is, or may be, heretical to someone else. A lot of people are talking about this book in recent years, and while I haven't read the book, nor seen the movie, I have read LOTS of commentary (mostly by people who have neither read the book, nor seen the movie either). What this does show me, is the quickness with which many people have the tendency to pounce on anything they think is wrong, more often than not getting pretty nasty with words over how superior their own view is over all else (which is basically 'individual popery,' in my opinion; everyone has become their own pope, and dictates what dogma all others are to follow). Please forgive me if I came across as pouncing or nasty or poperific or whatever. I dislike online forums because they omit so much information, such as tone, etc. I meant to report what others had made as a criticism and which criticism I'd heard that seemed the most serious. Theologically, I believe it's serious, but I'm not too worried about it regarding The Shack because that's a fictional work. I apologize if my online presence comes across as obnoxious, rude, condescending, or whatever. I endeavor not to intend it that way. No one really has any authority to make that statement, being that there are so many interpretive views, and diverging perspectives. I'll restate what I said in a different way: A heresy is something condemned at an official council. Patripassionism was condemned at an official council. Therefore, patripassionism is a heresy. You seem to disagree with the first premise, which is fine. But what I said was: if you think of heresy as being what the first premise states, then the film contains heresy. That's not an issue of authority, just of definition (and logic). (Authority is a can of worms I won't open here.) If you don't think of heresy that way, then fine. Personally, I wasn't saying either way whether patripassionism is a heresy or whether the book/film contains heresy. That's what others have said about it. condemned at an official council Any official council would have been Catholic. Unless one is Catholic, these councils are not necessarily binding, or are more-or-less so, depending on who one talks to. I suppose I would say that that too depends on your interpretation. Some Christians have contended that the church didn't even begin until their denomination began. I believe that's a mistaken view of church history. As a Protestant, I'd say the councils are not equal to Scripture, but are extremely important as interpretations of it. They shouldn't be abandoned lightly, but we should endeavor to understand them and guide our own interpretations by them. If we think we need to depart from them, that is permitted. This is the sense in which I'd say these councils are binding for Protestants. All of the ecumenical councils occurred before any of the many splits in the Christian church occurred. Therefore, most Christians adhere to them. the doctrine of the Trinity Not all Christians are Trinitarian. Trinitarian Christians making the claim that only Trinitarian Christians are true/real Christians, basically monopolizes the faith in favor of those who agree, ostracizing those who may not. That's a whole discussion in it's own right. Like Kerrick, I'd draw the Christian boundaries with the doctrine of the Trinity. I might even argue that it's the most important facet of Christianity. It's probably better not to get into the discussion just now, but here's the argument in brief. If God is not triune, then Jesus was not fully God, then 1) God has not fully been revealed to us and remains mostly mysterious and 2) we don't need God himself to save us, which means we can save ourselves. In short, no Trinity, no salvation. (Alternatively: no Trinity, then sin isn't really much of a problem.)
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Mar 17, 2017 13:30:11 GMT -6
I think this is what bugs me more than anything. Its not what the actual doctrine is or isn't... its getting the heresy branding kit out and branding people heretics when things (not even pertinent to direct salvation) are at stake. If we're going to be accurate about that, lets also be accurate that a synonym of heretic is blasphemer. Ok, so its no secret here that I have universalist views. Saying I'm incorrect, debating me on it, trying to change my mind regarding it - that's one thing, and quite acceptable to me. Saying that what I believe is HERESY is also saying that I've blasphemed, also that I'm a blasphemer, unpardoned by God, destined for hell. I'm saved by grace - not damned by a loophole, and it cuts deep when my brothers not only proclaim otherwise, but try to tear me down emotionally in the process. That's only a bad thing in direct ratio to how much we bite/devour one another, which is a sad occurrence. THIS. Times a googol. (1.0 x 10 to the 100th power.)
|
|
|
Post by Kerrick on Mar 17, 2017 14:05:18 GMT -6
Saying I'm incorrect, debating me on it, trying to change my mind regarding it - that's one thing, and quite acceptable to me. Saying that what I believe is HERESY is also saying that I've blasphemed, also that I'm a blasphemer, unpardoned by God, destined for hell. I'm saved by grace - not damned by a loophole, and it cuts deep when my brothers not only proclaim otherwise, but try to tear me down emotionally in the process. Fair, but again, where is that line drawn? It DOES exist... somewhere. And that's where things get tricky (let alone heated and personal). Let's go back to Mormonism because there are no Mormons here (that I'm aware of) so it'll be a bit less personal. If we had a Mormon user, he or she might feel "cut deep" that [most] protestants [here or elsewhere] do not believe he or she is a Christian - even though they believe in "Jesus." Just because a Mormon might think we're all brothers in Christ*, it doesn't mean that we actually are. And if they're emotionally hurt over it, I'd say that's irrelevant to the issue at hand: eternal salvation. So is universalism within the boundaries of Truth? Maybe, maybe not. Is it fair to claim it - or Mormonism or whatever - heresy, as hurtful as it may be? Again, maybe. If someone believes it truly IS a matter of salvation and it's consistent with the teachings of Scripture, I think they should confront it. In the end, it's the loving thing to do (so long as it is genuinely out of love and not just to "be right"). *To my understanding, they do not. According to this source I just found on an online search, only Mormons go to heaven because you have to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet to be saved.
|
|
|
Post by barabbas on Mar 17, 2017 14:25:34 GMT -6
I think this is what bugs me more than anything. Its not what the actual doctrine is or isn't... its getting the heresy branding kit out and branding people heretics when things (not even pertinent to direct salvation) are at stake. If we're going to be accurate about that, lets also be accurate that a synonym of heretic is blasphemer. Ok, so its no secret here that I have universalist views. Saying I'm incorrect, debating me on it, trying to change my mind regarding it - that's one thing, and quite acceptable to me. Saying that what I believe is HERESY is also saying that I've blasphemed, also that I'm a blasphemer, unpardoned by God, destined for hell. I'm saved by grace - not damned by a loophole, and it cuts deep when my brothers not only proclaim otherwise, but try to tear me down emotionally in the process. That's only a bad thing in direct ratio to how much we bite/devour one another, which is a sad occurrence. THIS. Times a googol. (1.0 x 10 to the 100th power.) Thomas, when you say "this is what bugs me," what are you referring to? Was it something I said? It's probably a mistake, but I'll say a few more things. (I'm hoping for clarity and charity.) I absolutely agree that the word heresy is far overused. As a result, it has taken on far more meanings than it originally had. (That means we need to ask how a person is using it.) In general, I think most people need to stop using it most of the time, because it is not longer communicating clearly to use it. It is not generally used the was it was approached historically. (In agreement with Kerrick, there are places where the term is apt.) Second, as used by the church fathers, it does have strong connotations, but I would think that the scope of things about which one could be heretical would be fairly small. (I believe this is in agreement with you, Thomas.) Third, thank God, most of us are better or worse than our theories. I wouldn't assert that belief in a heresy would be damning. (For example, I think that God must be triune for us to be saved, but someone could be saved without believing that God is triune.) I do not think that heresy = blasphemy = lack of pardon = hell. Also, heresy doesn't equal any old false belief. Thomas, my apologies to you if felt something I said was meant to damn, corner, belittle, browbeat, or otherwise emotionally abuse you. (Same for you, Michael) Trying as best as he can to avoid biting and devouring anyone, Barabbas P.S. I doubt you folks taste very good anyway. [roar] (no offense.)
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Mar 17, 2017 14:30:05 GMT -6
My mom's best friend is Mormon. She didn't used to be, but aligns with them because she loves her church. They've talked. We've talked. I can't distinguish any difference from what she believes and Christianity and I've "heard" all the Morman shenanigans "Christians" have said they believe. I'd venture to say not all Mormon's believe the same doctrine, same with Catholics, same with whatever. The heresy hammer should never be swung at a group because of what you've read online ie: saying what other people believe; not hearing it directly from them. Fair, but again, where is that line drawn? It DOES exist... somewhere. So is universalism within the boundaries of Truth? Maybe, maybe not. Is it fair to claim it - or Mormonism or whatever - heresy, as hurtful as it may be? Again, maybe. Exhibit B. Swinging the heresy hammer should be when you've never been more sure of anything in your life. Damning someone on a "maybe, maybe not" tells another story. Shoot first, ask questions later is not a good way to get someone to join your flock. To the contrary, they're only going to remember a hammer wielding maniac and descend further from the direction you want them to go. (considering the act, this is where I say "maybe, maybe not" on Christians hammering for change. "Maybe" I think its deliberate harm. "Maybe not".) Any potential or misguided Christians will not come around because that heresy headwound throbs with spite. I will attest to this first hand and a well worded Google search will show I'm not the only one.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Mar 17, 2017 14:32:51 GMT -6
Thomas, when you say "this is what bugs me," what are you referring to? Was it something I said? Not at all. What bugs me is what I said after that sentence. ("attacking" Christians over doctrine that doesn't mean jack shit in correlation to their accepting of Jesus Christ as savior - that's what bugs me)
|
|
|
Post by barabbas on Mar 17, 2017 14:51:15 GMT -6
Thomas, when you say "this is what bugs me," what are you referring to? Was it something I said? Not at all. What bugs me is what I said after that sentence. ("attacking" Christians over doctrine that doesn't mean jack shit in correlation to their accepting of Jesus Christ as savior - that's what bugs me) Thank you for the clarification, brother. I thought the "this" was pointing backward. But it was pointing forward.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Mar 17, 2017 14:55:29 GMT -6
That's what I get for posting ala stream of consciousness. LOL
|
|
|
Post by barabbas on Mar 17, 2017 15:07:14 GMT -6
That's what I get for reading ala stream of consciousness . . .! [piano]
|
|
|
Post by Kerrick on Mar 17, 2017 17:00:10 GMT -6
I'd venture to say not all Mormon's believe the same doctrine, same with Catholics, same with whatever. The heresy hammer should never be swung at a group because of what you've read online ie: saying what other people believe; not hearing it directly from them. Well, yes maybe there could be a "Mormon" who rejects Joseph Smith, rejects the Mormon understanding of the origin of God (being once a man), and all the extra-biblical teachings of Mormonism... but then that's not Mormonism. I think comparing it to Catholicism is unfair because that's more of a grey area IMO, though - just like the Protestant church - in Catholicism there are those saved and those who think they're saved but are fooled. So in that regard, you're totally right: it is unfair to sweep so vastly. For the sake of ease, it may be best to just assume any time I am talking about someone belonging to that religion, it should be prefixed with the word "orthodox." I've spoken at length about Mormonism with a good friend of mine who is a former Mormon. It is not Christianity... Exhibit B. Swinging the heresy hammer should be when you've never been more sure of anything in your life. Damning someone on a "maybe, maybe not" tells another story. Shoot first, ask questions later is not a good way to get someone to join your flock. To the contrary, they're only going to remember a hammer wielding maniac and descend further down the direction you want them to go. (considering the act, this is where I say "maybe, maybe not" on Christians hammering for change. "Maybe" I think its deliberate harm. "Maybe not".) Any potential or misguided Christians will not come around because that heresy headwound throbs with spite. I will attest to this first hand and a well worded Google search will show I'm not the only one. But what is certain when it comes to the understanding of God by humans? I've been certain of things and been wrong, and uncertain of things and been right. I said "maybe" because just as I am certain of my beliefs, so also are you in yours. (We both can't be right and rather than making the presumption that I'm right, I was trying to humbly suggest its uncertainty.) Absolute Truth isn't subjected to our own certainty. I just didn't want this to turn into another debate over universalism and don't think it's directly relevant to the conversation. You used it as an example and it's a fine example, but I was trying to keep it as just that and avoid going down that rabbit-hole argument. As for the heresy hammer... that's a two-edged sword, er, hammer. Assuming one is not a universalist (because then what does it matter other than making this present life more or less enjoyable), what is worse: the passenger in the car telling the driver, "you're about to drive off a cliff" or "you're a great driver, just go wherever seems good to you - regardless of any cliffs that may or may not be right in front of you"? Now, maybe the more correct analogy would be if in the first scenario the passenger is saying, "you freaking idiot, you're going to drive off the cliff you fool, how dumb are you?!?" That being said, I'd still rather be warned harshly than not warned at all. That doesn't make it right... but considering the alternative, it's not the worst thing someone could do IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Mar 17, 2017 18:09:36 GMT -6
But what is certain when it comes to the understanding of God by humans? I've been certain of things and been wrong, and uncertain of things and been right. I said "maybe" because just as I am certain of my beliefs, so also are you in yours. (We both can't be right and rather than making the presumption that I'm right, I was trying to humbly suggest its uncertainty.) Absolute Truth isn't subjected to our own certainty. Exhibit C. Because of that, people should put away their heresy hammers. ...and I question the motives of anyone who would be bummed over putting their hammer away. As for the heresy hammer... that's a two-edged sword, er, hammer. Assuming one is not a universalist (because then what does it matter other than making this present life more or less enjoyable), what is worse: the passenger in the car telling the driver, "you're about to drive off a cliff" or "you're a great driver, just go wherever seems good to you - regardless of any cliffs that may or may not be right in front of you"? Now, maybe the more correct analogy would be if in the first scenario the passenger is saying, "you freaking idiot, you're going to drive off the cliff you fool, how dumb are you?!?" That being said, I'd still rather be warned harshly than not warned at all. That doesn't make it right... but considering the alternative, it's not the worst thing someone could do IMO. I'm not surprised at this, but your scenario shows me perfectly that you don't understand what I believe. I outlined this, multiple times in that Damnations Details thread... Something told me from the continuing conversation that you guys didn't understand what I was saying, so... I'll try again. The only difference in what you and I believe in terms of hell is I don't think people will be there "forever", and you do. That's it. You and I both believe the unsaved will be "cast" there, you and I both believe hell is an eternal PLACE, you and I believe there will be a great deal of suffering there. The only reason you would even THINK I'd have the attitude of "you're a great driver, just go wherever seems good to you - regardless of any cliffs that may or may not be right in front of you" is that you must have thought I would be telling people "Just be good. You'll still go to heaven anyway." You and I would both would STILL advise strongly against that You and I both have faith That Jesus Christ is Lord He is our salvation We both pray to Him We both try to live good Christian lives We both don't want anyone to go to hell ...so that being said, I ask you or anyone regarding my "universalism", "Why are you holding that hammer and looking at me like that?" "Why are we still talking about whether to use the hammer or not?" ___________________________ Is anyone else seeing the problem with heresy hammers that I'm seeing yet?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 18:22:59 GMT -6
where do you draw the line? I think we can create groups that have agreements on what they accept or reject, but it's problematic when we try to draw the line for other people. We draw the lines for ourselves, because we will be judged according to the same standards we set for others. So, it's not so much everyone else living up to our standards, but us living up to our own standards. what is the alternative to believing in the Trinity with regards to Christianity? There is Unitarianism, as well as Binitarianism, for example. to call a Mormon a heretic because Calvinism and Arminianism are within the boundaries of orthodox Christianity To say this would mean that one has actually set those boundaries. I've come to conclude it's not so much a "different Jesus," than it is, same Jesus, different perspective. With thousands of denominations out there, I'd be willing to bet that we're all wrong, rather than try to pick one who is right above all others. In the end, Jesus knows who are His. Personally, I have enough trouble trying to make sure that I am in the faith, rather than trying to make sure everyone else subscribes to the same variation of faith as me. Please forgive me if I came across as pouncing or nasty or poperific or whatever No worries, you didn't. I just speak in generalities a lot, sorry if my own tone was harsh. I suppose I would say that that too depends on your interpretation. Some Christians have contended that the church didn't even begin until their denomination began. I believe that's a mistaken view of church history. As a Protestant, I'd say the councils are not equal to Scripture, but are extremely important as interpretations of it. They shouldn't be abandoned lightly, but we should endeavor to understand them and guide our own interpretations by them. If we think we need to depart from them, that is permitted. This is the sense in which I'd say these councils are binding for Protestants. All of the ecumenical councils occurred before any of the many splits in the Christian church occurred. Fair enough. Therefore, most Christians adhere to them. Hmm... not sure about that. I would venture to say that most adhere to them without really knowing what they are, or having thought about them very much. If God is not triune, then Jesus was not fully God, then 1) God has not fully been revealed to us and remains mostly mysterious and 2) we don't need God himself to save us, which means we can save ourselves. In short, no Trinity, no salvation. (Alternatively: no Trinity, then sin isn't really much of a problem.) Fair enough. But you should keep in mind that others may have come to different conclusions, and for different reasons. That's really all I'm saying, condeming people right off the bat is to exalt oneself to the role of Inquisitor. I'm saved by grace - not damned by a loophole Haha, well put! Fair, but again, where is that line drawn? It DOES exist... somewhere. And that's where things get tricky (let alone heated and personal). Let's go back to Mormonism because there are no Mormons here (that I'm aware of) so it'll be a bit less personal. If we had a Mormon user, he or she might feel "cut deep" that [most] protestants [here or elsewhere] do not believe he or she is a Christian - even though they believe in "Jesus." Just because a Mormon might think we're all brothers in Christ*, it doesn't mean that we actually are. And if they're emotionally hurt over it, I'd say that's irrelevant to the issue at hand: eternal salvation. So is universalism within the boundaries of Truth? Maybe, maybe not. Is it fair to claim it - or Mormonism or whatever - heresy, as hurtful as it may be? Again, maybe. If someone believes it truly IS a matter of salvation and it's consistent with the teachings of Scripture, I think they should confront it. In the end, it's the loving thing to do (so long as it is genuinely out of love and not just to "be right"). I was baptised Mormon back in 2005. I've since "apostatized" long ago, but I have experienced it from the inside as well as out. One thing I can say, with utmost certainty, is that most Mormons' conservatism and faith put the majority of today's Christians to shame. Same can be said about JW's. Regardless of what they believe, they hold to their convictions fiercely, and eschew sin and evil wherever they may find it. In the end, we'll be judged according to what we do, not necessarily what we do, or don't, believe. my apologies to you if felt something I said was meant to damn, corner, belittle, browbeat, or otherwise emotionally abuse you. Haha! No worries mate, you're fine. In conclusion: "Orthodox" doesn't really exist anymore, outside the confines of one's congregation, denomination, or interpretation. Hate to say it that way, but it's true. None of us have the right to say what others can or can't believe. Sure, we can disagree, and even bring up solid points as to why... but keep in mind, that each position can be refuted or supported by another position. "Judge nothing before the time." - 1 Cor. 4:5 "Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God." - Rom. 14:22 Do what's right, and you can't go wrong. Personally, I have enough trouble with doing what's right. It's easier for me to harp on the beliefs of others than to do that.
|
|
|
Post by nocturnaliridescence on Mar 17, 2017 19:00:42 GMT -6
...so that being said, I ask you or anyone regarding my "universalism", "Why are you holding that hammer and looking at me like that?" "Why are we still talking about whether to use the hammer or not?" The only concern I have with universalism is that it might mislead certain people. Even if we assume nobody knows for sure if people go to Hell eternally or not, we shouldn't assume it's temporary, or else someone might be tempted to think, "Well, even if Hell is real, I'll only be there a little while."
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Mar 17, 2017 19:35:36 GMT -6
The only concern I have with universalism is that it might mislead certain people. Even if we assume nobody knows for sure if people go to Hell eternally or not, we shouldn't assume it's temporary, or else someone might be tempted to think, "Well, even if Hell is real, I'll only be there a little while." Wow. Imaginative. Who would SERIOUSLY think like this? "Even if the torture is real, I'll only be tortured for a little while" Would you be ok with a little torture, especially if the other option is none at all? Come on man. That being said, as far as how long I think people will be in hell for, and since you've already thrown around "a little while", I wonder if I don't say anything if some Christians will think, "That means Tom thinks they'll only be cooked for a minute and a half! HAMMER TIME!!!!"
|
|
|
Post by barabbas on Mar 17, 2017 21:21:11 GMT -6
I'm not surprised at this, but your scenario shows me perfectly that you don't understand what I believe. I outlined this, multiple times in that Damnations Details thread... Something told me from the continuing conversation that you guys didn't understand what I was saying, so... I'll try again. I've not been involved in that conversation, but perhaps part of the confusion comes from your label for your belief. I suppose it is a form of universalism, but universalists don't typically affirm that some will go to hell. Usually, universalists hold that people get a second chance to choose Christ after death. Your view seems like a combination of purgatory and universalism. The only reason I bring this up, is that it could be some are missing your view because of the label. Maybe your view needs a new label! I'll call it the Everysoul view, as in every soul ends up in heaven. (See what I did there?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 21:39:21 GMT -6
In the end, we'll be judged according to what we do, not necessarily what we do, or don't, believe. I apologize if I'm simply misunderstanding what you meant by this, but from what I understand, only unbelievers are judged according to their bad deeds. Believers are judged according to their good deeds, and the bad deeds are forgiven. In the end, the difference between going to heaven or hell is simply in belief. As for little theological differences, those don't determine heaven or hell. Wow. Imaginative. Who would SERIOUSLY think like this? "Even if the torture is real, I'll only be tortured for a little while" Would you be ok with a little torture, especially if the other option is none at all? Come on man. I agree with NI here. Though it seems ridiculous to us, I could legitimately imagine an unbeliever thinking this. Although I don't think that casting fear of hell into people's minds is the best way to evangelize (I don't think it's a good way at all), giving them the idea that it could be temporary decreases any kind of motivation to pursue God, no matter how slight. This is because it offers a little bit of hope. Imagine being an unbeliever, dying, seeing God, realizing you were wrong, and then going to hell. If hell was eternal, at that point there would be no hope. There would be nothing to look forward to. Just eternal suffering. But if hell was temporary, you would have a little bit of hope. The thought occupying your mind every moment would be "someday this will be over". Even if hell lasts for 10^100 years, that's still infinitely better for the unbeliever than it lasting eternally. I'm not necessarily trying to contradict your universalism. In fact, I might even agree with you. I haven't developed a personal idea on what hell might be like, because as a believer, it's not something that really affects me. I don't think it's something that we should even worry about. As long as we believe in Christ, we are all saved.
|
|
|
Post by barabbas on Mar 17, 2017 21:42:06 GMT -6
what is the alternative to believing in the Trinity with regards to Christianity? There is Unitarianism, as well as Binitarianism, for example. Yes, those are alternatives. But Kerrick's question is whether they are alternatives within Christianity or outside of it. Just because the label "Christian" is claimed doesn't make it so. Therefore, most Christians adhere to them. Hmm... not sure about that. I would venture to say that most adhere to them without really knowing what they are, or having thought about them very much. Agreed! If God is not triune, then Jesus was not fully God, then 1) God has not fully been revealed to us and remains mostly mysterious and 2) we don't need God himself to save us, which means we can save ourselves. In short, no Trinity, no salvation. (Alternatively: no Trinity, then sin isn't really much of a problem.) Fair enough. But you should keep in mind that others may have come to different conclusions, and for different reasons. That's really all I'm saying, condeming people right off the bat is to exalt oneself to the role of Inquisitor. In conclusion: "Orthodox" doesn't really exist anymore, outside the confines of one's congregation, denomination, or interpretation. Hate to say it that way, but it's true. None of us have the right to say what others can or can't believe. Sure, we can disagree, and even bring up solid points as to why... but keep in mind, that each position can be refuted or supported by another position. "Judge nothing before the time." - 1 Cor. 4:5 "Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God." - Rom. 14:22 Do what's right, and you can't go wrong. Personally, I have enough trouble with doing what's right. It's easier for me to harp on the beliefs of others than to do that. I certainly know that other people have different conclusions and different reasons. I'm interested in what constitutes better and worse conclusions and reasons. I wonder what you mean by orthodox here? If you mean there are no such truths, I disagree. (Surely God would be in possession of them.) I suspect you might mean that no human is in possession of such truths. Is that your view? I suppose it could be right that no one has the right to say what others can and can't believe. We certainly can't stop anyone from believing what they want. But we can encourage others to strengthen their beliefs so that they have better ones. As Kerrick has been trying to claim, people's well-being is at stake.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2017 8:20:38 GMT -6
I apologize if I'm simply misunderstanding what you meant by this, but from what I understand, only unbelievers are judged according to their bad deeds. Believers are judged according to their good deeds, and the bad deeds are forgiven. In the end, the difference between going to heaven or hell is simply in belief. As for little theological differences, those don't determine heaven or hell. You may be correct in that assertion, I can certainly see how one could come to that conclusion from Scriptural evidence. In the end, I guess it amounts to the same thing, we're judged according to our actions. Exactly how it works, the mechanics of it, are left up to theologians to squabble over (which, in my opinion, is pointless and unnecessary, which would be my main point). Yes, those are alternatives. But Kerrick's question is whether they are alternatives within Christianity or outside of it. Just because the label "Christian" is claimed doesn't make it so. I understand. The problem becomes us labeling who is inside/outside of Christianity. We create our criteria for how to determine who is, or isn't 'really' Christian, and then subject everyone to the test. The problem is that everyone already does it to everyone else. Those we place on the outside of Christianity, themselves, have their own criteria for determining why we're really outside, and they're really inside. This is a terrible way to establish validity, by proclaiming anyone outside of our criteria as non-Christian. Of course, this has been the Christian way for 2000 years, why stop now? Realizing this fault, I just think it makes more sense to let Mormons be Mormons, Catholics be Catholics, JW's be JW's, Evangelicals be Evangelicals, etc., etc. If they claim to be Christian, then let them. Disagree if you must, but work together unto the Lord, to whom we all stand or fall. If you're a Christian, continue being one to the best of your ability, whether or not the entire world (or Church) casts you out as a heretic. You'll only have to answer for yourself on Judgment Day (and I suspect that points will be given for mercy, rather than how many people one convinced theologically). I wonder what you mean by orthodox here? If you mean there are no such truths, I disagree. (Surely God would be in possession of them.) I suspect you might mean that no human is in possession of such truths. Is that your view? No, not at all, I do believe in such truths, even that they can be ascertained. What I mean rather, is that "orthodoxy" has degenerated over the last two millenia on account of every group proclaiming its own orthodoxy, and attempting to subject everyone else to it, or else. Basically, what happens, is you get several different systems of 'orthodoxy' all in competition. If God is not the author of confusion, then this has to be pure poppycock, at very least, an inferior approach. (And before one blames the Devil for being the author of confusion, I'd like to point out that the Scripture does not make that assertion either: "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." 1 Cor. 14:33 We really don't need the Devil to confuse us, we seem to be quite good at confusing ourselves without his help.) I suppose it could be right that no one has the right to say what others can and can't believe. We certainly can't stop anyone from believing what they want. But we can encourage others to strengthen their beliefs so that they have better ones. As Kerrick has been trying to claim, people's well-being is at stake. I think that is a fair way to look at it, yes. People's well-being may be at stake, but let's not forget that we're not so far off from a time where people... believers... were once put to the stake for their well-being. Sometimes I think the Inquisition never really stopped, that many of us continue to rake one another over the coals for whatever we perceive as heresy; and that if we could still execute our brethren for the crime of heresy, many of us would. That time is not so far away, and the remnants of the attitudes of our forbears still linger in the doctrines we appropriate from them. We are all descended from someone, after all.
|
|
|
Post by barabbas on Mar 19, 2017 21:55:35 GMT -6
I really appreciate where you're coming from (and I think Thomas, too): far too often, ideas, religious and otherwise, have been used to manipulate and hurt others. I imagine it's awful to be other other end of an attack from a church or religious point of view.
My wish is for some balance. My concern is that taking the attitude of "live and let live, just let everyone believe what they want" too quickly turns faith into something private and irrelevant. From there, what's the point of faith at all? In America (and I suspect, in other Western countries), it's far too easy to make faith a purely private and subjective thing that makes no claims or demands and doesn't connect with any facts at all.
Finding a balance is really difficult. In my view, it requires both having convictions and being civil about how one conveys those convictions. It's easier to abandon either civility or convictions. (I'm not accusing anyone here of either one. I'm only explaining how I try to approach these things, and why I think it's worthwhile to have these kinds of discussions, even in the less-than-ideal format of an internet forum.)
Anyway, blessings to you all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 8:22:07 GMT -6
I hear where you're coming from. I guess the way I see it, is that there is an Enemy who hates us, there is a world who is against us, and most of the time the Church is distracted with in-fighting, trying to convert other Christians to their own brand of the faith so they can finally be right with God. It's a little backwards, imo, and certainly not a good battle tactic in a spiritual war. Personally, I think this is actually the tactic of the Enemy, to use us to attack each other so he doesn't have to. Divide and conquer. In my opinion, the Church of Christ is already united by faith and Spirit, so the lines we draw to separate ourselves from one another are largely imaginary. As for what constitutes a real Christian, I agree there should be (and are) criteria to evaluate that. But, keeping that in mind (and keeping in mind that criteria may vary from group to group based on tradition or interpretation), we should also remember that everyone has free will (or at least agency to respond, for any Calvinist/Predestinarian folk out there ) and chooses to follow Christ according to what they have been convinced is the right way. We all do that, and sometimes that changes along the way (Catholics become Protestants, and vice versa) according to conscience and information. But even if we're wrong about Christ, or have some wrong views, or have even been deceived in some way, yet Christ Himself remains true, and our faith in Him cannot be vain if it is real. Anyway, just my two cents. I think Christians need to work together in their struggle against a common Enemy, rather than in their struggle to convert each other to their own opinions and interpretational idiosyncracies.
|
|