Can a Non-Believer Live a Moral Life?

[Origen]

I did introduce an interesting article or 2, earlier in this thread:

Three Arguments Against Total Depravity

Excellent — straightforward — rational.

Bollox & blasphemy from the link above:

Argument #2: Christ’s Humanity Disproves Total Depravity

This is the biggest problem with total depravity, and one that has been pointed out by many scholars. It is sometimes called the problem of the incarnation. All orthodox Christians must affirm that Jesus Christ was fully human, otherwise he could not die for the sins of humanity (1 John 2:2) and could not be our mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5).

But if human beings are totally depraved by nature and sinful from birth, this means Jesus Christ was necessarily totally depraved and sinful.

Nonsense. One can be fully human without being a sinner, depraved or fallen. Before the fall Adam was none of those. So Christ could be fully human like Adam was before the fall. In fact in Scripture Christ is callled the last Adam (1 Cor.15:45) & the second man. Those in Christ are called a “new creation”.

Depravity is not part of the God created human nature, but like an infection which has invaded it, like when a person with the flu has been invaded by germs. Depravity affects the human mind, emotion, will, etc.

Also, Christ could not be the Mediator & a pataker of the fallen human nature. He had to be a spotless Lamb. See:

carm.org/did-jesus-have-sin-nat … ians-teach

Furthermore, if Christ had to be the same as humans, all of whom have sinned & come short of the glory of God (Rom.3:23), then He would have been required to be a sinner. But Christ was no sinner & to suggest otherwise is blasphemy.

There are two problems with this. First, scripture says that Jesus was “made like his brothers in every respect” (Hebrews 2:17 ESV). If Jesus was made like us in every way this would include sharing in our depravity.

Wrong again. He was made “like” fallen humans, not exactly the same:

“ὁμοιωθῆναι] is not: “to be made the same or equal” (Bleek, de Wette, Ebrard, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 33; Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, al.), but expresses, as always, the notion of resemblance. Christ was in all things similar to men, His brethren, inasmuch as He had assumed a truly human nature; He was distinguished from them, however, by His absolute sinlessness. Comp. Hebrews 4:15.” biblehub.com/commentaries/hebrews/2-17.htm

“The emphasis in Hebrews is on Jesus’ “likeness in every way” to humans, that is, his full humanity as opposed to an angelic nature, which could not suffer (2:14-16)” (Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & NT Words", 2006, p.410).

Heb.2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Christ’s brethren were not made exactly the same as Him. They were not born of a virgin. They were not conceived as Christ was, whose Father was God, but concieved via the sperm of fallen sinful human fathers.

biblehub.com/greek/3666.htm
blueletterbible.org/lang/le … ongs=g3666

The second problem with this view is that Jesus was tempted. This by itself proves that Jesus had the same human nature we do, because scripture says that temptation comes from “our own desires” which originate from our human nature (James 1:14). Scripture is clear that the temptation of Jesus was not a meaningless charade, but was real, serious temptation. Scripture says he “in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15 ESV).

If Jesus was tempted in the exact same way we are, this by itself disproves total depravity. If we are totally depraved, the only way for Jesus to be tempted in the same way that we are tempted is if he was also totally depraved. But this is clearly not the case because Jesus never sinned. Therefore, we cannot be totally depraved.

That is the same error made earlier, confusing being “like” with being the “exact same way”. See:

biblehub.com/greek/3665.htm

New American Standard Bible
For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
King James Bible
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
American Standard Version
For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Douay-Rheims Bible
For we have not a high priest, who can not have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin.
Darby Bible Translation
For we have not a high priest not able to sympathise with our infirmities, but tempted in all things in like manner, sin apart.
English Revised Version
For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Also Jesus temptations did not originate from being dragged away by personaly owned lusts (evil passionate desires) enticing from within (Js.1:14), but from Satan outside of Him (Matthew 4:1-11).

The humanity of Christ proves depravity, but disproves total depravity. The temptation of Christ proves depravity (he shared in our fallen human nature, otherwise he could not have been tempted).

Wrong again. Adam was tempted without having a fallen human nature. And that claim that Christ had a fallen human nature is blasphemy and a heresy taught by Christadelphians:

carm.org/did-jesus-have-sin-nat … ians-teach
epm.org/blog/2013/Aug/26/jesus-sin-nature

[Paidion]

Origen, Davo is not “wrong” about all of these matters:

Philippians 2:

5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

Prior to His incarnation, Jesus was IN THE FORM OF GOD. Do you think that means He wasn’t truly divine, but only in the FORM of God?
However, He did not “grasp” or hold onto His divinity, but EMPTIED HIMSELF. Yes, He emptied Himself of all his divine attributes. While He lived on this earth He was FULLY human. He could do no miracles. Every miracle attributed to Him was performed by the Father THROUGH Him.

While the Son of God lived on the earth as a man, He was NOT “fully God” and “fully man” as so many affirm. Rather He was FULLY HUMAN, and had no supernatural powers at all apart from the indwelling presence of His Father. Thus as a complete human being, He was the example of what a human being can do when in total relationship with the Father. Yes, the Father is able to perform miracles through such a person.

There was only one aspect of His pre-existent state that Jesus retained, and that was His identity as the Son of God.

[maintenanceman]

Origen said:

Nonsense. One can be fully human without being a sinner, depraved or fallen. Before the fall Adam was none of those. So Christ could be fully human like Adam was before the fall. In fact in Scripture Christ is callled the last Adam (1 Cor.15:45) & the second man. Those in Christ are called a “new creation”.

Can you explain this?

[Origen]

Origen, Davo is not “wrong” about all of these matters:

Wrong about…what?

I was responding to specific quotes from the linked article, not davo who merely gave a general thumbs up to it.

The article assumes an “orthodox Christian” view of Christ’s humanity.

[Origen]

Origen said:

Nonsense. One can be fully human without being a sinner, depraved or fallen. Before the fall Adam was none of those. So Christ could be fully human like Adam was before the fall. In fact in Scripture Christ is callled the last Adam (1 Cor.15:45) & the second man. Those in Christ are called a “new creation”.

Can you explain this?

If this is about Christ’s human nature, i cannot explain it, except to say it’s mysterious, as many things are.

[LLC]

Origen said:

Nonsense. One can be fully human without being a sinner, depraved or fallen. Before the fall Adam was none of those. So Christ could be fully human like Adam was before the fall. In fact in Scripture Christ is callled the last Adam (1 Cor.15:45) & the second man. Those in Christ are called a “new creation”.

Can you explain this?

I’m wondering about this myself because here Origen says

Furthermore, if Christ had to be the same as humans, all of whom have sinned & come short of the glory of God (Rom.3:23), then He would have been required to be a sinner

Furthermore,

Christ’s brethren were not made exactly the same as Him. They were not born of a virgin. They were not conceived as Christ was, whose Father was God, but concieved via the sperm of fallen sinful human fathers.

Logically speaking, if man became totally depraved via the sperm of sinful human fathers, then to be righteous, we must be conceived via the sperm of a righteous man. Yet, Jesus had no biological children.

Depravity is not part of the God created human nature, but like an infection which has invaded it, like when a person with the flu has been invaded by germs.

So, is sin like the flu or does it come via the sperm???

[davo]

Single or multiple acts of kindness typically reflect the goodness that lays within (Mt 12:35

)… AND such a simple heart-felt act was in nowise cavalierly dismissed by Jesus (unlike yourself) to the point where he himself said such an act would be rewarded. The fact that such as “whoever gives…” was NOT a believer is OBVIOUS from Jesus’ OWN WORDS. It’s easier to take Jesus at his word… he knew what he was talking about, no contest!

Mk 9:41 says they do the deed “in My name”, that is, in Jesus name. In Phil.2:9-11 that is associated with salvation, therefore belief, not unbelief.

Well once again you dismiss the reality of Mk 9:41 due to that dirty little thing you can’t manage called CONTEXT… it makes Jesus’ words all too clear, something you continue to muddy.

Mk 9:38-40 Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.” But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side.

You clearly MISS Jesus’ comparison from this where HE in vs. 41 differentiates between the “whosoever” and “because YOU belong to Christ” i.e., the “us” of the previous verses — there’s your CLEAR distinction between the two. The right heart attitude of the disciples themselves course was missing (at that time) in not recognising… the potential for the unbeliever of today becoming the believer of tomorrow; Jesus was challenging their own contentious self-righteous spirit.

Further, “in the name of” is similarly understood in the sense of… on the grounds of or… by virtue of them being as per the likes of the prophet or even righteous man, as per Mt 10:41. Not only that but there is further biblical evidence that ‘claiming the name’ was no sure-fire identifier of a “believer”; just look at this here with regards the SAME “in Jesus’ name”…

Acts 19:13 Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists took it upon themselves to call the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “We exorcise you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches.”

Well we know what happened to those Judaic exorcists… “Jesus I know, and Paul I know about… but WHO are you?!” And what happened… they got roundly beat up — hope you’re not thinking this was being persecuted “for the faith”? Along a similar vein you might likewise consider the “Lord, Lord didn’t we… in your name” of Mt 7:22.

Also… I think you’ll find the “every knee” of Phil 2 most universalists would contend such is inclusive of unbelievers who then by the nature of events in confession become believers.

[maintenanceman]

LLC said :

Logically speaking, if man became totally depraved via the sperm of sinful human fathers, then to be righteous, we must be conceived via the sperm of a righteous man. Yet, Jesus had no biological children.

H,m go for it LLC

[Origen]

Single or multiple acts of kindness typically reflect the goodness that lays within (Mt 12:35

)… AND such a simple heart-felt act was in nowise cavalierly dismissed by Jesus (unlike yourself) to the point where he himself said such an act would be rewarded. The fact that such as “whoever gives…” was NOT a believer is OBVIOUS from Jesus’ OWN WORDS. It’s easier to take Jesus at his word… he knew what he was talking about, no contest!

Mk 9:41 says they do the deed “in My name”, that is, in Jesus name. In Phil.2:9-11 that is associated with salvation, therefore belief, not unbelief.
Well once again you dismiss the reality of Mk 9:41 due to that dirty little thing you can’t manage called CONTEXT… it makes Jesus’ words all too clear, something you continue to muddy.

Mk 9:38-40

Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.” But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side.
You clearly MISS Jesus’ comparison from this where HE in vs. 41 differentiates between the “whosoever” and “because YOU belong to Christ” i.e., the “us” of the previous verses — there’s your CLEAR distinction between the two. The right heart attitude of the disciples themselves course was missing (at that time) in not recognising… the potential for the unbeliever of today becoming the believer of tomorrow; Jesus was challenging their own contentious self-righteous spirit.

Further, “in the name of” is similarly understood in the sense of… on the grounds of or… by virtue of them being as per the likes of the prophet or even righteous man, as per Mt 10:41. Not only that but there is further biblical evidence that ‘claiming the name’ was no sure-fire identifier of a “believer”; just look at this here with regards the SAME “in Jesus’ name”…

Acts 19:13

Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists took it upon themselves to call the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “We exorcise you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches.”
Well we know what happened to those Judaic exorcists… “Jesus I know, and Paul I know about… but WHO are you?!” And what happened… they got roundly beat up — hope you’re not thinking this was being persecuted “for the faith”? Along a similar vein you might likewise consider the “Lord, Lord didn’t we… in your name” of Mt 7:22.

Also… I think you’ll find the “every knee” of Phil 2 most universalists would contend such is inclusive of unbelievers who then by the nature of events in confession become believers.

I’d distinguish between those who actually are certainly doing something in Jesus’ name & those who are clearly not.

Jesus reference in Mark and Paul’s of Phil.2 are of the former group.

Those of Acts 19 & Mt.7 of the latter category. In Mt.7 they don’t even know if they were doing things in His name. Fail. And in Acts 19 it’s not even in His name alone, but of the one who Paul preaches.

[davo]

I’d distinguish between those who actually are certainly doing something in Jesus’ name & those who are clearly not.

Well, of course, you have to… you’re driven to obfuscate. These texts say NOTHING about those NOT giving. Those that do give to believers according to Jesus (not you) are duly rewarded, period! Ignoring all you like won’t make what is clear go away.

[Origen]

I did introduce an interesting article or 2, earlier in this thread:

Three Arguments Against Total Depravity

Response to part 3 of 3 from that link:

Argument #3: Total Depravity Elevates Man by Excusing His Sin

Jesus would soon return to “repay each person according to what he has done” (Matthew 16:27). By necessity, this requires that human beings have the ability to choose good or choose evil.

I’ll be sure to tell that to the monkeys when i repay the behaving ones with a banana. And the misbehaving ones - no banana.

Surely their darkened minds will understand my divine pronouncement merely by an act of their freewill choice.

1 Cor.2:14 The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

If we do not have this ability – if we are incapable of choosing good – then it logically follows that we cannot be justly held responsible for our evil.

It seems the apostle Paul may have already met this type of objection about 2000 years ago:

Rom.9:19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

It was the Gnostics who believed that flesh is inherently evil and totally depraved. David, on the other hand says, “I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14).

God doesn’t make garbage. He doesn’t make depraved, demented beings who are incapable of loving Him. Why would He?

The human body & universe are certainly “wonderfully made”. That doesn’t deny the depravity of soul through the fall.

God didn’t create Adam depraved. Though He didn’t make him incorruptible either. Neither was he made with a knowledge of good and evil.
God loosed Satan on Adam & Eve & foreknew they would fall. This was all part of His predetermined plan. Why would He do this, you ask?
Discover the answer to why Love Omnipotent lets evil run free & you’ll know.

God only makes perfect things.

Adam & Eve were ridiculously far from being created perfect. And soon after things went even further downhill.

How sad and humbling is this truth! Every person who has ever come of age – with the exception of Jesus – has chosen sin. “There are none righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10).

With all the billions of free choosers there have been, how is it that only Jesus didn’t choose sin? What are the odds of that?
How many even made it to 5 or 10 years old without choosing sin? If this free will thing existed among billions, shouldn’t there be
some others who resisted sin?

The biblical view places the blame for sin on us, not on God.

For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. (Rom.11:32)

Rom.8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

The Calvinist view teaches that God makes people evil with no ability to do good, and then punishes them for being that way!

Punishment is compassionate correction for the good of the offender. Those I love, I rebuke and discipline. (Rev.3:19a)

Without the experience of evil, Adam & Eve were entirely clueless & without appreciation or praise to God re all the good they had.
Neither could they ever, for all eternity, know about things such as mercy, love, sacrifice, etc.

If free will is so important, why would God only give it for the brief span of this life & then take it away for all of eternity?
Will He allow us the free will in heaven to rebel like in the story of the angels who followed Lucifer? Or make us like robots for eternity?
With free will, what if people reject God & suffer hell for millions of years?

(Romans 7:7). The Law defines sin in terms of free will actions: “Thou shalt… thou shalt not…”

The law has nothing to do with free will. It was a ministration of death, of the letter that killeth:

2 Cor.3:6 And He has qualified us as ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
7 Now if the ministry of death, which was engraved in letters on stone

Jn.6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh profits nothing…

Rom.2:29 …circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise does not come from men, but from God.

Acts 15:10 Now then, why do you test God by placing on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11 On the contrary, we believe it is through the grace of the Lord Jesus that we are saved…

If total depravity is false, every person who ever lived had the ability to be perfectly sinless,

Dream on.

gotquestions.org/total-depravity.html
the-highway.com/depravity_Boettner.html

[Origen]

Are there any Arminians here:

“The first of the two prominent positions on the doctrine of prevenient grace in classical Arminianism is that until the Gospel, the instrument by which God draws sinners to Himself, is presented to a sinner, the sinner is in complete bondage to sin.”

gotquestions.org/prevenient-grace.html

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

I’m going to shake the tree - a bit.

I’m taken back into my mind, to my days in academia. Suppose I was taking a Christian theology class or a philosophy ethics class. And the professor asked us,

Can a Non-Believer Live a Moral Life?

Well, we really can’t discuss this question, until we clear up some issues. Or answer some basic questions:

What is the definition, of a moral life?
How do WE know, whether a person is leading - a moral life or not?
How do WE know, if a person is a Christian - or not? Can someone who is a Jehovah’s Witness, Quaker, Mormon or Christian Scientist be Christian? Why or why not? What is the definition of a Christian?
In the Old Testament, there is a person named Enoch. And there is a verse, which I will quote from Wiki (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_(ancestor_of_Noah.

365 years before he was taken by God. The text reads that Enoch “walked with God: and he was no more; for God took him” (Gen 5:21–24

. Well, Enoch wasn’t a prophet, as far as scripture mentions. What kind of moral life did he lead - that God “took him” (in other words, he did not see death - from conventional understanding)? And why don’t other Old and New Testament figures (with the exception of Elijah and Christ) - experience this? Or even Christians in our century? For the benefit of everyone, here’s the Calvinist site - Got Questions, talking about Enoch: gotquestions.org/Enoch-in-the-Bible.html
I attend every two weeks, a Buddhist mindfulness meditation group. It’s held at a spiritual center, run by Franciscan nuns. And everyone there, appears to be acting moral. And some might be Christian, some Buddhist, some both and some other. How can I tell, if they are acting moral or not?. There’s an old saying, called the duck test (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test).

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

P.S.Here’s an interesting Calvinist CARM, Matt Slick Facebook video:

Interview with an Ex-Mormon Scholar

I rate this video interview very hightly And Matt Slick did say something, to this effect - in the interview:

Some of these Presbyterian churches are very, very good. And some are very, very bad.

And he does talk, about defining your terms.

[Paidion]

Total Depravity advocates base their belief on the God-inspired Scriptures. Not on the traditions of fallible fallen errant humans such as the “church fathers”, who contradict each other.

Well, it would be most amazing if the “church fathers” didn’t contradict one another. As the saying goes, “Bring together any three people and you have five different opinions.”

Do you suppose that what you call “the God-inspired Scriptures” contain no contradictions or errors? First, tell us which writings for you constitute “the God-inspired Scriptures.” The 66 writings (or “books”) of the Protestant Bible? Or the 73 writings of the Roman Catholic Bible? Or the 76 writings of the Orthodox Bible? Each of these three contains contradictions or errors. Or is yours a list that differs from all three? Whatever it is, were the writers not “fallible fallen errant humans” also?

Secondly, tell us the basis on which you deem your list to be “the God-inspired Scriptures.” It so happens that all three, Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox have in their Bibles the same set of 27 NEW TESTAMENT writings. But on what basis are they deemed the correct list? The early Christians did not agree as to which ones should be included in the writings that were read in the churches. Irenæus (born 130) either omitted or cast doubt on Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude. The same with Origen (born 185) except that he accepted Hebrews. However, Athanasius (born 296) had exactly the same list of 27 books that are found in today’s Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox Bibles. Is that why you accept these 27 books as the exclusively “God-Inspired Scriptures”? Or do you accept this particular list merely because of Christian tradition?

The early Christians also read in the churches Clement’s letter to the Corinthians which he wrote shortly after the death of Paul and Peter (Paul was beheaded, and Peter was crucified upside down). Clement was Paul’s fellow labourer in the gospel (Phillipians 4:3). Clement is believed to have been born about A.D. 30 and to have died about A.D. 100. I think it is a shame that this writing is virtually unknown in the Christian world. On what basis can it be said not to be inspired? Just because Athanasius didn’t include it in his list? Was Athanasius inspired to choose the correct “New Testament” list to be read in the churches? If so, there must be inspiration outside of the Bible. (By the way, Athanasius included Baruch in his OT list, a book that is not found in the Protestant Bible).

I would be pleased to learn why you think your particular list of “God-inspired Scriptures” is the correct one, and that the writings of “the church fathers” are not inspired by God.

[LLC]

Thirdly, that “man has the power to choose good or evil” does not affirm libertarian free will any more than dogs who have the power to choose between trees to piss on, which is controlled by their nature, heredity, & the forces of their environment.

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.

[Origen]

I rate this video interview very hightly And Matt Slick did say something, to this effect - in the interview:

Some of these Presbyterian churches are very, very good. And some are very, very bad.

I suppose some of them are quite liberal.

[Origen]

Do you suppose that what you call “the God-inspired Scriptures” contain no contradictions or errors?

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:

Minimal Statement of Faith for Evangelical Universalists

We believe in one God always existing as three persons who are revealed as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

We believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. We believe Christ remained fully divine while becoming fully human; that he ministered with teaching, prophecy, and miracles; that he died on a cross for our salvation from sin, resurrected from the dead, ascended to the heavenly dimensions, and poured out the Holy Spirit while establishing the church of saints to make disciples of all nations. We believe that Christ will return to judge the living and the dead."

We believe in the divine inspiration of the Old and New Testaments (the Bible) and consider them authoritative for Christian faith and practice.

We believe that Christ reconciles people by grace through faith.

We believe the Bible teaches the hope that God will eventually redeem all people through Christ.

Gregory MacDonald (Robin Parry) elaborates on beliefs of evangelical universalists (4/30/2008) Responses to evangelical objections to the orthodoxy of universalism:

So what do the “evangelical” universalists believe? Much the same as any other evangelical. They believe that God is triune and created the world ex nihilo; they believe that humans are created in this God’s image; they believe that human rebellion separates us from God and deserves punishment; they accept the final authority of the Scriptures for matters of Christian faith; they believe that the Father sent his one and only Son as a human being (who did not cease to be divine) to live as our representative, to reveal the Father and to atone for our sins through his death on the cross; they believe that through his resurrection eternal life is available to those who trust in Christ; they believe in salvation by grace (not merit), through faith in Christ (not works); they believe in the return of Christ and the coming day of judgment; they even believe in hell!

Statement of Faith -- Please Read

**Minimal Statement of Faith for Evangelical Universalists Gregory MacDonald (Robin Parry) elaborates on beliefs of evangelical universalists (4/30/2008) Responses to evangelical objections to the orthodoxy of universalism: ** Updated 10/28/2011

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

[Origen]

“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]

books.google.ca/books?id=pQcXAg … &q&f=false

[anon12438761]

Isn't ALL theology 'roll-your-own'?

Well, you can argue - that all theology - is RYO (i.e. Roll Your Own). But some things, do have a common framework. Like a Lutheran, Baptist, Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox framework. Or one that embraces the historical creeds. But even if you adapt one of those frameworks - you might twerk it a bit. Like the former Eastern Orthodox member. Who believed in Ultra-Universalism. Reminds me of watching the TV show - Animal Kingdom. All are members of a criminal family - raised by a crimin…

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

[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.