The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Chad Holtz: Repented back to Hell

Does it have a lyric about how those of us in the body don’t try to hide our identities from one another when a security problem crops up, but are willing to provide legitimate reassurances in the event of an accidental conflation of evidence suggesting we’re trolls, out of a respectful recognition that site administrators have an obligation to protect their members?

Because that would seem relevant.

Meanwhile, since you mention that song (from a group I recall being rather popular among Christian universalists here), and since you definitely didn’t slip in here quietly to worship but rather to instruct and teach us as though we are fools rejecting instruction (so I suppose you aren’t talking about the poor people in the song just trying to quietly worship, against judgments by other Christians):

if we are the body of Christ, why would we ever teach that His arms stop reaching, His hands stop healing, His words stop teaching, His feet stop going, His love stops showing sinners there is a way?

Christian Universalists absolutely affirm that Christ’s arms (whether His own or those of His mature sheep by analogy) keep on reaching, His hands keep on healing, His words keep on teaching, His feet keep on going, and His love keeps on showing sinners there is a way–because He paid too high a price to ever stop doing that (much less to pick and choose who should come).

So, do you teach all that?

Or do you teach that the Body of Christ eventually stops doing that for some sinners?

(How about Casting Crowns? What do they teach on the subject? Alternately, are there other lyrics to that song you were reminded of?)

So, your defense to the positive evidence (such as it is) that you and WU may be the same person, is to flatly assert without a single shred of proof that you work for an unnamed company behind a proxy IP that protects you from being identified, and that you’re doing this while on company time?

Oooookay! :wink:

For what it’s worth, I didn’t mean hacking your IP. I meant that the forum system might have code capable of verifying that your IP is a company proxy by means of analyzing some element of the incoming signal. That would not only be perfectly legal, it would be one step toward confirming your story–rather more of a step than vaguely alluding to a Christian pop group. (Since you clearly aren’t going to help with confirming your story, we have to try to defend your innocence against the evidence ourselves.)

Yes, that is indeed a problem. Unfortunately, pointing this out doesn’t really help solve the positive evidence of identical IP addresses.

You’re also, by the evidence, entirely capable of writing a paragraph or two with only a couple of minor composition errors, just like WU did, by the way.

You’re a totally pseudonymous member who happens to share the exact same IP as another totally pseudonymous member, who showed up at the same time as you to question the integrity of Christian universalists’ repentance and faith in God (because we don’t believe people are saved from hopeless punishment, but rather that Christ saves us from our sins and, where applicable, from hopeful punishment), accusing us of writing our own rules as we go along in order to make God change to suit us.

I replied to WU (not to you in your original post on the thread–since to be fair your original post was mostly aimed at defending Chad from aspersion about his motives, a goal I agreed with), pointing out that WU was logically refuting himself in his rhetoric against Christian universalists; after which I then passed on to agree at length that Chad shouldn’t have tried to avoid fearing the Lord (and in effect that Chad, by direct evidence of his own statements, abused the doctrine of Christian universalism in order to protect his injustices); plus also personally defending Chad against aspersions that his repentance wasn’t genuine and/or that he was only talking against universalism to get back with his work and family.

Then you (not WU) return to quote and describe only my observation that WU logically refuted himself (an observation that involved charitably agreeing that non-universalists have the same right and responsibility as anyone else to do the best they can to accurately represent God to the world, even if universalists don’t agree with some of their details), as a direct charge that this means I’ve brought God down to my level and have lost reverence and fear for God, at the end of a paragraph where you incorrectly critique a book, not “books”, written by someone else; thus by topical innuendo suggesting I also (per your inaccurate critique of that book) simply throw out God and hell by conveniently ignoring important portions of scripture in order to misrepresent scriptural testimony for my own purposes. (Gerry didn’t do that either, but you didn’t want to take time to actually look up anything I had ever written on exegetics, so you simply stapled me to your inaccurate critique of Gerry.) While ignoring everything else I wrote after that point (which was by far the majority of what I wrote) where I agreed that Chad was wrong to try to throw away the fear of the Lord.

And you’re worried that after you did this, your own integrity should be questioned based on positive evidence that you and WU operate from the exact same IP?

Did you do anything at all to demonstrate you and WU are two different people? No, despite multiple opportunities, other than make assertions that by their very nature are unprovable.

Did you at least acknowledge you were demonstrably off base in charging me with having a lack of reverence/fear for God? No. Instead you tried to pretend, while quoting me where I was replying to your direct charge against me, “I am not necessarily pointing fingers at anyone” while coming up with some random rationale for why you don’t have to bother with context to show someone has a lack of reverence of God.

Nor do you do either of those things in your most recent comment, not-incidentally.

If you’re actually innocent, you still ought to be aware of how other people exploit the internet for their amusement while trying to protect themselves from reprisal, and so of how your case currently looks.

Well that’s slightly better than the nothing which preceded it.

But you specifically did quote and refer to what I wrote as “When you bring God down to our level you lose a reverence and fear for God, even to the point where one can make statements like” what I wrote. Which in itself makes no sense as an argument that I had lost my reverence and fear for God to some significantly larger extent than usual (“even to the point where…”); but it makes less than no sense in regard to all the things I actually wrote, about losing a fear for God being wrong.

Which things you did in fact repeatedly ignore.

Even now, you aren’t going to acknowledge that I emphatically recommended fearing the Lord, in this very thread, in the very comment you quoted for trying to critique me on for (supposedly) losing my fear of the Lord. You’re trying to make it my fault for misunderstanding you somehow; or at worst that the implication was only a compositional accident without your intention to mean it and you’re sorry about that. Not about what you demonstrably did.

Between the two of us, I wasn’t the one who taught people not to fear God; and I fear God enough that I wouldn’t expect to avoid being punished by God for impenitent injustice against my wife (or anyone else). Chad was the one who did those things. Not ever once me. He came back up to my bar.

Whether God’s punishment (and/or a sinner’s final fate) is ever hopeless, is a question of fact, not of fear. But any more fear involved is fear of the hopeless punishment, not especially more fear of God, compared to those who fear God without fearing hopeless punishment. (Worth noting: by his own admission, Chad didn’t fear God more back when he believed and preached hopeless punishment either.)

I also fear God enough to bend over backwards to be fair to my opponents, to acknowledge when I have made a mistake, and to operate publicly rather than try to shield myself from accountability for what I argue and teach.

Are you ready to set the bar that high?

Guess not.

You’re one cool lady, Cindy :slight_smile: Your passion is inspiring :wink:

Jason Pratt went all Jack McCoy on that dude.

:slight_smile: Matthew

And yes he did, Andre (sorry – my holey brain lost your real name already!)

Cindy, your post reminds me of the ‘missing’ three chapters of Hannah Whitall Smith’s autobiography, The Unselfishness Of God, which were removed from most copies of her own autobiography because of their Universalist content. :frowning:

She reminds me of you a bit, Cindy ( :wink: ), and anyways, I think her thoughts here might contribute to the discussion you’re all having in some way. :slight_smile:

Great chapter posts, Matt. :slight_smile:

I want to reiterate that I’m not trying to claim I have some kind of perfect fear of God–there’s definitely room for improvement for anyone, myself included, until we are all completely righteous in our attitudes and actions. Chad or CGun or anyone else might be ahead of me in some regards or altogether (with one subtle but crucial logical exception) in fearing God–I even hope they actually are!

But fearing hopeless punishment, for ourselves or for anyone else, is very different from fearing God. Just because someone believes in hopeless punishment doesn’t mean they have an automatic intrinsic advantage in fearing God over someone who doesn’t believe in hopeless punishment.

In fact I’ll argue beyond even that: it is logically impossible for someone to have a perfect fear (i.e. loving reverence) for God while also being content that other persons (regardless of the explanation) never have a perfectly loving reverence for God. For God Himself to authoritatively and finally sanction that situation would be for God Himself to dishonor Himself and His holiness!

This concept is directly connected to that famous declaration from God at the end of Isaiah 45 (and cited among other places by St. Paul at Philippians 2:10-11), from verses 18-25, after speaking at length about the salvation and restoration of rebel Israel: God calls the pagan Gentiles from all the ends of the earth to be saved, inviting them to reason among themselves on the matter, and then swears by Himself (since there is none greater for Him to swear by) that He shall certainly bring about the loyal professed allegiance of all rational creatures to Himself!–a scope emphasized even more by St. Paul as being all those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth.

Nothing less than this can or does glorify God the Father.

Consequently, neither can a belief that some sinners will never loyally swear allegiance to God, ultimately glorify God. The person may do so in many other ways, they may be very far ahead in every other way from another person who believes God shall bring all rational creatures to glorify God–but those who do not believe that will still lack that one thing for perfect reverence. They are willing to be content that not all persons shall perfectly reverence God; or, if they themselves are not content with this, they are content (or try to be content) with the idea that God will be content with less than perfect love for all persons (loving God and loving our neighbors) among all His creatures.

It is a reverence at direct odds, even if only at that one point, to a truly loving reverence and glorification of God. Unrighteousness wins, not God (Arminianism); or God wins by getting the final unrighteousness He wants (Calvinism). Whether the unrighteous persons are annihilated or continue to exist forever unrighteously, makes no difference. The unrighteous never come to be righteous followers and glorifiers of God–by ceasing to exist or by being sequestered away from any conscious exposure to God or by becoming false worshipers and lying glorifiers of God. At best the unrighteous may come to honestly worship mere power. Nothing more, nothing better–no worship in spirit and in truth.

But that is not the final goal of God that is taught in the scriptures, OT or NT either one. Nor a final goal that is logically worthy of the Truth and of Love and of Justice Himself.

It is not even worthy of those who otherwise honestly and truly praise God for His mighty saving victories–but who also hold to that limited goal of final unrighteousness as an exception to God’s mighty saving victories. (A final unrighteousness to be expected and found in other people of course, not in themselves.)

Perhaps an unfair comparison, but this reminds me a lot of Winston Smith in 1984. All ideas contrary to orthodoxy are rung out of him in the Ministry of Love.

Jason,

Thanks for that! God is truly good and truly great, and reading your post filled me with joy, just thinking about His ultimate victory . . . not of righteousness alone or or some weak version of love alone, but in EVERYTHING. He is sooooo good!

Blessings, Cindy

Cindy,

In conclusion: God is love, God wins, therefore Love Wins. :smiley:

Everything else is literally a working out of the details. :ugeek: :sunglasses:

I felt a great sorrow, if not heaviness, in reading Chad’s story of conversion and recovery. I wish him well, that’s for sure. But I’ve seen and heard this before: it rings hollow to me. It’s the stuff of hyped prayer and pressure. Here’s a man who lost a lot, mostly everything, and he’s trying to put it back together again, and perhaps he will. He turned to his past, what he knew so well, to find a future. In time, perhaps, there will be some mellowing. His stance on Rob Bell’s book was articulate and creative; his challenge to the congregation was courageous; by comparison, his current writing is stilted and fraught with fear morphed into that strange evangelical phenomenon of praise for an angry, wrathful, god. It has the feel of the Stockholm Syndrome.

March 16, 2011, Chad wrote: “I sometimes long to return to the days when I accepted without question the dualism of heaven and hell, good and bad. It made me feel good that my faith was enacting a sort of transaction. I believe this, God gives me that. It makes a lot of sense in my consumer driven culture.”

Perhaps one can take the man out of fundamentalism, but taking fundamentalism out of the man is another matter.