I’ve been thinking about this lately. It’s called God and the correct doctrine scorecard. Everyone in the church infrastructures wants to instill correct doctrine. It’s as if when we finally reach the afterlife, God or a chosen representative (i.e. Saint Peter) will have a correct doctrine scorecard. then they might say, “Sorry, but you didn’t make it. You didn’t believe in the correct Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Assemble of God, TV evangelist, bible church, community church, etc., doctrine. You only scored an 80% passing score and need a 92% score to get in.” They forget the two commandments of Christ: Love God and love your neighbor - the condensed scriptural version. It’s like they don’t think God will ask:

What’s in your heart
Did you believe in Christ, as you understood him
Did you practice those two commandments to the best of your ability

Now my conception of Christ might be flawed, depending on if I’m brought up in Islam, the Mormon Church, the Christian Science Church, the Jehovah Witnesses, etc. But even if I am a good Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Bible church member, etc., why does everyone envision God or a chosen representative, will have a doctrine scorecard in the afterlife?

And who has a better understanding of “We were created in the image and likeness of God?”

Eastern Orthodox
Christian Scientists
Mormons

What if there was more given emphasize on theological creativity? Hence, Christian Scientists and New Thought Christianity get high marks for blending the directives of the Protestant reformation with the philosophical disciplines of metaphysics?

Or the Dessert Fathers of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Quakers get high marks for their mysticism of God as light?

Why a correct doctrine scorecard mentality? As Jerry Seinfeld - the TV comedian - might ask: “why is that?”

As a hyper-orthodox doctrinaire myself, I have often pointedly joked that salvation by doctrinal acceptance is the heresy of gnosticism AND SHOULD BE REJECTED!

And yet it wasn’t. Sighhhhhh…

Great as it may be to understand reality correctly, what is the standard by which we assess "correct doctrine’? And don’t tell me “the Bible”. All the various “churches”, sects, and cults claim to go exactly by the Bible and yet their doctrinal beliefs and practical living standards, contradict one another or are inconsistent with one another.

Our unity in the one Body of Christ has no relation to philosophical or theological beliefs. This unity is based upon our discipleship and submission to the teaching of Christ (most of which is found in Matt 5, 6, and 7). It is also based on how we function in the Body. Do we work together with the other members? Or does the foot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”? Do we truly love and serve other members of the Body?

I think it will be our disciple scorecard—our Body scorecard—our obedience scorecard, that will count. I don’t think God cares a hill of beans for the philosophical and/or theological positions which we happen to take.

Paidion:

I just found this movie for rent on Redbox. It’s called God is not dead. It’s about a Christian who enrolls in a philosophy class. The professor is of the position that God is dead. It got four out of five stars on Redbox user rates. It should be interesting.

Sometimes folks in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches like to interpret things in the bible symbolically. Folks in the Protestant camps like to always take the literal interpretation route. That’s where they get into trouble. Folks in the New Thought and Christian Science groups look on everything as God is absolute good - evil doesn’t exist. Why not change it from a theology to a contemplation or reflection? We contemplate God being everywhere present. Perhaps we can combine the contemplation of new thought Christianity’s Emmet Fox Golden Key with Brother Lawrence Practicing the Presence of God. Now if I were to suggest that to some - even here - would I be considered a heretic? It depends on when we consider God becomes “all in all”. Now or sometime in the future.

The Eastern Orthodox - for the most part - have a pretty good position. Some think we should take “the kingdom of God is within you” literally. That would mean heaven, hell, the saints, angels, etc., are all inside.

In the Christian world, I’m sometimes reminded of a three Stooges short. Moe says to Curly. “See that hammer? See that nail? When I nod my head, you hit it.” And Curly did just as he was told - he followed correct doctrine.

Sorry. I’m late for my class in philosophical theology, taught by professor Grocho Marx and professor Moe Howard. Today we talk about being the Holy Fool of Eastern Orthodoxy.

I don’t think the idea of the kingdom being inside each individual is tantamount to taking this sentence literally.
When Jesus said these words, He was standing with his disciples in the midst of a group of Pharisees.

A kingdom consists of a king and his subjects. Jesus was the king and his disciples were his subjects. Therefore Jesus and his disciples formed the kingdom of God at that time, and there it was, right in the midst of the Pharisees (quite literally)—certainly not in the hearts of the Pharisees individually.

I believe this is where a George MacDonald quote applies:

I don’t think there is a greater preacher in the last 500 years than George MacDonald, and I believe he is right on with the above… Most of what he says applies to us in the 21st Century… How can that be that 150 years later, the Church is in largely the same position it was then? Crazy.

In Biblical terms, you are probably right, in where is “the kingdom of God.” But you also quoted the author of Evangelical Universalist. Perhaps I’m wrong here and getting my authors mixed up. This is a book I’m getting today from my public library, via the Wheaton College Library. I’m not sure what is the better approach. An essay approach of the Evangelical Universalist (i.e. I’m assuming that’s the approach)? Or the Socratic question approach of Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived by Rob Bell? Both reach the right audience, but the second book is probably an easier read - for the general public.

But the Eastern Orthodox are mystics - for the most part. Or at least mystical in orientation. And it was a Greek Orthodox bishop who commented on the topic of the kingdom of God being inside. It does raise a question on how we regard our Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant mystics. How should we understand the communicated experiences and insights of folks like the Eastern Orthodox dessert fathers, Hildegard of Bingen, George Fox, Meister Eckhart, Jakob Böhme or Julian of Norwich? Jacob Boehme and Meister Eckhart are both fascinating reads. The former is much harder to phantom. Or for that matter, how should we understand the experiences of those with Near Death Experiences? Some are even written by medical doctors. Like

To Heaven and Back: A Doctor’s Extraordinary Account of Her Death, Heaven, Angels, and Life Again: A True Story by Mary C. Neal
Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey into the Afterlife by Eben Alexander

It’s hard to say who is the best writer or speaker on Christian matters. Personally, I prefer it put in great literary works, like G. K. Chesterton, C. S. Lewis or even J. R. R. Tolkien. There’s lots of Christian messages in the last author’s works. Usually, it is history that decides who the best writers are - at least, who are those who’s works are hanging around 100+ years from now.

Of course these are opinion. But those you listed? Take a look below…

Almost forgot, this is what C.S. Lewis said…

The classic ‘scorecard’ joke, from Emo Phillips:

"Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”

He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”

He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!”

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over."

i think I get it. *The Evangelical Universalist *was penned under a pseudonym of a famous deceased author. Am I understanding that correctly? Unlike Rob bell’s Socratic questing book, this one starts with philosophical arguments - well constructed. I see even a section under open theism. A professor of philosophy, who was an ordained minister with a PhD. in philosophy, warned me to stay away from open theism. And I’m now watching the God is not dead movie. In all my years of taking philosophy courses, I’ve never seen a philosophy professor as unbelievable as this movie version one. And if he were real, I’m sure he would be getting legal challenges. But philosophers can be egocentric in the extreme. I remember reading *Wittgenstein’s Poker: The Story of a Ten-Minute Argument Between Two Great Philosophers * by David Edmonds. Sometimes experience is more interesting. One of my favorite expositions of Christ is found in the book *Beyond the Lodge of the Sun: Inner Mysteries of the Native American Way *by Chokecherry Gall Eagle, He is a native American medicine man, who was related and hung around the Lakota holy man Fools Crow. Fools Crow was both a Christian and follower of Native American spirituality. I also find the books by Tiffany Snow, whom I mentioned in earlier threads, very compelling.

Close, but not quite. He did write under a pseudonym, but it was Gregory MacDonald. Because two of his favorite preachers were Gregory of Nyssa and George MacDonald. They were both Universalists. So he combine their names for his pseudonym.

I rather enjoyed the movie, but I do agree that it was way overdone. There certainly are people like that in the world, but it is extremely rare and they likely would not have a job for long if they acted in such an unethical manner.

There are other parts to the movie that are cheesy, but overall it was a quality flick. It really showed how repugnant some people can be in life…

Probably the best movie parts I’'ve enjoyed is the music from the group Newsboys and the Duck Dynasty guest appearances.I think I have the response to the professor. I once saw a person in a LinkedIn group say “copywriters only work for advertising agencies.” And folks were trying to prove his absurd statement wrong. My response to him was the same response I would give to the professor, I can’t sign this statement that God is dead, because “this statement is not self-evident”.

Just for further information – in case no one’s said yet – TEU was written by Robin Parry, and he used the pseudonym for the sake of the publishing company he was at that time associated with, not at their request or demand, but because of his personal concern that his soteriological stand might impact them adversely. His job wasn’t at stake, but he’s since moved on to other pursuits (don’t remember specifically what), and is now writing under his own name. It’s an excellent book btw, and I highly recommend it.

A doctrinal scorecard …lol…that is a good question…I have recently run into people trying to keep doctrinal score on me.

One church was Interviewing me for membership and I really don’t think churches have the right to do that.

Then another group basically told me I wasn’t welcome for not believing in hell doctrine…they said I was a New Ager and I am pretty far from being a New Ager though I suspect when Christ returns a new age will be set up…that doesn’t currently make me a New Ager…it is just a rejection label pinned on me by my own house.

The ironic thing is the same thing happened to Christ. He was rejected by his own house so that means I am in the best of company. Praise God!

Doctrine is important for spiritual birth and relationship building with God and Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit who are really a Christian’s primary family.

So be the best student of the bible you can be so God approves of you and you get the relationship down.

Plus there is an awful lot of good counsel and protection in,the pages of the bible.

Just remember we don’t answer to men though we should befriend everyone.

We only answer to God like little Samuel the prophet.

Little Samuel actually demonstrates how we are to respond to God when He calls us.

Apparently God likes using people who are like little children more than,he does adults because a lot of adults,have been trained by the rough training of the world to be control freaks.

And God isn’t a control freak…He will always let you think for yourself because that is how we learn to judge with righteous judgment.

We really don’t need to be substituting other people’s dogma for God’s thinking.

We need to think like God for ourselves

Yummy.

Yup! Typo! But that looks like yummy Greek Pastry. Goes good with Greek coffee and Greek wine! Brings back memories. Like when my Greek Orthodox friend Dora invited me for dinner. But she had some kind of strong herbal, alcoholic concoction from Mt. Athos in Greece. Didn’t know monks could make anything that potent.