The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Believers and Unbelievers committing the Irremediable sin!

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#61

Moderation Deletion

#62

2 things

  1. A scripture reference in a reply to me is useless as by your definition I cannot understand it.

  2. If this whole forum would be rebuked then that would include you and me as well - but perhaps not me as John would likely not include a heathen in a rebuke to the body I presume.

#63

No, I do not deny Jesus coming in the flesh! I do not deny who Jesus said he was and what he did for me on the cross! I do not deny Jesus’ diety! :smiling_imp:

Do you see this, Jeff? This is the complete opposite of what the scriptures teach! ( 2 Cor 5:21; 1 Peter 3:18 the whole chapter of Isaiah 53, the types and shadows of the OT sacrifices; the types and shadows of the OT feasts) Most of the doctrines Aaron sows into peoples lives are the opposite of what the scriputres teach!

#64

Aaron, your presumptuousness knows no bounds. John was addressing a completely different situation than what we have here. Besides, based on how you misunderstand people and skew their words, I’m hiiiighly skeptical that Aaron believes all you say he does anyway. For instance, I believe in Christ’s atonement for our sins but I also agree with the statement you quoted from Aaron. Christ wasn’t punished by God. That would be to break up the unity of the Trinity.

#65

Oh yea… why don’t you ask him personally, Justin. It is not a different situation. You’re highly skeptical on everything! The Apostle John was addressing false gnostic teaching! Wake Up, Justin!

Ask Aaron if these are not accurate of his beliefs:

  1. Does not believe Jesus came in the flesh. ( this belief is warned about in 1 John 4:1-3 ; 2 John 7-11)
  2. Denies the diety of Jesus.
  3. Denies who Jesus says he was and what he did on the cross.
  4. Spreads the false doctrine of Preterism.
  5. His beliefs mirror Gnosticism.
  6. Denies the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit representing one God in three persons.
  7. God knows what else…I’m sure I left some out.
#66

Christ took on OUR punishment. We take on HIS righteousness.

The reality? HE wasn’t punished and WE are not righteous…that is, if one doesn’t understand the swap.

#67

Yes, Ran! Amen! We finally agree! Preach on, my brother! How can one deny 2 Cor 5:21; 1 Peter 3:18 the whole chapter of Isaiah 53, the types and shadows of the OT sacrifices; the types and shadows of the OT feasts? You practically have to put your head in the sand to ignore the truth of these scriptures and types and shadows! Sheesh!

#68

Aaron,

  1. I do believe that “Jesus came in the flesh.” I’ve always understood this to be an affirmation of Jesus’ full humanity. Both Trinitarians and Unitarians affirm this.

  2. That’s correct.

  3. I don’t deny who Jesus says he was and what he did on the cross. Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt 16:16), and his death secured a number of blessings for the world, the greatest of which is the ultimate reconciliation of all to God (Col 1:19-20).

  4. That’s correct, except for the “false” part. :unamused:

  5. In what way do my “beliefs mirror Gnosticism?” :confused:

  6. Correct.

  7. That’s correct; God knows everything (1John 3:20). :mrgreen:

#69

That’s kind of a biggie, Aaron. God can take on our punishment and survive, but a mere man can’t - sinless or not - because that mere man would be (and remain) in Adam himself - he couldn’t claim much else since he is merely God’s very human (and exclusively so) son. God was Adam’s father and creator as well. You must, then, argue that Christ was created - but the not the breeder of mankind - the new Adam - in what way and what is new by your scenario?

#70

Ah. So Aaron’s a unitarian. Makes sense. That’s nothing like being a gnostic. At least I can all but agree with some of them, the ones who say that nothing existed before the Son who is eternal and shares the nature of God. I don’t understand why they don’t just make the final leap and say that he’s God, aside from maybe trying to avoid sounding absurd.

Of course I’m skeptical of everything, Aaron. I don’t just swallow everything I’m taught like you seem to do.

Ran, I sharply disagree. Jesus didn’t need to be punished because God’s not the anal retentive sadist that abusive fathers throughout the centuries have tried to make him out to be to justify their ridiculous behavior. Also, we most certainly do get his real, live righteousness tangibly implanted into our hearts through His Spirit. That’s why I think the infilling can be so important because it can accelerate that process in our lives.

#71

He wasn’t, not really, but He was. Otherwise, how can anyone affirm that He was the God/man? One must put aside concepts of the sinless un-man or uber-man for that to take hold. It was real blood He shed. He suffered as He bore our sins and our punishment. 'He was punished for our iniquities.

#72

But, Ran. Suffering doesn’t imply punishment, but punishment does imply a punisher and a penalty.

#73

Right. But we are talking about the cross here, not mincing words or concepts. Do you understand the difference as one approaches those ‘words’? God suffered and died as one of us under His own Law. He ‘punished’ Himself. Lutheran stuff - but quite acceptable to us. God died on the cross, not someone merely godlike.

#74

“Punished Himself.” Ahhh… now I get what you’re saying. I thought you were using the old tack of splitting up the Trinity to pit the Father against the Son.

Yes, in fact, I think I’m seeing a new depth to the whole thing because of what you just said! Like seeing down another hallway in God’s kingdom… maybe a strange metaphor, but that’s the sensation I just had.

It’s kind of an ironic paradox. The blameless one comes and suffers under the Law he gave us, as if to say, “You’ve fallen far short of how I made you to be, but I completely understand why… and I’m here to show you that I don’t even hold back the suffering you’ve received as a result even from myself. All the suffering will be known to have been completely necessary. I am responsible for bringing you into this world, and by God I’m gonna get you out clean and spotless and safe!” Fits very well into the high priest theology in Hebrews, and gives me a new grasp of the sacrificial atonement symbolism and why that was so important.

Thanks, Ran! :smiley:

#75

There are 2 aspects of this I always find puzzling…

one is - How can the God part of Christ in any meaningful way be said to have died on the cross. If one of the attributes of God is eternal existence and Jesus is wholly God as well as wholly man then not existing is a logical impossibility.

the other is - If Jesus’s words ‘My God why have you forsaken me?’ are true, then Jesus dies purely as a man (albeit a sinless man). How is this different to what Unitarians believe?

#76

When did He not exist?

#77

Ok perhaps I’m not explaining myself very well…

If an attribute of God is deathlessness how can He be said to have died on the cross? What am I missing?

#78

Apparently, that’s not an attribute.

#79

That’s quite an assertion Ran :smiley: - can you point me in the direction of any material that expands on that?

#80

So is the Trinity!

“God fetched a pail of water for His mother.” M. Luther.

Try that one on. :mrgreen: