CC-Leaving our church (questions/ramblings)

[bolt.]

The fact that Satan is a created being is an essential corollary to God not being created (and unique in that regard).

 

The fact that Satan fell instead of being created evil to begin with is an essential part of the doctrine of sin and the fall of mankind.

 

 

Edited to fix typos.

The idea that Satan (if he is a being, as opposed to being a metaphor, which some Christians believe 'he' is) would be a created being -- since he can't be an uncreated peer of God -- is a step with strong logic, but it's still one step from an essential in my denomination.

 

That idea 'satan is/was in heaven' also has its own secondary steps of logic such as: where he was created, where he lived, that he may have changed 'locations', if so when did that happen, and to where, and the concept that either place is properly called a 'place'.

 

It also depends on three presuppositions: (1) that, if we had the whole story, we could comprehend (it in terms of time and space with our current cognitive abilities), (2) that we do have the whole story, and (3) that we received it through revelation, and interpreted it with excellence and illumination, but other believers have failed in some aspect of that process.

 

With that much human involvement, I expect flaws. Therefore I expect diversity of opinion among believers.

Edited November 10, 2017 by bolt.

[bolt.]

Exactly what Jean in Newcastle said.

Wait, what?

 

You said it was essential to believe satan *didn't* come from God, and Jean said it was essential to believe that God *did* create Satan... but you both think it's an essential of the Christian faith.

 

To clarify: if you believe this point of doctrine is an essential of the Christian faith, are you saying that people who reach different conclusions are therefore not members of the Christian faith? If so, that's harsh.

 

If not, then you are using 'essential' in a different sense from 'essentials of the Christian faith'. I'd love to know what you mean. What is it an essential of?

[Bluegoat]

Essential to what?

 

Monotheism.

 

It sounds like this denomination is dualist, not monotheistic at all.  

[PeachyDoodle]

I have gone to the same church my entire life and we are now leaving it. I realize how damaged my thinking has been by this long time exposure to bad teaching. Long story.

 

Skipping to the good part! I am so excited for these changes. I am having to basically relearn everything but it is so refreshing. We are free.

 

Now for the questions..

What is your denomination and what differentiates it from others? I realize this can be pretty lengthy but if you’re able to give a simple answer, the jist, if you will.

 

Also (may seem odd) but do you/your church believe that Satan was never in heaven?

 

Also if you have any similar personal experience with leaving a church or having to totally relearn everything, I’d appreciate advice/encouragement. (Growing up from a child to an adult under this same bad teaching you find how really deeply ingrained this is,and how damaging. Which is why when the Lord removed these blinders we have taken our children and RAN.)

 

Note: we aren’t necessarily using this info to “pick†a new denomination. We are simply curious as to the distinctions and plan to do further research. During our search for a new church so many different denominations pop up and although we are feeling pretty good about the church/theology we are hearing, this is just an interesting topic to us.

As for the second question, I am realizing just how different from most churches our doctrine was. This is one example and I’m curious if anyone else was taught this.

 

I feel angry and frustrated of so much time being wasted and being taught such damaging untruths, but also as we are relearning everything I am feeling so excited and so free. And praising God for being so so good.

 

Sorry if this is a mess, I’m holding a baby!

 

I too left the church I grew up in after a long and arduous struggle. It was very, very hard. While some people might view the errors of my former church to be minor, the underlying beliefs they betray are seriously problematic. I won't go into detail here, but detoxing was both excruciating and exhilarating. Thanks be to God that you and I were both delivered out of false teaching!

 

I ventured through a number of different theological interpretations before finally finding peace in Confessional Lutheranism. I specify "confessional" because there are many different Lutheran denominations, and some hold to the Lutheran Confessions more tightly than others. I believe that one of the things that sets Lutherans apart is our willingness to embrace the paradoxes in scripture; human reason, while an important gift from God, serves in submission to God's revelation and not over it. So we take scripture at face value when it says that God certainly elects some to salvation, but also that Jesus died for all humanity and God does not desire that any should perish. We make a distinction between the Law (what is required of us) and the Gospel (what God has done for us in Christ) that is unlike any hermeneutic I've found anywhere else. 

 

As to the question of Satan never being in heaven, I can't imagine my church teaching that, as it's in direct contradiction to Luke 10:18 -- "And [Jesus] said to them, 'I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.'"

 

Someone above mentioned reading Luther and Chemnitz to learn about Lutheranism, which I don't dispute, but I would recommend starting with the Augsburg Confession. It lays out in painstaking detail what Lutherans believe. I will be happy to provide additional resources or answer questions for anyone who is interested as well.

 

God's blessing and peace to you as you embark on this journey.

[nixpix5]

Wait, what?

 

You said it was essential to believe satan *didn't* come from God, and Jean said it was essential to believe that God *did* create Satan... but you both think it's an essential of the Christian faith.

 

To clarify: if you believe this point of doctrine is an essential of the Christian faith, are you saying that people who reach different conclusions are therefore not members of the Christian faith? If so, that's harsh.

 

If not, then you are using 'essential' in a different sense from 'essentials of the Christian faith'. I'd love to know what you mean. What is it an essential of?

I don't recall saying that. I was agreeing with Jean. If Satan was an angel pre-fall in Heaven then God created him and Satan rebelled. If Satan always was then you are dealing with a politheistic vs monotheistic view point. If Satan is a metaphor then, to me at least, it makes the fall feel kind of meh. It turns alot of the bible on its head and makes it not so important. In my view that is. Edited November 10, 2017 by nixpix5

[MercyA]

I believe that one of the things that sets Lutherans apart is our willingness to embrace the paradoxes in scripture; human reason, while an important gift from God, serves in submission to God's revelation and not over it. So we take scripture at face value when it says that God certainly elects some to salvation, but also that Jesus died for all humanity and God does not desire that any should perish.

 

Yes, this is pretty much exactly how I would describe my view on Scripture in general and on the Calvinism / Arminianism debate in particular. All Scripture is Truth. I don't feel the need to--nor could I!--make it all fit neatly into any human system.

 

As Patty Joanna expressed so beautifully, "the point is to behold the Man."

 

Jesus asked the most central question Himself:

 

When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, â€œWho do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?†So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.†He said to them, â€œBut who do you say that I am?†Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.â€

Edited November 10, 2017 by MercyA

[liber]

I too left the church I grew up in after a long and arduous struggle. It was very, very hard. While some people might view the errors of my former church to be minor, the underlying beliefs they betray are seriously problematic. I won't go into detail here, but detoxing was both excruciating and exhilarating. Thanks be to God that you and I were both delivered out of false teaching!

 

I ventured through a number of different theological interpretations before finally finding peace in Confessional Lutheranism. I specify "confessional" because there are many different Lutheran denominations, and some hold to the Lutheran Confessions more tightly than others. I believe that one of the things that sets Lutherans apart is our willingness to embrace the paradoxes in scripture; human reason, while an important gift from God, serves in submission to God's revelation and not over it. So we take scripture at face value when it says that God certainly elects some to salvation, but also that Jesus died for all humanity and God does not desire that any should perish. We make a distinction between the Law (what is required of us) and the Gospel (what God has done for us in Christ) that is unlike any hermeneutic I've found anywhere else. 

 

As to the question of Satan never being in heaven, I can't imagine my church teaching that, as it's in direct contradiction to Luke 10:18 -- "And [Jesus] said to them, 'I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.'"

 

Someone above mentioned reading Luther and Chemnitz to learn about Lutheranism, which I don't dispute, but I would recommend starting with the Augsburg Confession. It lays out in painstaking detail what Lutherans believe. I will be happy to provide additional resources or answer questions for anyone who is interested as well.

 

God's blessing and peace to you as you embark on this journey.

 

I too, left the faith I was raised in.  Pentecostal,heavily charismatic and prosperity gospel influenced.  Left that for Confessional Lutheranism too for pretty much the same reason you mentioned.  It felt like such a burden was lifted. 

 

[bolt.]

Monotheism.

 

It sounds like this denomination is dualist, not monotheistic at all.

The belief that a person could be a Christian and also believe that satan is a metaphor (not a being at all, in any sense, therefore having no creator and no location) is not dualist.

 

The belief that it is conceivable for a Christian to hold the opinion that there might be some non-time-and-space way in which Satan is not pre-existent, not equal to God, but also not exactly 'created' is not dualist.

 

The belief that a Christian believer could opine that God may have created Satan in a place other that heaven is not dualist.

 

The belief that a Christian believer could opine that God created Satan in heaven, but heaven itself might not best be described as a 'place' is not dualist.

 

The denomination doesn't believe any of those opinions anyhow, even if you understand them to be somehow dualist.

 

The belief of the denomination is simply that these opinions don't prevent people from trusting Jesus for salvation, therefore people who hold the opinions should be welcome to worship Jesus in community with all of the other more standard opinion-holders.

 

I don't understand the assertion that in order to be a monotheist a person is required to believe in Satan at all (and also additionally required to believe certain things about his location).

 

On the contrary, in order to be monotheist it is only required that *if* one believes in secondary spiritual beings, one also believe that those beings are not deities. (It is not required to subscribe to a specific reasoning for the not-deities' non-deity status.)

 

Monotheism is certainly an essential of the faith, and also Trinitarianism of some kind would be an essential. (Ie any belief would be called 'vaguely trinitarian' if it was in keeping with the basic approach that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are somehow 'also God' but not 'additional Gods'.)

Edited November 10, 2017 by bolt.

[ktgrok]

I was baptized Episcopalian, had my first communion in a Presbyterian church, first marriage in a Methodist church, first child baptized in a Congregational Church, went back to the Episcopal church and was confirmed, and eventually was received into full communion in the Roman Catholic Church. 

 

I don't agree with every little thing in the Catholic Church, but I believe it is the Church Christ founded, and I am not leaving it. (with a nod to the equal claims of the EO Church)

 

I love the way that the physical is not denigrated the way it can be in some denominations....God made us as physical creatures, and God knows what he is doing :)  It isn't body versus spirit...that we are made in the image of God is celebrated. And our Sacraments also reflect that balance between physical and spiritual. 

 

I also love knowing that all around the globe every Catholic is listening to the same scripture readings and saying the same prayers each Mass. That worldwide connection is important to me. 

[PrincessMommy]

Is it possible to move the theological back and forth on to another thread so this thread doesn't get hijacked by that discussion...

 

Just a friendly question, ya'll. 

[Liz CA]

I am not a “denomination.†I don’t even have a cohesive set of doctrinal beliefs anymore. I attend an Evangelical type of church with a contemporary style.

 

I left the faith I grew up in after an arduous and very painful struggle that lasted for several years. But I do not wish to be outside of the faith community, and I don’t want my kids to be, either. So I stay in the church and in the organizations I have been in for a long time.

 

I used to deliberate over details like “did God create Satan?†(And, actually, is there a Satan.) But I think I just became too tired to teying to parse out those details anymore. I guess I just developed a type of apathy about it.

 

Maybe you just realized that you don't consider those things crucial to your daily life and salvation. There is always at least one group in church doing Revelation as a study. I have stopped studying Revelation - did it several times now - because people tend to ponder (and sometimes argue :) ) about things I just don't consider important in the here and now. When I get there, I will "see" it and it won't be a mystery any longer.

 

Edited November 10, 2017 by Liz CA

[Liz CA]

Is it possible to move the theological back and forth on to another thread so this thread doesn't get hijacked by that discussion...

 

Just a friendly question, ya'll. 

 

We discussed going to social group with this topic but evidently we couldn't wait and got carried away - myself included.

 

[Twolittleboys]

Well, I am Roman Catholic. Have been born into the faith but neither of my parents were very (or at all) involved with the faith. I guess I am somewhat of a "cafeteria Catholic" as I pick and chose a bit. I do strongly feel that our own conscience has to be the highest authority so I would/do follow different beliefs from the church if I thought it necessary. This is very common where I live though - or to be more exact I think hardly any Catholics here are what one would consider strict/conservative.

 

Anyway, I like the liturgy and agree with the vast majority of teachings. Some I strongly believe in, others don't really matter much to me (e.g. Mary being an eternal virgin) but they don't bother me either. I strongly dislike overt displays of emotion in church, prosperity teachings, denial of science, a strong belief that only people of a specific faith/denomination can be saved etc. so the Catholic church is a good fit overall.

[Zinnia]

 

We also attended a Calvary Chapel affiliate for several years. It is *gently* charismatic.

I love this description of CC! I think we would fit well at one, but we don't have one near us

[Bluegoat]

The belief that a person could be a Christian and also believe that satan is a metaphor (not a being at all, in any sense, therefore having no creator and no location) is not dualist.

 

The belief that it is conceivable for a Christian to hold the opinion that there might be some non-time-and-space way in which Satan is not pre-existent, not equal to God, but also not exactly 'created' is not dualist.

 

The belief that a Christian believer could opine that God may have created Satan in a place other that heaven is not dualist.

 

The belief that a Christian believer could opine that God created Satan in heaven, but heaven itself might not best be described as a 'place' is not dualist.

 

The denomination doesn't believe any of those opinions anyhow, even if you understand them to be somehow dualist.

 

The belief of the denomination is simply that these opinions don't prevent people from trusting Jesus for salvation, therefore people who hold the opinions should be welcome to worship Jesus in community with all of the other more standard opinion-holders.

 

I don't understand the assertion that in order to be a monotheist a person is required to believe in Satan at all (and also additionally required to believe certain things about his location).

 

On the contrary, in order to be monotheist it is only required that *if* one believes in secondary spiritual beings, one also believe that those beings are not deities. (It is not required to subscribe to a specific reasoning for the not-deities' non-deity status.)

 

Monotheism is certainly an essential of the faith, and also Trinitarianism of some kind would be an essential. (Ie any belief would be called 'vaguely trinitarian' if it was in keeping with the basic approach that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are somehow 'also God' but not 'additional Gods'.)

 

Yeah, those things aren't what the OP said, for the most part.

 

What she implied, and later clarified to be the case, was that Satan was an evil, spiritual being from the beginning ( a problem,)  and even worse, in her clarification she said that he was also uncreated.

 

Both well outside anything resembling orthodox Christianity.  

 

The question of Satan as a metaphor and "location"are red herrings on a lot of levels, IMO, and not really to the point.

 

This is pretty much what I guessed the OP was getting at, it's not that uncommon an occurrence within some evangelical non-denominations.  It gets a pass, sometimes, because people are very ready to claim that ideas about Satan are non-essentials.

[ktgrok]

Yeah, saying "we don't know what the deal is with Satan" is fine with me. Saying he is uncreated, and has existed eternally with God gets into some pretty dualistic area for me. 

 

 

[bolt.]

What I'm describing (my denomination) is much closer to "we don't know what the deal is with Satan" than to espousing the near-dualist belief that was later clarified.

 

However, it's not so much 'we don't know' -- lots of people think they know, and the vast majority hold fairly standard beliefs. It's more that 'we have space for people who are playing with these non-essential ideas, even if they are reaching unusual opinions'.

 

In the case of a hypothetical near-dualist being discovered in a congregation like mine (we don't consider most musings about satan essential) it is likely that the person would be asked, "Well, do you think Satan is the same kind of being as God? Are they both deities in your view?"

 

If they answer, "Yes, both are deities," They've stepped into 'essentials' and they would be told that 'the Church' does not agree with or support that view.

 

But if they answer, "No. Even though I'm thinking they have the same duration of existence, and even though I don't think God is the creator of Satan -- I still think that they are different kinds of beings entirely, that only God is 'a God' and Satan is definitely a non-deity." -- that would 'get a pass' along with the other unusual opinions I listed above. (Probably subject to some follow up questions about the deity or non-deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit)

 

There is a difference between near-dualism and actual dualism.

[Bluegoat]

What I'm describing (my denomination) is much closer to "we don't know what the deal is with Satan" than to espousing the near-dualist belief that was later clarified.

 

However, it's not so much 'we don't know' -- lots of people think they know, and the vast majority hold fairly standard beliefs. It's more that 'we have space for people who are playing with these non-essential ideas, even if they are reaching unusual opinions'.

 

In the case of a hypothetical near-dualist being discovered in a congregation like mine (we don't consider most musings about satan essential) it is likely that the person would be asked, "Well, do you think Satan is the same kind of being as God? Are they both deities in your view?"

 

If they answer, "Yes, both are deities," They've stepped into 'essentials' and they would be told that 'the Church' does not agree with or support that view.

 

But if they answer, "No. Even though I'm thinking they have the same duration of existence, and even though I don't think God is the creator of Satan -- I still think that they are different kinds of beings entirely, that only God is 'a God' and Satan is definitely a non-deity." -- that would 'get a pass' along with the other unusual opinions I listed above. (Probably subject to some follow up questions about the deity or non-deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit)

 

There is a difference between near-dualism and actual dualism.

 

I don't know what it means to "get a pass" in this context, it's not like you are kicking people out of the building if they have the wrong answer.

 

Satan being a "non-deity" whatever that would mean, isn't the issue - it's not being created by God.  God creating some kind of minor deity is something Christianity doesn't accept doctrinally, but it is logically possible.  Something that exists that isn't created by God is a logical impossibility within a monotheistic system.

 

There is something odd, but in a way fascinating, about it being ok to teach the one but not the other.

 

 

Edited November 10, 2017 by Bluegoat

[bolt.]

Something that exists that isn't created by God is a logical impossibility within a monotheistic system.

It's unclear to me why this would be a logical impossibility.

 

I think it's possible to believe that only one being is God while also believing that other non-created things and beings might exist. (I don't believe that, but I find it conceivable, not impossible. I don't consider the attribute 'uncreated' to automatically identify some being as a god, or as an equal to God.)

 

 

 

God creating some kind of minor deity is something Christianity doesn't accept doctrinally, but it is logically possible.  Something that exists that isn't created by God is a logical impossibility within a monotheistic system.

 

That would be logically possible, but it would not be properly identified as monothesim. It would be henothesism. Monotheism requires a rejection of the concept that anything or anyone else could be in any way a diety (no matter who created it). Henotheism is the acceptance of multiple gods, but the assertion that one is the greatest and the other(s) have lesser ranks of godhood. In henotheism a greater God could be the creator of a minor deity.

 

--- Seriously off topic discussion of Christianity and henotheism follows, just for fun ---

 

There are henotheistic Christians, or Christians who use the language of henothesim, particularly in reference to the Old Testament. This view is sometimes a doctrinal problem and sometimes a matter of semantics. The semantic issues are usually: "If anybody on earth has identified a heavenly being as 'a god' (ie through idolatry) does that mean that believing in the reality of that being is equal to believing in other gods?" And/or, "If the Bible has described or implied that group of beings should be named 'other gods' or 'sons of God' does that mean that the status of those beings is actually 'those beings are gods, and they are real, therefore we believe in multiple gods' or is it better to say 'those beings are not gods, there is only one God, but language is tricky when trying to describe spiritual-non-god beings'?"

 

The beliefs of Christian-God henotheists (who are not merely caught up in semantics) result in a pantheon of lesser 'gods' forming the 'court' of God, plus some rebellious 'gods' (including satan and various idols) who ought to have served him, but aren't. Most Christians believe in a 'court of Yahweh' but identify the members of that court as 'not gods in any sense' (ie angels, archangels, and/or 'we don't really know, but not gods'). As soon as you have 'lesser deities' you don't have monotheism. Monotheism is an essential of the Christian faith.

 

(There are also Christian-God henotheists who have gotten there in an effort to avoid Trinitarianism. They might believe in Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit as minor dieties with God-the-Father as the superior God among them.)

 

(Another less relevant definition of henotheism is the adherence to one god (among others) as 'our god' even if there is not an assertion of greater or lesser ranks of godhood.)

Edited November 10, 2017 by bolt.

[MaeFlowers]

I have a question about henotheism. I just came across this term the other day for the first time and am trying to understand it better. My understanding is that it is belief in one god while recognzing the existence of other deities. If one believes that all gods are an expression of the God, is that henotheism or something else?

 

Sorry OP. I know this completely off topic.

[bolt.]

I have a question about henotheism. I just came across this term the other day for the first time and am trying to understand it better. My understanding is that it is belief in one god while recognzing the existence of other deities. If one believes that all gods are an expression of the God, is that henotheism or something else?

 

Sorry OP. I know this completely off topic.

Something else.

 

I'm sure it's got a term. There would probably be more than one term depending if the adherent means something more like, "God is one, but appears to be many, showing various faces on purpose." Or something more like, "God is God, but people understand him/her/it differently because human understanding is flawed."

[Bluegoat]

It's unclear to me why this would be a logical impossibility.

 

I think it's possible to believe that only one being is God while also believing that other non-created things and beings might exist. (I don't believe that, but I find it conceivable, not impossible. I don't consider the attribute 'uncreated' to automatically identify some being as a god, or as an equal to God.)

 

 

 

 

Because monotheism has God as the primary ground of being - that which shapes, produces all reality, and through which all reality  relates .  Philosophically, that is why monotheistic systems say that there is only one God, he is a perfect unity, and so on.  Other uncreated beings would mean that there was a more fundamental reality behind them. Morally, this is why they say that lesser gods should not be worshiped - they are idols because they are creatures themselves - not God at all, in fact, but only spirits of some kind.

 

It's the same kind of logic as a scientist saying they would like to discover the one equation that could describe the whole material reality, or why they think that scientific laws that are unreconciled must be reconcilable, if only they were fully and properly understood.

 

To put it another way, if it is less than primary, it isn't God.  God in this sense has to be self-existent as a primary attribute.

 

And even more than that, Christianity is quite clear through revelation that there is nothing else than God.

[MaeFlowers]

Something else.

 

I'm sure it's got a term. There would probably be more than one term depending if the adherent means something more like, "God is one, but appears to be many, showing various faces on purpose." Or something more like, "God is God, but people understand him/her/it differently because human understanding is flawed."

I was thinking more along the lines of a single God with multiple faces while the believer still chooses only one faith as their own.

 

I guess henotheism says that the deities are seperate beings, unrelated. That makes sense.

 

Thank you for answering.

[KungFuPanda]

I grew up in an evangelical Protestant Church. I say pick any church that’s not afraid of science. If they take field trips to the Creation Museum run.

[mykidsrmyjoy]

I grew up in an evangelical Protestant Church. I say pick any church that’s not afraid of science. If they take field trips to the Creation Museum run.

I hope I'm not the only one on here that is bothered by this statement.

[bolt.]

Because monotheism has God as the primary ground of being - that which shapes, produces all reality, and through which all reality relates . Philosophically, that is why monotheistic systems say that there is only one God, he is a perfect unity, and so on. Other uncreated beings would mean that there was a more fundamental reality behind them. Morally, this is why they say that lesser gods should not be worshiped - they are idols because they are creatures themselves - not God at all, in fact, but only spirits of some kind.

 

It's the same kind of logic as a scientist saying they would like to discover the one equation that could describe the whole material reality, or why they think that scientific laws that are unreconciled must be reconcilable, if only they were fully and properly understood.

 

To put it another way, if it is less than primary, it isn't God. God in this sense has to be self-existent as a primary attribute.

 

And even more than that, Christianity is quite clear through revelation that there is nothing else than God.

You seem to believe that there were no monotheists before enlightenment philosophy discribed it in that way. You also seem to think that all of realty is comprehensible within the bounds of human reason. Neither of these are true.

 

I assure you that many Christian monotheists (and monotheists of other religions) do not hold to your definitions.

 

I think, perhaps, that you are trying to say that the idea of Satan as uncreated and yet not a God is not an orthodox Christian belief (it's not) and that it relies on the plausibility of a category of being that we have no reason to believe exists (we don't) and a loop of logic that appeals to the unknown rather than the known (it does). I affirm all of those points.

 

What I don't affirm is that (1) it is a non-monotheistic belief, and (2) people who believe it should not be considered members of the Christian faith.

 

Not *all* monotheism has God as the 'primary ground of being'. I would imagine that until 1700 or so, *no* monotheists believed that -- at least not in those words. Even if 'in order to be God, a being must be self-existent' is true, it does not follow that 'any self-existent being is a God' or, alternately, that 'anything that is not self-existent is necessarily therefore something created, and it must have been created by God'.

 

I know that it's stretches imagination to say, "What kind of being could there be that isn't self-existent, and also isn't created by God?" -- could there be such a thing within the Christian worldview? Is it conceivable to say, "There might be, but I don't know what it is." If a person answers "There isn't, I know for certain." -- that person has much better skills at proving a negative than I do.

 

I don't really know what to say to, "Christianity is quite clear through revelation that there is nothing else than God." If you mean that literally, at face value: that there "is" "nothing else" but "God" -- I beg to differ on fairly solid ground. There "is" heaven and earth, and people and giraffes, and suns and nebulae. These things "are" (they have existence) but they are not "God". There is no "revelation" that would lead Christians to conclude that 'all things that are are God'. If you meant something else (probably), I will wait for you to elaborate.

Edited November 10, 2017 by bolt.

[MaeFlowers]

Would the one God, multiple faces be modalism?

Modalism is about the Christian trinity only? (I had to look it up. I know the concept but didn't specifically know the term.)

 

I came across a site that discussed Hinduism. It said that Hinduism is tolerant of other faiths because while they believe that there is only one truth, that truth can exist under many different names. Therefore, it does not negate other religions or deities because they are the same truth under a different name. That's more of what I was speaking to.

 

I am wondering if it is still henotheism just maybe an offshoot. Kind of how deists can hold varying beliefs about God's role in in daily events.

[Bluegoat]

You seem to believe that there were no monotheists before enlightenment philosophy discribed it in that way. You also seem to think that all of realty is comprehensible within the bounds of human reason. Neither of these are true.

 

I assure you that many Christian monotheists (and monotheists of other religions) do not hold to your definitions.

 

I think, perhaps, that you are trying to say that the idea of Satan as uncreated and yet not a God is not an orthodox Christian belief (it's not) and that it relies on the plausibility of a category of being that we have no reason to believe exists (we don't) and a loop of logic that appeals to the unknown rather than the known (it does). I affirm all of those points.

 

What I don't affirm is that (1) it is a non-monotheistic belief, and (2) people who believe it should not be considered members of the Christian faith.

 

Not *all* monotheism has God as the 'primary ground of being'. I would imagine that until 1700 or so, *no* monotheists believed that -- at least not in those words. Even if 'in order to be God, a being must be self-existent' is true, it does not follow that 'any self-existent being is a God' or, alternately, that 'anything that is not self-existent is necessarily therefore something created, and it must have been created by God'.

 

I know that it's stretches imagination to say, "What kind of being could there be that isn't self-existent, and also isn't created by God?" -- could there be such a thing within the Christian worldview? Is it conceivable to say, "There might be, but I don't know what it is." If a person answers "There isn't, I know for certain." -- that person has much better skills at proving a negative than I do.

 

I don't really know what to say to, "Christianity is quite clear through revelation that there is nothing else than God." If you mean that literally, at face value: that there "is" "nothing else" but "God" -- I beg to differ on fairly solid ground. There "is" heaven and earth, and people and giraffes, and suns and nebulae. These things "are" (they have existence) but they are not "God". There is no "revelation" that would lead Christians to conclude that 'all things that are are God'. If you meant something else (probably), I will wait for you to elaborate.

 

I'm off to bed, but no, I am not thinking of some kind of enlightenment idea.  My own background in in ancient and medieval philosophy, and what I am describing would not be alien to pre-enlightenment philosophy, or pre-christian philosophy for that matter.  They all were well aware of the problems and limitations implies by the unity of reality and what that mean with regards to how we know and what relates multiplicity.  You can see this clearly in even the pre-socratic philosophers.

 

And I'm not, and haven't ever, been inclined to elevate rationalism as the expense of the apophatic and mystical.

 

But to accept that there is an apophatic, and super-rational realm doesn't simply give room to say that statements that are contradictory could just as easily be compatible, and leave it at that.  To my mind that is a post-enlightenment, reactionary kind of anti-intellectualism that Christianity has really suffered from.

 

As far as what we label "really Christian" again, that's rather a red herring, it will depend on the purpose for which we are making that category.  But to talk of other self-existent beings besides God certainly does fall well outside of anything ever considered orthodox, well outside even themes open interpretation of Nicaea, well outside the reading of Scripture - it's probably a more basic point even than Trinitarianism.

[Bluegoat]

Modalism is about the Christian trinity only? (I had to look it up. I know the concept but didn't specifically know the term.)

 

I came across a site that discussed Hinduism. It said that Hinduism is tolerant of other faiths because while they believe that there is only one truth, that truth can exist under many different names. Therefore, it does not negate other religions or deities because they are the same truth under a different name. That's more of what I was speaking to.

 

I am wondering if it is still henotheism just maybe an offshoot. Kind of how deists can hold varying beliefs about God's role in in daily events.

 

I think this is in some way a difficult thing to define.

 

Hinduism is considered polytheistic by some, but many would say it's more properly pantheistic, where everything, even the material, is a manifestation of what westerners would tend to call God.  Including the various gods, and the physical world.

 

This tends to mean that other religions can also be understood as such manifestations.

 

OTOH, there are certainly Hindi fundamentalists, though like a lot of fudamentalism, that isn't just about religion.

[MaeFlowers]

Ill admit I dont have a good grasp on the teachings of Hinduism. It seems to have much more variety in terms of beliefs than Christianity. I thought the idea expressed by the site explained my question better.

 

Pantheism doesn't seem to fit either. If I understand it correctly, it does not acknowledge a personal god.

 

 

Maybe we need to invent the word for such a belief. ðŸ˜

Edited November 11, 2017 by MaeFlowers

[bolt.]

But to talk of other self-existent beings besides God certainly does fall well outside of anything ever considered orthodox, well outside even themes open interpretation of Nicaea, well outside the reading of Scripture - it's probably a more basic point even than Trinitarianism.

That, I agree with. It's certainly well outside of the bounds of those things.

 

I was only surprised that you thought of it as outside of monotheism.

 

(Also, you may have missed the option of a being *neither* self-existent, *nor* created by God -- perhaps some would hold an ideas like, simply for the sake of examples that might conceivably fit the definition, "Satan was not directly created, but his source is some sort of 'absence of goodness' which spontaneously coalesced into a force and took on being due to an accumulation of evilness from other sources, such as human activity." Or, "Satan was not created as he is now; he was something else when he was created, but has been transformed in his essence by the working of his own will -- therefore his current type of being is not to be numbered among God's creations."

 

As far as what we label "really Christian" again, that's rather a red herring, it will depend on the purpose for which we are making that category.

The purpose for making the category was to define what ranges of belief about Satan fall under the label non-essential in my denomination -- which is what I was asked to do. Posters expressed curiosity about why and how opinions about Satan might be considerd non-essential, and which aspects about opinions about Satan might actually be essential.

 

I am attempting to make it clear that in my denomination "essential" means "an essential part of what it means to be a member of the Christian faith" and that we expect "unitiy in essentials" but diversity in any non-essential area. These varieties of opinions about the status and origin of Satan run close to the line of essential and non-essential, which makes them a meaningful example.

 

To me, this is a statement about "essentials of the Christian faith":

 

"A Christian might or might not believe in Satan as a being at all. Any who do believe in him (as a being) would need to affirm that they do not believe he is a deity, and therefore that they do not consider him equal with God (inclusive of Jesus and the Holy Spirit), nor is he 'a god' in any sense. Rather, he is subordinate being, not only in importance, but based in what kind of being he is."

 

Persons who consider mandatory belief in Satan-as-a-being (including certain mandatory details regarding him) to be an essential of the Christian faith go much further than my denomination would.

 

Similarly, while some beliefs and speculations about Satan could be non-creed compliant, non-orthodox, not based on a good biblical basis, and possibly stupid or maybe just fanciful -- in so far as such embroidery is kept to non essential areas, my denomination makes every effort to affirm people in that liberty. (Also, we try to provide sound biblical teaching that might have the potential to bring them closer to orthodoxy in non-essentials too.)

[MommaOfalotta]

Thank you to everyone for all of the replies! I’m at a manor in the woods for a women’s retreat and the WiFi is a bit spotty but I’m looking forward to reading all the replies when I get home tomorrow.

 

And please, if anyone starts spinoff threads let me know! :)

[Terabith]

I suggest checking out the Facebook group Raising Children Unfundamentalist. It’s often about the process of leaving and deconstructioning past beliefs.

[Prairie~Phlox]

Dh was raised WELS (Lutheran) & I was confirmed WELS before marriage. We are the black sheep in his family & now attend a non-denominational church after having issues with doctrine regarding fellowship in the Lutheran church.

[milovany]

I was out of town for the weekend so hope it's okay to reply even though it's been a day or two.  

 

OP, we have some a couple in our parish whose story (to me) sounds similar to yours. I don't know which group you're leaving, and it doesn't matter, but theirs was "The Local Church" and it was an all-encompassing, decades long life. I admit, I don't know much about it and out of respect for their privacy, didn't want to ask too much.  From what I do recall, they both came from families that had been in the group when they (my friends) were very young, they met and married within the group, and I believe started having children within the group (their children are now grown). They have been out of it for quite some time (my guess would be 15-20 years?), but as they became Eastern Orthodox, they revisited its reality again as they went through catechism with our priest. I don't know why I say all that, it just touched something in me when I read your words; the background seemed similar.  

 

I loved your approach, by the way!  Leave the hold behind, the new has come.  I am so glad for you that you are tasting some freedom and are seeking wisdom. Prayer is good, seeking Christ is good.  My husband, our children and I went through a radical change about eight or nine years ago when we went from conservative active-in-ministry evangelical Christians to becoming Eastern Orthodox. For us, the two major reasons behind our decision were history (we understand the EO church to be the most ancient form of Christianity)* and mystery (our faith is not based on our intellectual understanding, it's about being and practice, with incomprehensible things left as "mystery" instead of being explained). One of the readers in our parish has a favorite saying, and I like it, too:  "Orthodoxy: It's not what you think."  

 

There's a lot more to the story, but I didn't want to go into a lot of detail in case that's not what you were after.  I just wanted to say, yes, we've gone through a major, tumultuous change that affected so very many things.  There were times we questioned ourselves and our path.  But we moved forward with resolve and now, this many years in, we're here for life.  There are ways in Orthodoxy, practices, things we do, sacraments we partake of, prayers we pray, etc.  These are all part of Orthodoxy throughout time and throughout the world, but within Orthodoxy there is freedom, too.  We do things because we want to, not because we have to.  That's the ideal anyway, the one we press on toward.  

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

*It was actually time here at WTM that helped me with this. I was woefully ignorant of church history (sad, as a Christian for 20+ years by that time) and a few times within a short amount of time, I saw it stated here (even by non-Christians) that "if anyone has a claim to being the historical church, it's the Eastern orthodox," and then I happened upon this graphic from U.S. News and World Report which gave me visual context for the words. That forms the beginning of our story.  

 

 

Edited November 14, 2017 by milovany