If God is X, Y, or Z

[Homer]

There are a number of "isms" relative to the Christian religion and doctrine. Dispensationalism, Calvinism, Open Theism, Universalism, etc., etc. Consider a situation where a person is confronted with a number of these "isms"; and let us designate the various "isms" with letters of the alphabet. The person considers Christianity, and he hears about Xism and considers this doctrine about God as being repugnant to him. He can not believe in a God that has that characteristic and although doctrine W and Y are attractive, he can not believe in a God who is X. Then he hears about Zism and is interested that God might have that characteristic. And Zism contradicts the repugnant X. Both can not be true. He learns more about Z and finds Christianity attractive to him and becomes a convert to Christianity.

The person dies and faces the Lord on judgement day. To his chagrin, he finds that X is true about God and Z is false. He has become a Christian based on X being false; otherwise he never would have become a Christian. So what happens to him now?

Wouldn't it be best to submit to God as Lord and Saviour now, trusting that He is good, His judgements are right, whether our "isms" are all correct or not? Regardless of whether He fits our idea of what He should be? Especially since the default position is not a position we want to be in. And it is no help to believe that if our concept of God, in all aspects, is not correct, then there can be no God.

[Candlepower]

Homer said

Wouldn't it be best to submit to God as Lord and Saviour now, trusting that He is good, His judgements are right, whether our "isms" are all correct or not? Regardless of whether He fits our idea of what He should be?

You raise some good points Homer. So often in this Christian family of ours (this body of brothers and sisters called the Church), we are guilty of eating our own. I know there are times for iron to sharpen iron, but sometimes I think we are too eager to see sparks fly and watch things ignite (James 3:5,6). Contending for the faith is a good thing, but having a contentious spirit is not.

I think the folks on this forum (for the most part) do an outstanding job of contending without being purposely offensive. I have learned a lot not only by "listening" to what they write, but also by "hearing" how they say it. The ability to be frank and fair is a valuable craft; to speak the truth with grace is a precious commodity.

God could have made everything in Scripture perfectly clear and could have made it so we all understood it all exactly alike -- no disagreements -- robotic. Perhaps God's making some things unclear allows us opportunities to extend grace to fellow believers who may not see things just the way we do. There are abundant opportunities.

I was going to include several quotes from Romans 14 with this post, but you can re-read it yourself. That passage relates very well to the truth I think you are getting at, Homer. It doesn't tell us to desist from disagreeing, but to do it in love. I love that chapter. It has been so helpful to me, because I have a bad habit of being contentious for the sake of being contentious. It is a pride thing.

Candlepower

[steve7150]

Wouldn't it be best to submit to God as Lord and Saviour now, trusting that He is good, His judgements are right, whether our "isms" are all correct or not? Regardless of whether He fits our idea of what He should be? Especially since the default position is not a position we want to be in. And it is no help to believe that if our concept of God, in all aspects, is not correct, then there can be no God.Homer





Yes , but God has put in all of us a portion of what He is, meaning we long for justice & righteousness & truth which are his attributes but we do all look through the dark glass and try to find clarity , but it seems to be just out of our grasp.
Therefore God demands that we must leave certain things to him and i agree our default position must be to trust Him. There really is no other way.

[look2jesus]

Homer,

Greetings. I'm not real clear on the point you're trying to get across.

Wouldn't it be best to submit to God as Lord and Saviour now, trusting that He is good, His judgements are right, whether our "isms" are all correct or not? Regardless of whether He fits our idea of what He should be? Especially since the default position is not a position we want to be in. And it is no help to believe that if our concept of God, in all aspects, is not correct, then there can be no God.

Isn't this another "ism"?

P.S. Nice avatar Candlepower, it makes your posts more recognizable!

[Homer]

Hi look2jesus,

My only point is this: If we consider the doctrines about God/Jesus of a particular group and say that "I could never believe in a God like that", then it would seem to me we are in a precarious position on judgement day if God is "like that".

For example, I am convinced Calvinism is wrong, based on the scriptures and my view of God. At the same time, I see it as a completely logical and plausable system, and admit the possibility it is correct. If I state that I could never accept God if He is like the Calvinist picture of Him, and it turns out they are correct, then I am in a heap of trouble it would seem. And people say similar things about various other beliefs Christians have.

God is holy and just, and far above our ways, and sometimes we are perilously close to putting "God in the dock". A little humility on our part is a good thing, I think.

Romans 11:33 "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgements and His ways past finding out!

May God bless you, Homer

[backwoodsman]

My only point is this: If we consider the doctrines about God/Jesus of a particular group and say that "I could never believe in a God like that", then it would seem to me we are in a precarious position on judgement day if God is "like that".

The New Testament makes a pretty big deal of both knowing God on a personal relationship level, and knowledge of God, i.e. knowing things about God. It's not possible to make those a priority for very long, and still have a wildly wrong idea of who God is. Of course, if someone misunderstands salvation to be of a legalistic ("I gotta do everything just right or I'm toast") or transactional ("I said the right words and got my ticket") nature, they have to be willing to let go of those ideas before they'll be able to understand much about God's true nature.

Another thought line to the same answer: If a Christian is more concerned about how they'll fare on judgment day than about seeking and following God HERE and NOW, it indicates a serious misunderstanding of God's nature and personality. Many or most of us start out with some of those, but as we grow and mature spiritually, they fade away.

-Dan

[Homer]

Hi Dan,

You mentioned "knowing God on a personal relationship level". This is not biblical language. When you write those words and say the New Testament makes a big deal of it, what scripture passages do you have in mind? Do you mean "Lord and Savior" and God as our Father, or is there something else I am missing? It seems the word "personal" in personal relationship is redundant, and I am never sure what is meant.

Charismatics, Baptists, Calvinists, various Arminians, Lutherans, Evangelical Universalists, and Catholics have various ideas about God that can not all be true and sometimes contradict each other. Do you believe any of them have any "wildly wrong" ideas about God? It would seem necessarily so to me. If what you apppear to be saying is correct, then the best thinkers among these (and other) groups must not be making their relationship with and pursuit of knowledge of God a priority.

Do you see it as a matter of no concern when a person says "I could never believe in the God that the doctrines of 'X' group present", when it can not be certain that "X" group is wrong?

My apology if I have misunderstood your post.

Gob bless, Homer

[Paidion]

The person dies and faces the Lord on judgement day. To his chagrin, he finds that X is true about God and Z is false. He has become a Christian based on X being false; otherwise he never would have become a Christian. So what happens to him now? ...

For example, I am convinced Calvinism is wrong, based on the scriptures and my view of God. At the same time, I see it as a completely logical and plausable system, and admit the possibility it is correct. If I state that I could never accept God if He is like the Calvinist picture of Him, and it turns out they are correct, then I am in a heap of trouble it would seem. And people say similar things about various other beliefs Christians have.

If you admit the possibility that Calvinism is correct, then how can you be convinced that it is wrong? I am convinced that the sum of 2 and 2 is 4. I see no possibility that the sum is 5. If you had said that you see more support for non-Calvinism than for Calvinism, I could make sense of that statement.

In any case, do you have any scripture which indicates that you would be "in a heap of trouble" on judgment day if you hold an incorrect view of God? If this were the case, then I think over 99% of people will be "in a heap of trouble". Do you know anyone whose view of God's character is totally correct?

I find a quite different reason in scripture for being in "a heap of trouble" at the judgment.
Am I incorrect?

[Candlepower]

LookingtoJesus said

Nice avatar Candlepower, it makes your posts more recognizable!

First. Thank you, L2J for the avatar compliment. If I were as handsome as you, I would have put up a photo of me. Here is an actual picture of me.

Second. I agree with all the opinions I presently hold. I can't understand how anyone can disagree with me. When I was a dispensationalist, I was right. When I was an Arminian, I was right. When I became a Reformed Calvinist, I was right again. Now that I am a partial-preterist, non-Calvinist, amillenialist, I'm still right. I confess that I'm sure now that I have been wrong several times in the past, but I have never been wrong in the present. Through it all, since my conversion, I have always believed in the deity of Christ, the blood atonement, the substitutionary death of Christ, His bodily resurrection from the dead, His eventual return at the judgement, and salvation by grace through faith in Christ. And through it all, I have met true believers who once agreed with me about secondary issues, but are now wrong since I became right-er. Some of the folks I used to think were wrong, I have since discovered were right. Funny, but as soon as I agreed they were right, so was I.

Third. Based on my experiences, I suspect that when I get to heaven and see all you folks there, and all the other true believers I've met over the years, I suspect I'll see clearly at what points you and they were right and I was wrong, and vice versa. Until then, I'm right, but not unwilling to change.

Fourth. In introducing someone to Christ, I think it's probably better to avoid secondary, debatable issues. It is good for new disciples to be encouraged to compare Scripture with Scripture and to let God's Word and Spirit be their ultimate guide in doctrinal issues. Above all, encourage them to love God and their fellow man. All other laws hang on this.

Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. (Romans 14:1)

...Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. (Romans 14:5)

Candlepower

[Michelle]

Homer, are you simply calling for submission and humility before God which allows us to be open to His love, mercy, and justice no matter how He works those? If so, I'm with you. Are you saying that a person who confidently proclaims, "The God of "X"ism is a monster whom I cannot bow down before," is revealing a dangerous pride that might destroy him?" If so, I also agree and further believe that he is in danger of falling further from God right now, before the judgement day.

However, if you're simply saying believing something to be true about God, which turns out not to be true, might keep you from eternal life, I don't agree. I'm just like candlepower - I'm right. I was wrong before, and I'll be righter later, at which time I'll know I was wrong today, but it is sort of (well, actually not sort of, but certainly) impossible to believe something you think is wrong or to not believe something you are sure is right.

I'm a bit unclear about what the "heap of trouble" on the judgement day is. If you reject Calvinism, for example, because you believe it presents God as an arbitrary tyrant, which is at odds with your view of God as a loving father, what trouble would you face on the judgement day if it turns out the Calvinists had it completely right? Would you be told, "depart from me you worker of iniquity... you who practices lawlessness," or would the precarious position on judgement day be that you would face eternity forced to worship God whom you find repugnant?

The verses I alluded to, Matthew 7:23 and Luke 13:27, also include the phrase "I never knew you," and "I tell you I do not know you," which seem to imply that those inside have some kind of relationship with Jesus since he seems to know them. However, you took backwoodsman to task when he talked about a relationship with the Lord. You've called for us "to submit to God as Lord and Saviour now, trusting that He is good, His judgements are right..." Doesn't submission carry with it some sort of notion of relationship with God, some kind of knowing God? Frankly, I've come to realize that the more I know God, the more I realize that, as the verse you quoted says, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgements and His ways past finding out!"