About uncertainty: I really don't see how anyone can be sure of any of this. This doesn't mean they don't believe. I don't think belief requires certainty.
I think you can believe without being certain, but I don't think you can fully believe without being certain. Take Hebrews 11:1 for instance: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
And the people whose faith Jesus commended were those who acted as though their faith were certainty, not fond, uncertain hope.
It happens on another wavelength entirely from knowledge, IMO, and I think most theological folly comes from mixing the two.
Even if "most theological folly" comes from mixing the two, does that mean it is wrong to do so? Is that a logical conclusion? Some would argue that most miracles today come from mixing the two. It would be difficult to argue that the apostles kept the two separate.
How is it anything but reasonable to acknowledge that I have no proof for any of this, and so I can't mark it down in the "knowledge" column?
It's perfectly reasonable. It just shouldn't affect your theology or your actions imo. Not that it would matter (from your perspective) in the long run if it affected your actions, universalist that you are.
lol, CS Lewis would be considered a heretic in some ways if evangelicals actually paid attention to what he actually believed, rather than just venerating at the altar of his intellect.
Well, I guess it depends on what we mean by "heretic". I doubt any Christian could honestly claim to be free of
some form of heresy if we are defining heresy as any heterodox doctrinal position or, more simply, wrong understanding of God. Personally, when I speak of heresy I'm referring specifically to a doctrinal position which opposes a salvific understanding of the gospel (wow, can of worms there). And I'm aware that Clive believed in some form of purgatory, which many Christians do not. Does a belief in purgatory preclude a salvific understanding of the gospel? I haven't read his teachings on the subject, but I doubt it. And this does not change the fact that, from what I've read, he would consider theistic agnosticism to be non-Christian if not actually anti-Christian.
And Luther was thrown out of the Catholic church for his beliefs.
He did, by appealing to earlier tradition, notably Augustine. It's no secret that the Catholic church was a hell of a moral mess during Luther's day. I'd be curious to know what earlier tradition Ivy's influential theologians would be appealing to.
Augustine fell back into a life of sin in his later age.
So? What difference does that make? Looks like an ad hominem argument to me.
Not that it matters. I just find it raises that interesting question of, "Who or what exactly is the authority that determines who is in and who is out?"
If you are saying that no one person should be authoritative in defining Christianity (aside from Jesus) then I will agree with you. However, if your conclusion from that is that you can safely ignore all Christian tradition on any subject which you don't agree with then I think you are treading very dangerous ground. All of those men had some whacky ideas imo (for what
that's worth). But if
all of them were united in opposition to a certain understanding of God, then that wouldn't be something to take lightly. Of course, don't just take my word on it that they would be opposed to this strange pluralistic universalism Ivy seems to be espousing. Read them yourself.