Christian Morality

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Christian Morality

Post by RCSaunders »

Morality according to most religious teaching (Christian Reformed, Methodists, Presbyterian, Baptist, and most other Protestant denominations, Roman Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, and related denominations, as well as most other religions, including Islam, hold that the source of all morality is God, that moral right and wrong are dictated by God and that without God, there cannot be any moral values.

It is only the mainstream Protestant view of morality that will be examined here. This is neither a criticism or evaluation of Christian morality, however. It makes no judgment concerning either the validity (is it true?) or value (what good is it?). This is partly because the Christian view of morality actually denies that morals pertain to any earthly or human objectives or purposes. The remainder of this article describes that Christian view.

Everything is derived from the existence of God and determined by that God. Everything that exists is made by God, controlled by God, and belongs to God. All purpose and meaning only exist relative to God. Good is whatever God says is good, and the purpose of all things is whatever God declares their purpose to be.

Apart from God, nothing has any purpose or meaning. The universe God created, separate from God's control, would be nothing but meaningless random events with no possible purpose or meaning. Even life, consciousness, and human beings would be mere accidents.

Human beings are not accidents, however, but the intentional creation of God and their only purpose is whatever purpose God has created them for, and God has given them a specific nature to make it possible for them to fulfill that purpose. The nature is called variously, "the ability to obey or disobey," or, "free will." It is that concept that is the whole basis of the Christian view of morality. It means one is morally responsible for what they do because the can and do choose what they do.

Morality, is determined by God's purpose for human beings. Being moral means being what God determines a human being is supposed to be, doing what God says is right for them to do and not doing what God says it is wrong for them to do. What God says humans must or must not do is referred to as, "the law of God," and the whole purpose of a human being's life can be reduced to, "obeying God's law."

But there is a caveat. While human beings can choose to obey God's law and be moral, it is certain they won't.

[I'm sorry I cannot explain it any better than that. Christians insist that human beings have what they call, "free will," meaning they are responsible for what they do because they choose what they do, but also claim that it is impossible for a human being to live without disobeying God's law, which disobedience is called sin. In other words, one is only guilty of sin because they choose to sin, and it is not possible that they will not choose to sin. There is no contradiction in this according to the Christian view, however.]

The whole purpose of the law of God is to reveal how a human being must live and what they must and must not do to be what God chooses for them to be. It has no other purpose. It is not for any practical human benefit in this world. In this world, being obedient to God's law is just as likely to ruin one's life as to not. Obeying God's law very possibly will get one imprisoned, martyred, tortured, or killed or require one to live in poverty or sacrificing their life to endless Christian causes.

Obeying God's law does not, in fact, result in any benefit to human beings. That's not its purpose. Some mistakenly believe that obeying God's law has the benefit of escaping what is called the judgment of God, but Christian morality is clear, no one can escape the judgement of God, i.e. be saved, by obeying God's law. It is not possible for a human being to obey God's law. Everyone is immoral, no matter what they do and everyone will be judged and is doomed to eternal suffering and torment. It cannot be escaped.

Whatever you think of Christian morality, it is of no use to achieving anything, in this world or any other. It's only practical purpose is as an explanation by God for subjecting all human beings to eternal torment and suffering and calling it justice.

[Christian teaching does say some will escape judgement, but that teaching has nothing to do with morality. It is, in fact, a defiance of morality as obedience to law conferring virtue on those who are immoral without any reference to the law or obedience. It's called redemption, which is not addressed here.]
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 4:07 pm Morality according to most religious teaching (Christian Reformed, Methodists, Presbyterian, Baptist, and most other Protestant denominations, Roman Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, and related denominations, as well as most other religions, including Islam, hold that the source of all morality is God, that moral right and wrong are dictated by God
Sorry. Wrong already.

"Dictated" is wrong. It makes morality merely a matter of arbitrary command. That's incorrect. Morality is conformity to the character of God Himself, of which commandments are merely one possible expression, and not the definitive or complete one. The New Testament clearly explains that.
...and that without God, there cannot be any moral values.
Almost right.

Without God, there cannot possibly be any objective moral values. As a matter of sociological observation, people can continue to make them up subjectively...but they won't have any actual moral properties.
Everything is derived from the existence of God and determined by that God.
Determinism is false. Mankind has a will, and can produce things on his own volition. God does not micro-manage the universe for him.
Apart from God, nothing has any purpose or meaning.

True. Because to have "meaning," somebody has to have "meant" something by creating it. And to have "purpose," somebody must have purposed for them to do something.

But man is a created being: thus he cannot legitimize or be the explanation of his own existence, just as a baby cannot give bith to herself. He has to explain why he is here, and for what, with reference to whatever it is that created him...because he did not make himself.
The universe God created, separate from God's control, would be nothing but meaningless random events with no possible purpose or meaning. Even life, consciousness, and human beings would be mere accidents.
No, separate from God's existence it would be those things. It does not entail that God has to micromanage the universe. In other words, it does not entail Determinism.
Human beings are not accidents, however, but the intentional creation of God and their only purpose is whatever purpose God has created them for, and God has given them a specific nature to make it possible for them to fulfill that purpose. The nature is called variously, "the ability to obey or disobey," or, "free will." It is that concept that is the whole basis of the Christian view of morality. It means one is morally responsible for what they do because the can and do choose what they do.
So far, so good...
Morality, is determined by God's purpose for human beings. Being moral means being what God determines a human being is supposed to be, doing what God says is right for them to do and not doing what God says it is wrong for them to do. What God says humans must or must not do is referred to as, "the law of God,"
Still okay...
...and the whole purpose of a human being's life can be reduced to, "obeying God's law."
Nope. Not according to the Bible, which , if you're going the Prostestant route, as you say, is what you are attempting to represent here.

According to the Bible, the point of human life is to come into free relationship with God. The Law is called merely "a schoolmaster," or "child-trainer," intended to inform mankind of some of the sorts of qualities that a person who is to have relationship with God must have. But as with all "schoolmasters," the day comes when the "child" matures beyond such preliminaries, and begins to see "the spirit" in which the law was given, rather than merely "the letter" of the law. That's how the Bible describes it.
But there is a caveat. While human beings can choose to obey God's law and be moral, it is certain they won't.
Yes, and that will be up to them, individually. The statment that "somebody" will disobey does not compel any particular person to disobey. You can place yourself in either camp, at will.
I'm sorry I cannot explain it any better than that.
Well, hopefull, now you can. We've made some minor adjustments. They actually make a huge difference.
The whole purpose of the law of God is to reveal how a human being must live and what they must and must not do to be what God chooses for them to be. It has no other purpose.
No, that's not so.

First, remember the "schoolmaster' analogy...the goal is understanding and relationship, not mere compliance. And secondly, there's no problem in saying that "Thou shalt not commit adultery" articulates the value that God is faithful AND is very, very good for human beings and their society. Both are, in fact, true. And, we might add, eternity is a very importnat thing. If the law prepares a person to learn how to relate to God, and then how to become a person capable of eternity, then the value to human beings would literally be...infinite.
Obeying God's law very possibly will get one imprisoned, martyred, tortured, or killed or require one to live in poverty or sacrificing their life to endless Christian causes.
What does that tell you about the world? That they kill people who try to keep the Law of God.

In fact, they nailed the best of us to a cross.
Obeying God's law does not, in fact, result in any benefit to human beings.
Sorry. Still not the case.
Everyone is immoral, no matter what they do and everyone will be judged and is doomed to eternal suffering and torment. It cannot be escaped.
But it can.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him.

The one who believes in Him is not judged; the one who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

And this is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the Light; for their deeds were evil." (John 3:16-19)

Christian teaching does say some will escape judgement, but that teaching has nothing to do with morality.
:D Well, you'll have to explain that conclusion to me. It doesn't seem at all apparent -- at least, not from the above. Rather, Jesus said that He came "to fulfill the Law," by dying on behalf of those who could not pay for the sins they had committed. That's a very just arrangment: the sin is paid for, completely, voluntarily, by One capable, One who loves you and wants to save you from choices that would otherwise estrange you from God forever -- pending your willingness that He should, of course. It wouldn't be just if He forced you, even if it's the right outcome. It would violate the personhood he gave you in the first place, which is the entity to which He desires to relate.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by promethean75 »

"Without God, there cannot possibly be any objective moral values."

But if 'god' freely chose what are to be objective moral values, those values would be subjective; merely the preference of 'god'. He coulda chose instead to make helping old ladies an evil act and conducting chemical weapons attacks, highly virtuous.

On the other hand, if 'god' chose those values because they were already objective, we wouldn't need 'god' for objective values/morals to exist.

Discuss.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Christian Morality

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 5:08 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 4:07 pm Morality according to most religious teaching (Christian Reformed, Methodists, Presbyterian, Baptist, and most other Protestant denominations, Roman Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, and related denominations, as well as most other religions, including Islam, hold that the source of all morality is God, that moral right and wrong are dictated by God
Sorry. Wrong already.

"Dictated" is wrong. It makes morality merely a matter of arbitrary command. That's incorrect. Morality is conformity to the character of God Himself, of which commandments are merely one possible expression, and not the definitive or complete one. The New Testament clearly explains that.
...and that without God, there cannot be any moral values.
Almost right.

Without God, there cannot possibly be any objective moral values. As a matter of sociological observation, people can continue to make them up subjectively...but they won't have any actual moral properties.
Everything is derived from the existence of God and determined by that God.
Determinism is false. Mankind has a will, and can produce things on his own volition. God does not micro-manage the universe for him.
Apart from God, nothing has any purpose or meaning.

True. Because to have "meaning," somebody has to have "meant" something by creating it. And to have "purpose," somebody must have purposed for them to do something.

But man is a created being: thus he cannot legitimize or be the explanation of his own existence, just as a baby cannot give bith to herself. He has to explain why he is here, and for what, with reference to whatever it is that created him...because he did not make himself.
The universe God created, separate from God's control, would be nothing but meaningless random events with no possible purpose or meaning. Even life, consciousness, and human beings would be mere accidents.
No, separate from God's existence it would be those things. It does not entail that God has to micromanage the universe. In other words, it does not entail Determinism.
Human beings are not accidents, however, but the intentional creation of God and their only purpose is whatever purpose God has created them for, and God has given them a specific nature to make it possible for them to fulfill that purpose. The nature is called variously, "the ability to obey or disobey," or, "free will." It is that concept that is the whole basis of the Christian view of morality. It means one is morally responsible for what they do because the can and do choose what they do.
So far, so good...
Morality, is determined by God's purpose for human beings. Being moral means being what God determines a human being is supposed to be, doing what God says is right for them to do and not doing what God says it is wrong for them to do. What God says humans must or must not do is referred to as, "the law of God,"
Still okay...
...and the whole purpose of a human being's life can be reduced to, "obeying God's law."
Nope. Not according to the Bible, which , if you're going the Prostestant route, as you say, is what you are attempting to represent here.

According to the Bible, the point of human life is to come into free relationship with God. The Law is called merely "a schoolmaster," or "child-trainer," intended to inform mankind of some of the sorts of qualities that a person who is to have relationship with God must have. But as with all "schoolmasters," the day comes when the "child" matures beyond such preliminaries, and begins to see "the spirit" in which the law was given, rather than merely "the letter" of the law. That's how the Bible describes it.
But there is a caveat. While human beings can choose to obey God's law and be moral, it is certain they won't.
Yes, and that will be up to them, individually. The statment that "somebody" will disobey does not compel any particular person to disobey. You can place yourself in either camp, at will.
I'm sorry I cannot explain it any better than that.
Well, hopefull, now you can. We've made some minor adjustments. They actually make a huge difference.
The whole purpose of the law of God is to reveal how a human being must live and what they must and must not do to be what God chooses for them to be. It has no other purpose.
No, that's not so.

First, remember the "schoolmaster' analogy...the goal is understanding and relationship, not mere compliance. And secondly, there's no problem in saying that "Thou shalt not commit adultery" articulates the value that God is faithful AND is very, very good for human beings and their society. Both are, in fact, true. And, we might add, eternity is a very importnat thing. If the law prepares a person to learn how to relate to God, and then how to become a person capable of eternity, then the value to human beings would literally be...infinite.
Obeying God's law very possibly will get one imprisoned, martyred, tortured, or killed or require one to live in poverty or sacrificing their life to endless Christian causes.
What does that tell you about the world? That they kill people who try to keep the Law of God.

In fact, they nailed the best of us to a cross.
Obeying God's law does not, in fact, result in any benefit to human beings.
Sorry. Still not the case.
Everyone is immoral, no matter what they do and everyone will be judged and is doomed to eternal suffering and torment. It cannot be escaped.
But it can.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him.

The one who believes in Him is not judged; the one who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

And this is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the Light; for their deeds were evil." (John 3:16-19)

Christian teaching does say some will escape judgement, but that teaching has nothing to do with morality.
:D Well, you'll have to explain that conclusion to me. It doesn't seem at all apparent -- at least, not from the above. Rather, Jesus said that He came "to fulfill the Law," by dying on behalf of those who could not pay for the sins they had committed. That's a very just arrangment: the sin is paid for, completely, voluntarily, by One capable, One who loves you and wants to save you from choices that would otherwise estrange you from God forever -- pending your willingness that He should, of course. It wouldn't be just if He forced you, even if it's the right outcome. It would violate the personhood he gave you in the first place, which is the entity to which He desires to relate.
Thank you for your own personal view of Christian doctrine. I am quite aware that almost everyone who claims to be a Christian describes their beliefs in different terms and slightly different understandings. I've only presented what anyone can discover are the primary doctrines of Protestantism which anyone can verify by consulting the major protestant theologians, such as in the reformed tradition (Luther, Calvin, and clearly spelled out in The Westminster Confession of Faith) the primary doctrinal statement of The Church Of England and Presbyterians, or John Wesley and Methodist denominational doctrines spelled out in Articles of Religion, or the Baptist Articles of Faith as well as the works of any of the following theologians (in addition to those already named): Saint Augustine, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, William Tyndale, John Wycliffe, Roger Williams, George Whitefield, Adam Clark, Charles Grandison Finney, Charles Spurgeon, Cyrus I. Scofield (Scofield Bible), A. A. Hodge, Charles Hodge, J. I. Packer. Carl F. H. Henry. Francis Schaeffer, as well as the Biblical commentaries of J.C. Ryle, Albert Barnes, B. B. Warfield, Adam Clarke, Matthew Henry. F. B. Meyer, Dwight L. Moody, R.A. Torrey, William R. Newell, H.A. Ironsides, John R. Rice, and J. Vernon McGee. I think I'll go with their opinion over yours.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Christian Morality

Post by RCSaunders »

promethean75 wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 12:42 am "Without God, there cannot possibly be any objective moral values."

But if 'god' freely chose what are to be objective moral values, those values would be subjective; merely the preference of 'god'. He coulda chose instead to make helping old ladies an evil act and conducting chemical weapons attacks, highly virtuous.

On the other hand, if 'god' chose those values because they were already objective, we wouldn't need 'god' for objective values/morals to exist.

Discuss.
You'll have to ask a Christian. I'm only presenting the Christian view. It's not my view.

I did not intend to mislead anyone. I apologize if I did.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 1:51 am Thank you for your own personal view of Christian doctrine.
You are welcome to check and see if I've told you the truth. I can easily provide all the references.
I am quite aware that almost everyone who claims to be a Christian describes their beliefs in different terms and slightly different understandings. I've only presented what anyone can discover are the primary doctrines of Protestantism which anyone can verify by consulting the major protestant theologians, such as in the reformed tradition (Luther, Calvin, and clearly spelled out in The Westminster Confession of Faith) the primary doctrinal statement of The Church Of England and Presbyterians, or John Wesley and Methodist denominational doctrines spelled out in Articles of Religion, or the Baptist Articles of Faith as well as the works of any of the following theologians (in addition to those already named): Saint Augustine, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, William Tyndale, John Wycliffe, Roger Williams, George Whitefield, Adam Clark, Charles Grandison Finney, Charles Spurgeon, Cyrus I. Scofield (Scofield Bible), A. A. Hodge, Charles Hodge, J. I. Packer. Carl F. H. Henry. Francis Schaeffer, as well as the Biblical commentaries of J.C. Ryle, Albert Barnes, B. B. Warfield, Adam Clarke, Matthew Henry. F. B. Meyer, Dwight L. Moody, R.A. Torrey, William R. Newell, H.A. Ironsides, John R. Rice, and J. Vernon McGee. I think I'll go with their opinion over yours.
Nice bluff. :wink:

Many of the theologians you've listed do, in fact, agree with me. But you would have known that if you'd actually read any of them, and so you wouldn't have chosen to mention them as if they disagreed.

Of course, there's more than name-dropping to understanding theology. If you knew any theology, you wouldn't put Luther with Aquinas, or Edward with Wesley, or Finney with Spurgeon, or Shaeffer with Packer, and so on. I have to wonder what website you cut-and-pasted that list from: but I doubt you'll want to confess that you didn't actually know anything about what they say.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Immanuel Can »

promethean75 wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 12:42 am "Without God, there cannot possibly be any objective moral values."

But if 'god' freely chose what are to be objective moral values, those values would be subjective; merely the preference of 'god'. He coulda chose instead to make helping old ladies an evil act and conducting chemical weapons attacks, highly virtuous.

On the other hand, if 'god' chose those values because they were already objective, we wouldn't need 'god' for objective values/morals to exist.

Discuss.
Well, I can see that's your version of the old Euthyphro mistake. It impresses skeptics, but fails to impress anybody who actually thinks deeply about it. Long ago, it's been asked and answered, and by people better than me. But I'll do it again, here.

Firstly, "freedom" when it comes to speaking about God in particular, means "The complete ability to do all that is consonant with His own character." It does not include the things that the Bible says God cannot do, which include things like lying, breaking his promises, sinning, and so on. God neither does such things nor wants to do such things. He is beyond temptation, and is always able to do exactly what suits His own nature.

Not so for men, of course. They are temptable, corruptible, and often do things not at all harmonious with the Divine character. But this is an expression more of their enslavement to sin than of any actual freedom: they end up actually sinning against themselves, as well as against others and against God.

Secondly, objective moral values are both what God requires AND what God Himself has as His own character. There's no dichotomy between the two. So God does not command just anything; He commands that which is consonant with His nature. And both "that which God commands" and "that which is consonant with God's nature are proper descriptions of the objectively good, as well. So the question itself is premised on an error called "false dichotomy."
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Christian Morality

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 5:52 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 1:51 am Thank you for your own personal view of Christian doctrine.
You are welcome to check and see if I've told you the truth. I can easily provide all the references.
I am quite aware that almost everyone who claims to be a Christian describes their beliefs in different terms and slightly different understandings. I've only presented what anyone can discover are the primary doctrines of Protestantism which anyone can verify by consulting the major protestant theologians, such as in the reformed tradition (Luther, Calvin, and clearly spelled out in The Westminster Confession of Faith) the primary doctrinal statement of The Church Of England and Presbyterians, or John Wesley and Methodist denominational doctrines spelled out in Articles of Religion, or the Baptist Articles of Faith as well as the works of any of the following theologians (in addition to those already named): Saint Augustine, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, William Tyndale, John Wycliffe, Roger Williams, George Whitefield, Adam Clark, Charles Grandison Finney, Charles Spurgeon, Cyrus I. Scofield (Scofield Bible), A. A. Hodge, Charles Hodge, J. I. Packer. Carl F. H. Henry. Francis Schaeffer, as well as the Biblical commentaries of J.C. Ryle, Albert Barnes, B. B. Warfield, Adam Clarke, Matthew Henry. F. B. Meyer, Dwight L. Moody, R.A. Torrey, William R. Newell, H.A. Ironsides, John R. Rice, and J. Vernon McGee. I think I'll go with their opinion over yours.
Nice bluff. :wink:

Many of the theologians you've listed do, in fact, agree with me. But you would have known that if you'd actually read any of them, and so you wouldn't have chosen to mention them as if they disagreed.

Of course, there's more than name-dropping to understanding theology. If you knew any theology, you wouldn't put Luther with Aquinas, or Edward with Wesley, or Finney with Spurgeon, or Shaeffer with Packer, and so on. I have to wonder what website you cut-and-pasted that list from: but I doubt you'll want to confess that you didn't actually know anything about what they say.
I do not know why you judge people you know nothing about or tell lies about them, both directly and by innuendo, but it doesn't really matter. But for those who might be interested (and it's unlikely there will be many) I will correct a couple of the whoppers you implied.

The first is the implication I am liar, that I have not actually read and studied all those I've listed. Of course there is no way for you to know what I have or have not read and studied. If you doubt I've read and studied them all, a little history. Many year ago, while quite young, I was a very devout evangelical Christian, a licensed preacher before I was out of highschool, a very active theology student and what was called in those days, "soul-winner." My serious interest in theology began with reading Calvin's Institutes followed by the theology of Charles Finney which could not possibly have been more different. In those days, my views were Calvinistic sans the predestination (salvation is a choice and "once save always saved") but Finney's obvious success as a revivalist was fascinating. Of course his theology opposed both the Calvinists and Weslyans (and strongly influenced what became Congregationalism (the church I was raised in).

Thus my interest in theology began, followed by studying Koine Greek and Hebrew so I could study the Bible as nearly as possible to the original. In those days, Moody institute published a series of paper back Christian books and I was first exposed to all the great Christian teachers of those days, from Ruth Packer (Springs of Living Water) to Andrew Murray, on prayer, Moody, Ironsides, and the history of others like the missionaries, Amy Carmichael (India) and Hudson Taylor (China). [No matter what you believe, the stories of those two are both fascinating,]

After Finney and Calvin I began a serious pursuit of study of every theologian and Bible commentary I had access to, and began buying their works when I finally could afford them. For many years, the shelves of my library were covered with those books. It took me three years to get through Matthew Henry alone. I not only read, but studied every one of those I listed, as well as others not listed, like all the early church fathers, Catholic theologians and others. My ancient loose-leaf Scofield Bible is falling apart it's so covered in notes, references and filled with pages of my commentary from comparing the Scriptures with all those works I studied. Alas it will have to go the way of all my old Bibles, my Thompson Chains and old Oxford King James versions no longer serviceable, but difficult to throw away.

As for your comments:
Many of the theologians you've listed do, in fact, agree with me. ...
So you say, but I've read them and what they say does not sound at all like what you say. I would say, if there is a common expression, it would be, everything is for the glory of God, not some sentimental notion of having a nice relationship with God.
... If you knew any theology, you wouldn't put Luther with Aquinas, or Edward with Wesley, or Finney with Spurgeon, or Shaeffer with Packer, and so on. ...
Of course they disagree about many theological details including the nature of the atonement, eternal security, the sacraments, prayer, and sanctification, for example. The article only addresses one theological point, the nature of morality and on that point they all agree, as they do on all the other fundamental points of Christianity. They all agree there is one God, divine creation, the inspiration of the Bible, the universal sinfulness of man, the Trinity, the blood atonement, salvation by faith, the new birth, eternal life, and the second coming, for example. For a while those doctrines were sometimes disparagingly referred to as the, "fundamental of the faith." and those who held them were derided as, "fundamentalists," but if you look at any, Confession of Faith), Articles of Religion, or Articles of Faith of any of the denominations I named you will see they all hold those very same doctrines, however much they differ in any other beliefs and details. It is morality in terms of those fundamentals I described. If you know anything about theology, you know that.

Why would you doubt I've read and studied all those writers I listed. They are not really that many (although my very patient wife thought we had a few too many theology books). If you said you had read and studied them, I'd take your word for it, but then I don't call others liars just because I don't like what they say.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 2:51 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 5:52 am Nice bluff. :wink:

Many of the theologians you've listed do, in fact, agree with me. But you would have known that if you'd actually read any of them, and so you wouldn't have chosen to mention them as if they disagreed.

Of course, there's more than name-dropping to understanding theology. If you knew any theology, you wouldn't put Luther with Aquinas, or Edward with Wesley, or Finney with Spurgeon, or Shaeffer with Packer, and so on. I have to wonder what website you cut-and-pasted that list from: but I doubt you'll want to confess that you didn't actually know anything about what they say.
I do not know why you judge people you know nothing about or tell lies about them,
I don't. I judge the data, the evidence of what you have said. And I tell no lies about these men. And if you'd read any of those theologians yourself, you'd also know I don't.

So again, your protest shows you know nothing about what those men actually said. They're from very different theological views. Aquinas, for example, was Catholic. But Luther was Reformed, and anti-Catholic. Scofield was a Dispensational Premillenialist.

Go and look it up. You'll find out I'm telling you nothing but the truth.
Many year ago, while quite young, I was a very devout evangelical Christian, a licensed preacher before I was out of highschool, a very active theology student and what was called in those days, "soul-winner." My serious interest in theology began with reading Calvin's Institutes followed by the theology of Charles Finney which could not possibly have been more different. In those days, my views were Calvinistic sans the predestination (salvation is a choice and "once save always saved") but Finney's obvious success as a revivalist was fascinating. Of course his theology opposed both the Calvinists and Weslyans (and strongly influenced what became Congregationalism (the church I was raised in).
That shows you know something. But it leaves totally unexplained, then, why you didn't know the theologians you listed come from wildly different theological perspectives. Somebody who knew them, even at a basic level, would surely not have done that.

So is it that you have forgotten something you once knew? Or that you never knew it? Because it's obviously one or the other.
Of course they disagree about many theological details
You call these things "details"? :shock:

If you know those theologians, you know for sure that they wouldn' t have. And I wouldn't.
Why would you doubt I've read and studied all those writers I listed.
On the data. Because you don't actually seem to understand they're not at all the same thing. And that seems pretty basic.

So what happened? When did you loose all the knowledge you say you had?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Christian Morality

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 3:55 pm So again, your protest shows you know nothing about what those men actually said. They're from very different theological views. Aquinas, for example, was Catholic. But Luther was Reformed, and anti-Catholic. Scofield was a Dispensational Premillenialist.{/quote]

Go and look it up. You'll find out I'm telling you nothing but the truth.
Yes, I'm totally familiar with scofields dispebsationalism and its history and all the differences in theologicies, which is all irrelevant. If you could read you would know the second paragraph said, "It is only the mainstream Protestant view of morality that will be examined here." and I've clearly explained it is only those doctrines those mainstream denominations agree on and their view of morality that is referred to. I'm sorry you seem so confused and cannot understand this simple premise, but you arguing with what was never said or suggested.

How can you bring in Aquinas (do you think he was a mainstream protestant?). Never mind, you know you are only trying to sow confusion.

This is how Christians deal honestly with others? Sad, sad, sad.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 4:22 pm If you could read you would know the second paragraph said, "It is only the mainstream Protestant view of morality that will be examined here."
That doesn't explain why you included people like Finney: would you call him "mainline"? :shock:

Usually, "mainline" Protestantism refers to clerical and liturgical things like Anglicanism or Lutheranism, not to conservative evangelicals like Scofield, or people like Moody.
...those mainstream denominations agree on and their view of morality that is referred to...
Okay, I'll hear that: what do you mean by "mainstream," and what do you mean they "agree" on?

P.S. -- Regarding Aquinas, you're right: you said "Augustine." Memory failed me. My apologies. However, Augustine would not represent all the views of all the other men you listed.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Christian Morality

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 4:29 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 4:22 pm If you could read you would know the second paragraph said, "It is only the mainstream Protestant view of morality that will be examined here."
That doesn't explain why you included people like Finney: would you call him "mainline"? :shock:

Usually, "mainline" Protestantism refers to clerical and liturgical things like Anglicanism or Lutheranism, not to conservative evangelicals like Scofield, or people like Moody.
Take a deep breath and I'll try to help you. [If you don't like, "mainline," we don't have to label them at all.] Though I've thoroughly explained it already, I mean all those Christian denominations and teachings that agree on the following doctrines:

The Creation:
That God Create and sustains all that exists.
The Creation of man: That God created man without sin and with the law of God written on his very nature and with the free will ability to obey or disobey that law.
The Fall of man: Man chose to disobey the law of God thus corrupting his own nature and that of all future generations are born separated from God, sinners by nature, and condemned.
The Bible: The Bible is the plenary verbally inspired Word of God, inerrant in the original manuscripts and the sole and prefect revelation of God's truth.
God: There is one true living God who exists in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.
Jesus Christ: Jesus is the God the son incarnate, a fully human man, born of the Virgin Mary.
The Atonement: Jesus shed blood and death on the cross atoned for all the sins of mankind.
The Resurrection: Jesus rose literally from the dead and ascended into heaven.
Hell: Hell is a literal place of eternal torment where those not saved will spend eternity.
Heaven: Heaven is a literal place of bliss where the saved will spend eternity with God.
Salvation: The only escape from hell and assurance of heaven is salvation by the grace of God and faith in Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice and regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

On all other doctrinal questions and issues they may and do disagreel on. What makes them Christians are these fundamental doctrines they do agree on. It is morality as understood and described by those views I refer to.
...those mainstream denominations agree on and their view of morality that is referred to...
Okay, I'll hear that: what do you mean by "mainstream," and what do you mean they "agree" on?

P.S. -- Regarding Aquinas, you're right: you said "Augustine." Memory failed me. My apologies. However, Augustine would not represent all the views of all the other men you listed.[/quote]
Augustine was certainly not a protestant, either, but all Calvin's Institutes rest heavily on Augustine's teaching and his (Augustine's) doctrinal views would have been those I've listed above.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 10:33 pm I mean all those Christian denominations and teachings that agree on the following doctrines:

The Creation:
That God Create and sustains all that exists.
The Creation of man: That God created man without sin and with the law of God written on his very nature and with the free will ability to obey or disobey that law.
The Fall of man: Man chose to disobey the law of God thus corrupting his own nature and that of all future generations are born separated from God, sinners by nature, and condemned.
The Bible: The Bible is the plenary verbally inspired Word of God, inerrant in the original manuscripts and the sole and prefect revelation of God's truth.
God: There is one true living God who exists in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.
Jesus Christ: Jesus is the God the son incarnate, a fully human man, born of the Virgin Mary.
The Atonement: Jesus shed blood and death on the cross atoned for all the sins of mankind.
The Resurrection: Jesus rose literally from the dead and ascended into heaven.
Hell: Hell is a literal place of eternal torment where those not saved will spend eternity.
Heaven: Heaven is a literal place of bliss where the saved will spend eternity with God.
Salvation: The only escape from hell and assurance of heaven is salvation by the grace of God and faith in Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice and regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

It is morality as understood and described by those views I refer to.
Well, you've told me some points in their theology.

But you want to talk about their "morality," you say. What "morality" do they share, in your opinion?
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by jayjacobus »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 10:33 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 4:29 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 4:22 pm If you could read you would know the second paragraph said, "It is only the mainstream Protestant view of morality that will be examined here."
That doesn't explain why you included people like Finney: would you call him "mainline"? :shock:

Usually, "mainline" Protestantism refers to clerical and liturgical things like Anglicanism or Lutheranism, not to conservative evangelicals like Scofield, or people like Moody.
Take a deep breath and I'll try to help you. [If you don't like, "mainline," we don't have to label them at all.] Though I've thoroughly explained it already, I mean all those Christian denominations and teachings that agree on the following doctrines:

The Creation:
That God Create and sustains all that exists.
The Creation of man: That God created man without sin and with the law of God written on his very nature and with the free will ability to obey or disobey that law.
The Fall of man: Man chose to disobey the law of God thus corrupting his own nature and that of all future generations are born separated from God, sinners by nature, and condemned.
The Bible: The Bible is the plenary verbally inspired Word of God, inerrant in the original manuscripts and the sole and prefect revelation of God's truth.
God: There is one true living God who exists in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.
Jesus Christ: Jesus is the God the son incarnate, a fully human man, born of the Virgin Mary.
The Atonement: Jesus shed blood and death on the cross atoned for all the sins of mankind.
The Resurrection: Jesus rose literally from the dead and ascended into heaven.
Hell: Hell is a literal place of eternal torment where those not saved will spend eternity.
Heaven: Heaven is a literal place of bliss where the saved will spend eternity with God.
Salvation: The only escape from hell and assurance of heaven is salvation by the grace of God and faith in Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice and regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

On all other doctrinal questions and issues they may and do disagreel on. What makes them Christians are these fundamental doctrines they do agree on. It is morality as understood and described by those views I refer to.
...those mainstream denominations agree on and their view of morality that is referred to...
Okay, I'll hear that: what do you mean by "mainstream," and what do you mean they "agree" on?

P.S. -- Regarding Aquinas, you're right: you said "Augustine." Memory failed me. My apologies. However, Augustine would not represent all the views of all the other men you listed.
Augustine was certainly not a protestant, either, but all Calvin's Institutes rest heavily on Augustine's teaching and his (Augustine's) doctrinal views would have been those I've listed above.
[/quote]

Morality comes from knowing right from wrong and acting accordingly.

The Bible has doctrines that don't address morality in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Christian Morality

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 3:30 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 10:33 pm I mean all those Christian denominations and teachings that agree on the following doctrines:

The Creation:
That God Create and sustains all that exists.
The Creation of man: That God created man without sin and with the law of God written on his very nature and with the free will ability to obey or disobey that law.
The Fall of man: Man chose to disobey the law of God thus corrupting his own nature and that of all future generations are born separated from God, sinners by nature, and condemned.
The Bible: The Bible is the plenary verbally inspired Word of God, inerrant in the original manuscripts and the sole and prefect revelation of God's truth.
God: There is one true living God who exists in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.
Jesus Christ: Jesus is the God the son incarnate, a fully human man, born of the Virgin Mary.
The Atonement: Jesus shed blood and death on the cross atoned for all the sins of mankind.
The Resurrection: Jesus rose literally from the dead and ascended into heaven.
Hell: Hell is a literal place of eternal torment where those not saved will spend eternity.
Heaven: Heaven is a literal place of bliss where the saved will spend eternity with God.
Salvation: The only escape from hell and assurance of heaven is salvation by the grace of God and faith in Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice and regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

It is morality as understood and described by those views I refer to.
Well, you've told me some points in their theology.

But you want to talk about their "morality," you say. What "morality" do they share, in your opinion?
Christian Morality
Post Reply