Origen, In looking at this the other way around, The Bible says this: Genesis 2:7 “And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”
Again in Genesis 5:1 we read ,“In the day that God created man, he made Him in the likeness of God.”
If this is true, then man really has no power to change this nature, as Mark 10:9 says, "Therefore what God has joined together, let no man put asunder. Yes, we can choose to do evil, but there is no life in this.Just as a fish was made to live in water, if taken out of the water, it cannot live.
I suppose some of them are quite liberal.
I’d be surprised if there were not a number of threads here that have already discussed this topic. Perhaps the search engine would reveal them?
There is certainly tons to be found on google & many websites that answer the questions you’ve asked & defending the doctrinal statements of this website, The Evangelical Universalist, which we are posting on:
Perhaps you and Davo would like to start your own threads in answer to the above “Minimal Statement of Faith for Evangelical Universalists” and come out of the closet with your own creedal statements 
“The third point of common grace as adopted by the CRC pertains to “civic righteousness by the unregenerate.” This means that God, without renewing the heart, exercises such influence that even the unsaved man is enabled to perform good deeds toward his fellow man.”
gotquestions.org/common-grace.html
“Bolt’s treatment of the third point of common grace is surprising. The third point teaches that the unregenerated person is able to perform good works in the sphere of everyday earthly life in society. This is due to an operation of the Holy Spirit within him which, without renewing his heart, so influences his soul that good thoughts and desires produce good works. Hoeksema condemned the teaching as a denial of the biblical and confessional doctrine of total depravity. Louis Berkhof and other Christian Reformed theologians contended that the third point is a necessary defense of total depravity.”
standardbearer.rfpa.org/article … formulated
Herman Hoeksema: A Theological Biography
By Patrick Baskwell [p.275]
[quote=“DaveB”]
Isn’t ALL theology ‘roll-your-own’?]
And let’s NOT forget ALL the theological articles, related to Zombie theology and the Zombie Apocalypse. Like the one from the Patheos Evangelical newsletters:
A Theology of America’s Zombie Apocalypse
I FULLY believe all these right and left wing articles - flooding the Internet and airwaves…will trigger the Zombie Apocalypse. And I’ll introduce Zombie theology and theology of the Zombie Apocalypse - to counter this trend. 
GEE, Randy, the topic I linked to had nothing to do with lefty-righty or with zombies. You managed to bring both things in, though! 
The topic is “Can a Non-Believer Live a Moral Life?”. I know what you linked to - Dave. I’m just focusing on our theological future. We can’t discuss such a topic, without bringing up right wing articles, left wing articles and zombies. I’m sure I can find a way, to make it all fit together. Just like folks here manage, to fit all the biblical elements - into a unified theology. 
Ah.
Okay, so if we look at this subject in a ‘realistic’ mode, And turn the paradigm view, why would we even question that a ‘non believer’ could live a moral life? Maybe we should be asking, why do we have to believe in Jesus to be a ‘moral’ person 
One answer is this - that without Total Depravity (TD) the entire Calvinistic house of cards comes tumbling down. If that happens, the entire age-old fight between Arminians and Calvinists and others would evaporate. There would be less to fight about, and less to divide us. So, we need TD!!
Only half-joking there. TD is THE basis for the rest of TULIP; all the other so-called ‘doctrines of grace’ depend on and follow TD.
Well, you are right IMHO, but at some point we (who the hell are the we ) need to spread the news that God loves us… We are what we are created to be!!! He is God and kind of knows what is going on… MAYBE 
I’ve heard this said before, but can you prove it or provide a logical argument that is necessarily the case?
To begin, you’ld need to define Total Depravity. That could be a problem in itself. I’ve seen a number of different definitions.
You can prove it by removing TD, and then re-assessing ULIP.
It’s an excercise you can do yourself with a pencil and paper, just working through the results of removing TD - I spent a good little time a number of years ago doing it. It becomes apparent that hard logic demands that TD beginning point.
That’s kind of good… But what will that do to the Calvinist guard? How can he/we change that?
I’m somewhat slow today, Chad - could you re-state the question?
Really - I am slow today. 
Pretty much Dave… however, those who are predestined to believe TD, inevitably will.
The reality is… the goodness of God has NEVER been restricted to religianity, which is WHY anyone so inclined “CAN choose to live a moral life”. Now IF such a one wants to make THAT their own badge of personal honour well good luck to them, but THAT of itself would just make them as self-righteous as the predestined churchified one who gazing down his snout musters up the humility (cough, cough) to declare… “God, I thank You that I am not like other men…”.
Why are you quoting that statement of faith? Is that answering any of the questions that have been raised? Or do you think we all have to subscribe to that statement of faith in order to declare ourselves to be “Evangelical Universalists” and thus separate the orthodox from the heretics?
No, this is the most open Christian forum that I have ever joined. It doesn’t require members to subscribe to their statement of faith. It requires only that we share our various understandings in a manner that is respectful to others.
davo said:
That is a great spin http://images.all-free-download.com/images/graphiclarge/thumbs_up_clip_art_22903.jpg sorry I did not know the thumb was so big
Why not quote it. No, it didn’t answer your questions, but i suggested to you where you could find answers, if the subject interests you. I have no interest in arguing about or discussing the topic. If i did, i would have probably found threads on the topic & posted there. It is not the topic of this thread. True, this is a very open forum. I think all the regular posters here are aware of that. As such there are no obligations to answer another member’s queries.