Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is Sola Scritura from Scripture?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Where did I say God was not eternal?
    Near the Peoples' Republic of Davis, south of the State of Jefferson (Suspended between Left and Right)

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Adam View Post
      Where did I say God was not eternal?
      Where did I say you did?

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Adam View Post
        Mossy says so, because I believe that current evil beings, demons and such derive from an original Evil, uncreated by our God, but whom God has foreborn [sic] obliteration, out of His great mercy. I consider myself fully orthodox with the unusual plus of a theodicy that solves the Problem of Evil.
        (The Bible nowhere states that God created Satan or even the angels.)

        (Regarding Martin Luther, I should have added that he translated all 66 books of the Bible in spite of his reservations about Esther, James, and perhaps others.)
        Thank you for your explanation. If you am understanding you correctly, you believe that there are some beings (or things) that were not created by God. If so, this belief alone would place you outside the realm of ‘orthodoxy’, I’m afraid. (I will not derail the thread any further.)
        For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
          37818:

          Regarding the question of whether the concept of sola scriptura may be derived from Scripture, I will simply say this: if one should become convinced of the falsity of sola scriptura, he/she will likely find him-/herself drawn towards Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism (assuming he or she remains a believer).
          I'm not sure why you bring this up, since it doesn't appear to address the question itself in any way. I agree that Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are the most objective alternatives to sola scriptura. In my case, I'm not sure which happened first. I was interested in Eastern Orthodoxy well before I had any desire to convert.
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
            .... If [I] am understanding you correctly, you believe that there are some beings (or things) that were not created by God. If so, this belief alone would place you outside the realm of ‘orthodoxy’, I’m afraid....
            Not necessarily.
            The remaining Evil-ness in this universe may have arisen independently of God, in some inter-related "soup" before God distanced Himself from the Other, or as "stuff" "created" by God before God set it aside as something not good. But I do believe firmly that our God we worship did not wantonly create Evil as such knowing it would be irremediably evil forever. That last "out" may be a good fit with Origen's belief that eventually even Satan will be saved.
            So one way or another, I guess you can fairly say that my orthodoxy is at least as questionable as Origen's. I have been saying for decades (including when I was Roman Catholic) that I am an Origenist. (Origen was the first great Christian theologian, only eclipsed around 400 A. D. by Augustine of Hippo.)
            Last edited by Adam; 12-19-2015, 11:38 AM.
            Near the Peoples' Republic of Davis, south of the State of Jefferson (Suspended between Left and Right)

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Adam View Post
              Not necessarily.
              The remaining Evil-ness in this universe may have arisen independently of God, in some inter-related "soup" before God distanced Himself from the Other, or as "stuff" "created" by God before God set it aside as something not good. But I do believe firmly that our God we worship did not wantonly create Evil as such knowing it would be irremediably evil forever. That last "out" may be a good fit with Origen's belief that eventually even Satan will be saved.
              So one way or another, I guess you can fairly say that my orthodoxy is at least as questionable as Origen's. I have been saying for decades (including when I was Roman Catholic) that I am an Origenist. (Origen was the first great Christian theologian, only eclipsed around 400 A. D. by Augustine of Hippo.)
              I'm certanily no expert on Origen, but it seems like your belief may be in some respects the opposite of Origen's. Whereas he believed that Satan might eventually be saved, you said above something to the effect that he would eventually be obliterated. Did you mean that he would be saved or destroyed? Also, I do not think that Origen believed in some original Evil, uncreated by our God. Are you saying that he did? Do you have any specific references? Whether or not it is Origen's view, it is a form of dualism that I don't think anyone would consider orthodox, 'though there are indeed ways of reading the Genesis account that do not necessarily imply creatio ex nihilo.
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                I'm pretty sure postulating anything other than God as being eternal puts you squarely outside orthodoxy, no matter what your own opinion on the matter might be.
                Yeah, this gets into all sorts of sticky side topics. In order to make his claim, Adam would have to believe that satan and the demons are not necessarily fallen angels, so that when the Bible refers to the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41), or the dragon and his angels (Revelation 12:7-9), it's referring to other entities (perhaps based on an alternate take on Jude 1:6 and 2 Peter 2:4). He would also have to disagree with Paul in Colossians 1:16 where he says that God has created all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible. There's also the underlying assumption that entities like angels, demons, and satan (and perhaps even humans) don't have free will to do evil.

                Concerning his take on evil, I think the Jewish sage Maimonides take on the subject might be helpful (it is to me at any rate),

                Source: Guide for the Perplexed, Part III, Chapter X

                You know that he who removes the obstacle of motion is to some extent the cause of the motion, e.g., if one removes the pillar which supports the beam he causes the beam to move, as has been stated by Aristotle in his Physics (VIII., chap. iv.); in this sense we say of him who removed a certain property that he produced the absence of that property, although absence of a property is nothing positive. Just as we say of him who puts out the light at night that he has produced darkness, so we say of him who destroyed the sight of any being that he produced blindness, although darkness and blindness are negative properties, and require no agent.

                In accordance with this view we explain the following passage of Isaiah: "I form the light and create (bore) darkness: I make peace, and create (bore) evil" (Isa. xlv. 7), for darkness and evil are non-existing things. Consider that the prophet does not say, I make (‘oseh) darkness, I make (‘oseh) evil, because darkness and evil are not things in positive existence to which the verb "to make" would apply; the verb bara "he created" is used, because in Hebrew this verb is applied to non-existing things e.g., "In the beginning God created" (bara), etc.; here the creation took place from nothing. Only in this sense can non-existence be said to be produced by a certain action of an agent. In the same way we must explain the following passage: "Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or the deaf, or the seeing," etc. (Exod. iv. 11). The passage can also be explained as follows: Who has made man able to speak? or can create him without the capacity of speaking, i.e., create a substance that is incapable of acquiring this property? for he who produces a substance that cannot acquire a certain property may be called the producer of that privation. Thus we say, if any one abstains from delivering a fellow-man from death, although he is able to do so, that he killed him. It is now clear that according to an these different views the action of an agent cannot be directly connected with a thing that does not exist: only indirectly is non-existence described as the result of the action of an agent, whilst in a direct manner an action can only influence a thing really in existence; accordingly, whoever the agent may be, he can only act upon an existing thing.

                After this explanation you must recall to memory that, as has been proved, the [so-called] evils are evils only in relation to a certain thing, and that which is evil in reference to a certain existing thing, either includes the nonexistence of that thing or the non-existence of some of its good conditions. The proposition has therefore been laid down in the most general terms, "All evils are negations." Thus for man death is evil: death is his non-existence. Illness, poverty, and ignorance are evils for man: all these are privations of properties. If you examine all single cases to which this general proposition applies, you will find that there is not one case in which the proposition is wrong except in the opinion of those who do not make any distinction between negative and positive properties, or between two opposites, or do not know the nature of things,--who, e.g., do not know that health in general denotes a certain equilibrium, and is a relative term. The absence of that relation is illness in general, and death is the absence of life in the case of any animal. The destruction of other things; is likewise nothing but the absence of their form.

                After these propositions, it must be admitted as a fact that it cannot be said of God that He directly creates evil, or He has the direct intention to produce evil: this is impossible. His works are all perfectly good. He only produces existence, and all existence is good: whilst evils are of a negative character, and cannot be acted upon. Evil can only he attributed to Him in the way we have mentioned. He creates evil only in so far as He produces the corporeal element such as it actually is: it is always connected with negatives, and is on that account the source of all destruction and all evil. Those beings that do not possess this corporeal element are not subject to destruction or evil: consequently the true work of God is all good, since it is existence. The book which enlightened the darkness of the world says therefore, "And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Gen. i. 31). Even the existence of this corporeal element, low as it in reality is, because it is the source of death and all evils, is likewise good for the permanence of the Universe and the continuation of the order of things, so that one thing departs and the other succeeds.

                © Copyright Original Source



                The Too-Long-Didn't-Read synopsis is that God doesn't create evil, evil is a byproduct of negation in God's good universe. Negations aren't created, as such, since they're simply the lack of a created property.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Thanks, Adrift.
                  I clearly disagree with Maimonides.
                  I clearly disagree with Robrecht's supposition that I take the opposite position from Origen. Over my life I have preferred the "orthodox Origenist" position that Satan would ultimately be saved, particularly in synch with Benedict XVI's and Hans Urs von Balthasar's universalistic proclivities. However, since that doctrine does not explain the origin of the Problem of Evil, I hold open the possibility that God kind of evolved in tandem with forces now still opposed to God that God had little or nothing to do with creating or forming, but that God battled (as in Milton's myth of the Battle in Heaven) "them" and (thankfully) won.
                  I don't care to take Paul literarally, though as myself a charismatic I love his pastoral theology. What St. Paul says is good, but not necessarily the final ontological word.
                  Near the Peoples' Republic of Davis, south of the State of Jefferson (Suspended between Left and Right)

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Adam View Post
                    Thanks, Adrift.
                    I clearly disagree with Maimonides.
                    I clearly disagree with Robrecht's supposition that I take the opposite position from Origen. Over my life I have preferred the "orthodox Origenist" position that Satan would ultimately be saved, particularly in synch with Benedict XVI's and Hans Urs von Balthasar's universalistic proclivities. However, since that doctrine does not explain the origin of the Problem of Evil, I hold open the possibility that God kind of evolved in tandem with forces now still opposed to God that God had little or nothing to do with creating or forming, but that God battled (as in Milton's myth of the Battle in Heaven) "them" and (thankfully) won.
                    I don't care to take Paul literarally, though as myself a charismatic I love his pastoral theology. What St. Paul says is good, but not necessarily the final ontological word.
                    Rather than disagree with my supposition, why not just answer my question? When you said above something to the effect that Satan would eventually be obliterated, did you mean that he would be saved or destroyed?
                    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      "obliteration" as in " but whom God has foreborne obliteration, out of His great mercy", where I said God has NOT obliterated? That this implies God just delays in teasing or torturing along the way to annihilation? That's not what I said. Not that I deny God the right to obliterate whomever He will.

                      So if I ignored you it was just to spare you embarrassment regarding your error.

                      It's rather discouraging that so many here "amened" your error. Why do people hate me so much? (I'm not saying that YOU do, Robrecht.) I'm just defending God as all Good.
                      Last edited by Adam; 12-19-2015, 11:31 PM.
                      Near the Peoples' Republic of Davis, south of the State of Jefferson (Suspended between Left and Right)

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Adam View Post
                        "obliteration" as in " but whom God has foreborne obliteration, out of His great mercy", where I said God has NOT obliterated? That this implies God just delays in teasing or torturing along the way to annihilation? That's not what I said. Not that I deny God the right to obliterate whomever He will.

                        So if I ignored you it was just to spare you embarrassment regarding your error.

                        It's rather discouraging that so many here "amened" your error. Why do people hate me so much? (I'm not saying that YOU do, Robrecht.) I'm just defending God as all Good.
                        Why do you consider it an error to simply ask you a clarifying question? So, again, just so that I might better understand your views, you do not think that God will obliterate or destroy Satan but rather that Satan will eventually be saved--is that right?

                        Next question: I've heard some say that Origen did not defend creatio ex nihilo. Is that also your opinion of Origen? Is that also your own view? Do you also not believe in creatio ex nihilo? It sounds as if you do not, but I just want to make sure i understand your position. My own understanding, and again I am no expert on Origen's views, is that Origen did indeed defend creatio ex nihilo.

                        By the way, I certainly do not hate you, and I am glad that you do not think that I do. I can't speak for others here, but do you really think they hate you? Or are you just joking about that?
                        Last edited by robrecht; 12-20-2015, 04:28 AM.
                        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Adam View Post
                          It's rather discouraging that so many here "amened" your error. Why do people hate me so much? (I'm not saying that YOU do, Robrecht.) I'm just defending God as all Good.
                          I sorta mentioned this in another thread, but you really need to get over this victim complex of yours. I doubt anyone on this forum hates you. I'm guessing most people around here barely think about you one way or the other (though announcing a dirty dozen list of people you don't particularly like is probably not helping you make friends).

                          I amened robrecht's post because his point about your dualistic beliefs are not what most Christians would consider orthodox.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                            So, again, just so that I might better understand your views, you do not think that God will obliterate or destroy Satan but rather that Satan will eventually be saved--is that right?

                            Next question: I've heard some say that Origen did not defend creatio ex nihilo. Is that also your opinion of Origen? Is that also your own view? Do you also not believe in creatio ex nihilo?
                            I can't speak for others here, but do you really think they hate you? Or are you just joking about that?
                            I dunno. I don't have all the answers, just more questions than most people.
                            Near the Peoples' Republic of Davis, south of the State of Jefferson (Suspended between Left and Right)

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              I amened robrecht's post because his point about your dualistic beliefs are not what most Christians would consider orthodox.
                              I'm a chastened panentheist.
                              Near the Peoples' Republic of Davis, south of the State of Jefferson (Suspended between Left and Right)

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X