A Reformed Universalist Catechism

[byronarn]

I decided to write a catechism, an explanation of theology in question and answer format, to better systematize my theology. Criticism and comments gladly accepted.

If you are Reformed Universalist, please let me know if this accurately describes your faith. If not, where is it inaccurate and how can I make it more accurate?

For everyone, are the answers short and easily understandable? Should I add questions, take some questions out, better explain certain concepts, etc?

I have attached my catechism. It is only a rough draft. I intend to take people’s criticisms and comments and make it better. I plan to eventually create a website that focuses on Reformed Universalism, and posting this to it.
catechism.pdf (226 KB)

[jaxxen]

Hey Byron, personally I think you’re pushing water uphill. First of all, the term “Reformed Universalism” implies that Universalism itself is being reformed. Now I damn sure believe that it needs to be, don’t get me wrong, no sir, but I don’t think that’s what you’re aiming for. Luther wanted to reform the Roman church due to what he thought were papal abuses and heresies, so he protested…hence the Protestant Reformation. I know you know that and so do most peeps on this forum, I’m just sayin’.
I think you’re too wishy-washy on “some verses seem to imply”. You’re being honest in acknowledging tension in certain verses, but I think that honesty is counterproductive in what you’re trying to accomplish (how sad to have to say that ).
Listing TULIP and then kinda qualifying it doesn’t help, either. BTW, I appreciate that you agreed with me on that other TULIP thread. I think you know what’s at stake and have some honor about it.
But ultimately, your greatest problem is Universalism and it’s underpinnings itself. By its very nature, it and its followers don’t want systematic teaching and structure. Unless it already agrees with what they think or want to be true. Oh sure, JasonPratt is an intellectual elite, but by and large people just want to be heard, told that they and their loved ones are going to heaven someday and they just need to behave themselves till then. Seriously. Have you read the threads around here, bruh? It’s pretty much anything goes…except, of course, the Sufficiency, Clarity, Necessity, Inspiration, Authority and Innerrancy of the Scriptures, a literal understanding of Adam and Eve with a literal Fall, etc. Universalists don’t want to be subjected to that, that’s why there here.
The creeds, confessions and catechisms were forged out of deep conviction and fear of God’s Word being mishandled and an accountability to none other than God Himself and men laid down their lives for those beliefs or went into exile and prisons. Now, Universalists may say that the first part of that sentence is true for them but I don’t think it will lead to the second. Bell is not Huss. McClaren is not Bonhoeffer. There is not a persecution for Universalists, just name-calling from traditionalists that you don’t care for anyway. To summarize, you’re big problem won’t be non-Universalists ire, it’ll be Universalists apathy and "Hey man, you can’t tell me what to believe, Jesus said, “Judge not and to just love, man”.
BTW, if you ARE trying to reform Universalism, with a Calvinist-but-not-really-a-Calvinist understanding, then I think you’re just trying to make muddy water clean by adding less-muddy water.

[byronarn]

My use of the term Reformed Universalism is because it is a synthesis of universalism and Reformed theology. This is a project of mine to show that except for Reformed Theology’s belief in the reprobate burning forever in hell, universalism is a good match for it.

Reformed Theology comes closest to the doctrines I find espoused within the pages of the New Testament. All except for eternal torment. I find predestination, election, God’s sovereignty, perseverance of the Saints, etc, etc, clearly taught in the pages of the New Testament. I also find universal reconciliation taught on the pages of the New Testament. The question then becomes, how does universal reconciliation fit in with Calvinism? Most would say it is impossible, that it cannot be done. I think, however, by limiting the scope of Limited Atonement to this lifetime and asserting that God plans to eventually save the reprobate from hell in the afterlife, it makes for a good combination.

[jaxxen]

My use of the term Reformed Universalism is because it is a synthesis of universalism and Reformed theology. This is a project of mine to show that except for Reformed Theology’s belief in the reprobate burning forever in hell, universalism is a good match for it.

Reformed Theology comes closest to the doctrines I find espoused within the pages of the New Testament. All except for eternal torment. I find predestination, election, God’s sovereignty, perseverance of the Saints, etc, etc, clearly taught in the pages of the New Testament. I also find universal reconciliation taught on the pages of the New Testament. The question then becomes, how does universal reconciliation fit in with Calvinism? Most would say it is impossible, that it cannot be done. I think, however, by limiting the scope of Limited Atonement to this lifetime and asserting that God plans to eventually save the reprobate from hell in the afterlife, it makes for a good combination.

Fair enough, byronart. I still think that you’ll run into inherent diffulculties, but that’s life under the sun. You never know what just might happen, you may go on to become the next Zacharias Ursinus. I hope you took my critique for what I intended and not a slam on you.

Matt

[byronarn]

Fair enough, byronart. I still think that you’ll run into inherent diffulculties, but that’s life under the sun. You never know what just might happen, you may go on to become the next Zacharias Ursinus. I hope you took my critique for what I intended and not a slam on you.

Matt

No worries. I asked for critiques, and that is what you gave me. Thank you.

What do you think of my questions and their answers? Do the questions follow a logical progression, from one to the next? Are the answers clear enough to be easily understandable? Are there questions that needed added or subtracted?

[jaxxen]

Fair enough, byronart. I still think that you’ll run into inherent diffulculties, but that’s life under the sun. You never know what just might happen, you may go on to become the next Zacharias Ursinus. I hope you took my critique for what I intended and not a slam on you.

Matt

No worries. I asked for critiques, and that is what you gave me. Thank you.

What do you think of my questions and their answers? Do the questions follow a logical progression, from one to the next? Are the answers clear enough to be easily understandable? Are there questions that needed added or subtracted?

I’ll have to go back and check, byronart. Nothing jumped out as being ridiculous or out of place, but I was just skimming them. I’m really only familiar with the Heidelberg and Westminster. I think the Heidelberg nailed it with having it broken into “Lord’s Days”. I think you’ll have to be more dogmatic on the “tension verses”. You’ll have to say something like, “We believe that the autographs, the best copies of them affirm universalism” and that English translations are insufficient. That really seems to be the thrust of the universalist arguement. Something to that affect. I don’t think you can do something this serious and be lukewarm. Saying that some verses seem to imply…won’t indoctrinate. There’s a differnce between teaching and indoctrination. Teaching allows other ideas. Creeds and confessions arose due to what they believed were heresies and had to be taught against. Ergo, they indoctrinate. Hope this helps.

[byronarn]

I’ll have to go back and check, byronart. Nothing jumped out as being ridiculous or out of place, but I was just skimming them. I’m really only familiar with the Heidelberg and Westminster. I think the Heidelberg nailed it with having it broken into “Lord’s Days”. I think you’ll have to be more dogmatic on the “tension verses”. You’ll have to say something like, “We believe that the autographs, the best copies of them affirm universalism” and that English translations are insufficient. That really seems to be the thrust of the universalist arguement. Something to that affect. I don’t think you can do something this serious and be lukewarm. Saying that some verses seem to imply…won’t indoctrinate. There’s a differnce between teaching and indoctrination. Teaching allows other ideas. Creeds and confessions arose due to what they believed were heresies and had to be taught against. Ergo, they indoctrinate. Hope this helps.

Yeah, I suppose you are right. I think I will go back through it and do that this evening, as well as adding questions about the (English) Bible describing hell as eternal and a discussion on translation. To be honest, I am not sure how I wrote an introductory piece on any type of universalism without putting a discussion of the translation of ‘aion’ in there. Guess I shouldn’t write at midnight anymore… Lol.

Thanks for your advice and the time you spent discussing this. I really appreciate it!

[jaxxen]

I’ll have to go back and check, byronart. Nothing jumped out as being ridiculous or out of place, but I was just skimming them. I’m really only familiar with the Heidelberg and Westminster. I think the Heidelberg nailed it with having it broken into “Lord’s Days”. I think you’ll have to be more dogmatic on the “tension verses”. You’ll have to say something like, “We believe that the autographs, the best copies of them affirm universalism” and that English translations are insufficient. That really seems to be the thrust of the universalist arguement. Something to that affect. I don’t think you can do something this serious and be lukewarm. Saying that some verses seem to imply…won’t indoctrinate. There’s a differnce between teaching and indoctrination. Teaching allows other ideas. Creeds and confessions arose due to what they believed were heresies and had to be taught against. Ergo, they indoctrinate. Hope this helps.

Yeah, I suppose you are right. I think I will go back through it and do that this evening, as well as adding questions about the (English) Bible describing hell as eternal and a discussion on translation. To be honest, I am not sure how I wrote an introductory piece on any type of universalism without putting a discussion of the translation of ‘aion’ in there. Guess I shouldn’t write at midnight anymore… Lol.

Thanks for your advice and the time you spent discussing this. I really appreciate it!

You’re welcome. I totally empathize with leaving stuff out.

[Alex_Smith]

But ultimately, your greatest problem is Universalism and it’s underpinnings itself. By its very nature, it and its followers don’t want systematic teaching and structure. Unless it already agrees with what they think or want to be true.

That sounds like a fairly sweeping generalisation… however I think there’s a little a bit truth in it because while UR is considered heresy by the majority, in order for someone to adopt it (often risking their community & sometimes their career) they need to be willing to question things, including authority, to be independent/divergent in their thinking. Once someone comes to the conclusion that the church is so wrong about ECT/P, they naturally question everything else it teaches. This doesn’t mean they’ll end up rejecting all the Reformed Theology, but it does mean we need to give each other time to work through things at their own pace.

Have you read the threads around here, bruh? It’s pretty much anything goes…except, of course, the Sufficiency, Clarity, Necessity, Inspiration, Authority and Innerrancy of the Scriptures, a literal understanding of Adam and Eve with a literal Fall, etc.

Adding to the above, we have 500 people from all over the world, often escaping places where they’ve been not allowed to ask questions, finding a place where they can ask questions without fear. Also there are plenty of EUs who do agree with you on the Sufficiency, Clarity, Necessity, Inspiration, Authority and Innerrancy of the Scriptures, a literal understanding of Adam and Eve with a literal Fall, etc.

The creeds, confessions and catechisms were forged out of deep conviction and fear of God’s Word being mishandled and an accountability to none other than God Himself and men laid down their lives for those beliefs or went into exile and prisons. Now, Universalists may say that the first part of that sentence is true for them but I don’t think it will lead to the second. … There is not a persecution for Universalists, just name-calling from traditionalists that you don’t care for anyway.

Just because “heretics” aren’t usually burned at the stake anymore, doesn’t mean they don’t suffer for their beliefs - I’ve seen it in countless Introductions & when visiting places like the ChristianPost.com…

To summarize, you’re big problem won’t be non-Universalists ire, it’ll be Universalists apathy and "Hey man, you can’t tell me what to believe, Jesus said, “Judge not and to just love, man”.

No offense intended, but in my experience, I’ve seen just as much apathy in the mainstream churches…

BTW, if you ARE trying to reform Universalism, with a Calvinist-but-not-really-a-Calvinist understanding, then I think you’re just trying to make muddy water clean by adding less-muddy water.

I think the Reformation didn’t do enough reforming, I think they should’ve rejected the Catholics notion of ECT/P. As they didn’t, we now need to reform Calvinism on that point, and I see EU as part of the way God is doing that

How can Calvinism continue to reform, if it doesn’t even allow questioning of it’s doctrines? (I’m not saying you don’t allow questions, it’s just many Calvinists I’ve met, act as if Calvin figured everything out; that “The Gospel is Calvinism” & that “Calvin’s Institutes are second only to the Bible”. Now I think Calvin did figure a lot of stuff out - which is one reason I’m at a Calvinist church - but I just think some followers go too far).

[phillip_macdonald]

Hello Byronarn and Matt,
That was a good exercise to lay out your core beliefs like that Byron. But I agree with Matt if it’s going to be something to share and teach you will need to be a little more grounded in what you say you believe. I am an evangelical universalist coming from a Calvinist background of over 30 years after 15 years an Arminian. I have all Calvin’s commentaries, his Institutes, and hundreds of Reformed books on my shelves (that I still regard as valuable…it’s half the picture!).

I really think that the more you study the more you will not favor a Reformed angle of UR over an Arminian one. The point is that they are simply two sides of the character of God that have been separated by the traditions of men.

I wrote a piece on “J I Packer’s Into to John Owen’s Death of Death” (the booklet recommended to Arminians to introduce them to Calvinism). I think I already posted to one of you about it but it explains how the issue at hand is really seeing how the God who wants all to be saved is actually the same God who is able! I will say since I have been Reformed for so long I do have a stronger base for God’s absolute sovereignty and less interest to defend “free-will”. So Reformed theology in as much as it teaches God’s sovereignty in salvation is the one that resonates the most with me. But we have been very blessed in an Arminian congregation for the past 6 months. It is refreshing to hear each week how passionately God loves the whole world!
You both might find our website helpful. I would be interested to know how you each would respond to the Packer article and also the questions we ask of our readers. They might help you form some aspects of your catechism Byron.

On John Owen: godslovewins.com/blog.htm

The Questions: godslovewins.com/thequestions.htm

grace and peace…

[phillip_macdonald]

Adding to the above, we have 500 people from all over the world, often escaping places where they’ve been not allowed to ask questions, finding a place where they can ask questions without fear. Also there are plenty of EUs who do agree with you on the Sufficiency, Clarity, Necessity, Inspiration, Authority and Innerrancy of the Scriptures, a literal understanding of Adam and Eve with a literal Fall, etc.

Thanks Alex, we were posting at the same time so I didn’t see yours till after. I agree, and I am one of those who would agree on the Sufficiency, Clarity, Necessity, Inspiration, Authority and In errancy of the Scriptures etc.,

I think the Reformation didn’t do enough reforming, I think they should’ve rejected the Catholics notion of ECT/P. As they didn’t, we now need to reform Calvinism on that point, and I see EU as part of the way God is doing that

How can Calvinism continue to reform, if it doesn’t even allow questioning of it’s doctrines? (I’m not saying you don’t allow questions, it’s just many Calvinists I’ve met, act as if Calvin figured everything out; that “The Gospel is Calvinism” & that “Calvin’s Institutes are second only to the Bible”. Now I think Calvin did figure a lot of stuff out - which is one reason I’m at a Calvinist church - but I just think some followers go too far).

Exactly, for a Reform(ing) blog site see Randy Boswell’s “Reformed and Always Reforming”. He is currently in Scotland getting his doctorate on an aspect of universalism under Tom Greggs. randyboswell.com/

[pilgrim]

Reformed Theology comes closest to the doctrines I find espoused within the pages of the New Testament. All except for eternal torment. I find predestination, election, God’s sovereignty, perseverance of the Saints, etc, etc, clearly taught in the pages of the New Testament.

Interesting project byron and I wish you well on it but when you say “all except for eternal torment” are you sure that is the only exception?
What about Limited Atonement?
And what about the meaning of election? For a reformed christian “elected” is synonymous with “those who have their destiny in heaven” rather than elected for a particular job down here and only one small part of those who are eternally blessed.
I think you have quite a task ahead. “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump”. Personally I think it is important to emphasize our disassociation and differences from a theology that has put countless thousands off the idea of christianity.

[byronarn]

Reformed Theology comes closest to the doctrines I find espoused within the pages of the New Testament. All except for eternal torment. I find predestination, election, God’s sovereignty, perseverance of the Saints, etc, etc, clearly taught in the pages of the New Testament.

Interesting project byron and I wish you well on it but when you say “all except for eternal torment” are you sure that is the only exception?
What about Limited Atonement?
And what about the meaning of election? For a reformed christian “elected” is synonymous with “those who have their destiny in heaven” rather than elected for a particular job down here and only one small part of those who are eternally blessed.
I think you have quite a task ahead. “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump”. Personally I think it is important to emphasize our disassociation and differences from a theology that has put countless thousands off the idea of christianity.

You also have to beware of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Calvinism is much more supported by Scripture than Arminianism. With the exception of eternal torment, I think all the major doctrines of Calvinism can be supported by Scripture. You ask about Limited Atonement. I believe it us true, if understood in conjunction with Election. God never intended for everyone to be part of the Elect. In one sense, everyone was atoned for at the cross. In another sense, only the Elect were atoned for out of all the masses of humanity to be enabled to become the Bride of Christ.

The Elect have a special destiny for Eternity. We are the bride of Christ, and shall be “co-rulers with Christ in heavenly places” for eternity. But if we shall be rulers, whom will we rule? The reconciled reprobate.

I look at it this way. All will enter into the kingdom of heaven (after being reconciled). But only the Elect will inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Is this fair, for some to be Elected to greater glory? My answer is to ask a related question. Is it fair for a man to select one woman to be his bride? It didn’t mean he hates other woman. He just loves that one in a special manner.

Look at the prodigal son. The prodigal son was welcomed back with open arms by his father. But for the loyalty and faithfulness of the loyal son what was he rewarded? The Father says to him, “Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. But it was appropriate to celebrate and be glad, for this, your brother, was dead, and is alive again. He was lost, and is found.” (Luke 15:32 WEB)

In the parable of the Prodigal Son, we the Elect are the faithful son. We are always with the Father, taking episcopal care not to squander His grace he rains upon us, but rather using it to His glory. The prodigal Son is the reprobate. They squander the grace of God that He gives them (material blessings, talents, skills, etc.) For their own pleasure and glory. But in hell, they shall look up from their misery, see how they wasted what God gave them, and will beg for His mercy. And he will accept them.

[jaxxen]

But ultimately, your greatest problem is Universalism and it’s underpinnings itself. By its very nature, it and its followers don’t want systematic teaching and structure. Unless it already agrees with what they think or want to be true.

That sounds like a fairly sweeping generalisation… however I think there’s a little a bit truth in it because while UR is considered heresy by the majority, in order for someone to adopt it (often risking their community & sometimes their career) they need to be willing to question things, including authority, to be independent/divergent in their thinking. Once someone comes to the conclusion that the church is so wrong about ECT/P, they naturally question everything else it teaches. This doesn’t mean they’ll end up rejecting all the Reformed Theology, but it does mean we need to give each other time to work through things at their own pace.

Have you read the threads around here, bruh? It’s pretty much anything goes…except, of course, the Sufficiency, Clarity, Necessity, Inspiration, Authority and Innerrancy of the Scriptures, a literal understanding of Adam and Eve with a literal Fall, etc.

Adding to the above, we have 500 people from all over the world, often escaping places where they’ve been not allowed to ask questions, finding a place where they can ask questions without fear. Also there are plenty of EUs who do agree with you on the Sufficiency, Clarity, Necessity, Inspiration, Authority and Innerrancy of the Scriptures, a literal understanding of Adam and Eve with a literal Fall, etc.

The creeds, confessions and catechisms were forged out of deep conviction and fear of God’s Word being mishandled and an accountability to none other than God Himself and men laid down their lives for those beliefs or went into exile and prisons. Now, Universalists may say that the first part of that sentence is true for them but I don’t think it will lead to the second. … There is not a persecution for Universalists, just name-calling from traditionalists that you don’t care for anyway.

Just because “heretics” aren’t usually burned at the stake anymore, doesn’t mean they don’t suffer for their beliefs - I’ve seen it in countless Introductions & when visiting places like the ChristianPost.com…

To summarize, you’re big problem won’t be non-Universalists ire, it’ll be Universalists apathy and "Hey man, you can’t tell me what to believe, Jesus said, “Judge not and to just love, man”.

No offense intended, but in my experience, I’ve seen just as much apathy in the mainstream churches…

BTW, if you ARE trying to reform Universalism, with a Calvinist-but-not-really-a-Calvinist understanding, then I think you’re just trying to make muddy water clean by adding less-muddy water.

I think the Reformation didn’t do enough reforming, I think they should’ve rejected the Catholics notion of ECT/P. As they didn’t, we now need to reform Calvinism on that point, and I see EU as part of the way God is doing that

How can Calvinism continue to reform, if it doesn’t even allow questioning of it’s doctrines? (I’m not saying you don’t allow questions, it’s just many Calvinists I’ve met, act as if Calvin figured everything out; that “The Gospel is Calvinism” & that “Calvin’s Institutes are second only to the Bible”. Now I think Calvin did figure a lot of stuff out - which is one reason I’m at a Calvinist church - but I just think some followers go too far).

Hey Alex, a reasonable enough reply on your part, I reckon.
It was a sweeping generalisation, but not unwarranted. Not “thus sayeth the LORD”, but not unwarranted.
We could go back and forth but I don’t know if it’s profitable. I absolutely agree that there’s so much apathy in mainline churches. Ultimately my take is that to try to reform Calvinism is like trying to reform Rome. You will wind up with a different religion altogether. It may make sense at a superficial level at first, but the deeper you get the more that will become apparent.
BTW, I don’t blame anyone for struggling, rebelling or hating the concept of ECT. I don’t think you’d be human if you didn’t.

[Alex_Smith]

Hey Alex, a reasonable enough reply on your part, I reckon.

Thanks

It was a sweeping generalisation, but not unwarranted. Not “thus sayeth the LORD”, but not unwarranted.

I agreed, but went on to try to explain why it often occurs, at least initially. I probably should’ve also mentioned that most EUs have only been EUs for a few years, it usually takes many years (even for exceptionally clever people, like I imagine Calvin must’ve been) to build a consistant systematic theology that covers everything…

Ultimately my take is that to try to reform Calvinism is like trying to reform Rome. You will wind up with a different religion altogether. It may make sense at a superficial level at first, but the deeper you get the more that will become apparent.

Yes, I’ve been told that would be the case, that it’s like a house of cards, if you take out one it will effect all the others. And I’ll admit that in my experience removing ECT has caused greater theological “ripples” than I expected. Whether or not that’s a bad thing, time will tell. However, I must emphasise, that the same “ripples” don’t occur with everyone, and even though I might currently be questioning an issue (say PSA), I may well settle again on the Calvinist position in regard to a particular issue (although I honestly can’t imagine changing my view on ECT).

I don’t blame anyone for struggling, rebelling or hating the concept of ECT. I don’t think you’d be human if you didn’t.

I agree. I’m very glad that you can see that. Does that mean Jesus also struggled/hated the concept of ECT? Does that mean God ends up doing something He would rather not have to do?

[jaxxen]

Hey Alex, a reasonable enough reply on your part, I reckon.

Thanks

It was a sweeping generalisation, but not unwarranted. Not “thus sayeth the LORD”, but not unwarranted.

I agreed, but went on to try to explain why it often occurs, at least initially. I probably should’ve also mentioned that most EUs have only been EUs for a few years, it usually takes many years (even for exceptionally clever people, like I imagine Calvin must’ve been) to build a consistant systematic theology that covers everything…

Ultimately my take is that to try to reform Calvinism is like trying to reform Rome. You will wind up with a different religion altogether. It may make sense at a superficial level at first, but the deeper you get the more that will become apparent.

Yes, I’ve been told that would be the case, that it’s like a house of cards, if you take out one it will effect all the others. And I’ll admit that in my experience removing ECT has caused greater theological “ripples” than I expected. Whether or not that’s a bad thing, time will tell. However, I must emphasise, that the same “ripples” don’t occur with everyone, and even though I might currently be questioning an issue (say PSA), I may well settle again on the Calvinist position in regard to a particular issue (although I honestly can’t imagine changing my view on ECT).

I don’t blame anyone for struggling, rebelling or hating the concept of ECT. I don’t think you’d be human if you didn’t.

I agree. I’m very glad that you can see that. Does that mean Jesus also struggled/hated the concept of ECT? Does that mean God ends up doing something He would rather not have to do?

Your last question is a great one. I’d say that Jesus and the Father WERE ALWAYS on the same page. Jesus is the express image of the Father, that He and the Father are one, and that if you’ve seen Jesus-you’ve seen the Father. Where the debate comes in is on final endgame of the non-elect sinners. For UR, it’s reconiliation. For non-UR, it’s ECT or annihilation.
IF, and I say IF, ECT is true, then no, Jesus didn’t struggle with it, because it is perfectly right as all things from the Godhead are perfectly right, though they transcend our limited, finite understanding.
The other question is complicated. “I take no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked…” “For why should you die…?” “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how I’ve longed to gather you…BUT YOU WOULD NOT”
To answer the last question briefly, and probably unsatisfactory for you, I’d say yes and no. It is revealed to us through Scripture in the above passages, that from OUR perspective yes, He does do things He’d rather not. Having His only beloved Son, whom He loved and with was well pleased, being beaten, mocked, spat upon and murdered must be at the top of the list. But the Father went through with it anyway because He chose to. Now, the answer No would be found more in the mind of God, of which we have limited access. All of His judgements and ways are righteous and true, therefore He would not struggle with something that He knows to be perfectly righteous and for His glory. Hope that makes a little sense, Alex. I know it might not be perfectly satisfactory to you or us in general, but my perspective is that the Almighty is not obligated to inform us on all things that don’t make sense. Consider Job.

[Alex_Smith]

Thanks jaxxen, I agree God is prepared to suffer (e.g. as you said, on the Cross) to achieve His end purpose, which again I agree must be “perfectly righteous and for His glory”. However, I honestly don’t think ECT or annihilation, gives God as much glory as converting beings who hate Him, into beings who love/worship/praise Him with all of their mind/body/soul (something that He definitely deserves too).

Obviously I’ll concede that I’m not God, and that I may be mistaken about what I think He’s revealed