but IF its not wood hey and stubble , shouldn’t we defend it 
Oh wow. I appreciate that the Trinity is ambigious and that it may be wood, hay and stubble, but there goes any credibility she may have had with the evangelical community. Which is a bit of a bummer for UR – my old friends certainly wouldn’t approach the “unholy hands” of an Arian/unitarian. But Godspeed to her. I wish her the best in her Berean-mindedness.
I think words like defend are part of the problem, we see these doctrines as something that we need to defend, which creates the war, and sides, next thing you know people are being burned at the stake. I’m not saying you’re doing that, or would, just pointing out what I think lead us down this path in the first place.
my point precisely waab. any and all credibility is now out the window
without belittling her by the way guys unlike some of the reviewers who claimed she hit the ball out of the park compared to
Rob Bell , I found her book to be a great improvement on ‘‘love wins’’ but I also found it unconvincing 
it certainly was much firmer with regards to the strength of her argument but it was NO home run
I realise some people are agnostic about the Trinity, or think it’s more loosely defined in the Bible than the creedal language, or even hold non-Trinitarian views like Modalism (or Aaron’s position if I understand him correctly?), yet they usually still say Jesus is fully divine, whereas doesn’t Arianism say worshiping Jesus as God is idolatry?? 
Sorry I don’t want to sound too exclusivist but shouldn’t Evangelical Universalism at least confirm the full divinity of Christ? Otherwise I suspect we will follow Unitarian Universalists in becoming Pluralists because “anything spiritual or divine is just as good as Christ” 
Personally I think EU is even more defined (e.g. eternal divinity of Christ, Trinitarian, Christocentric, Biblical, By Grace - basically fitting with Robin’s definition) than Christian Universalism, however, for the sake of peace, I try not to push this point too much.
Jesus is fully divine 
this is one of the many issues that relates to my ‘‘what is truth’’ post
That Ferwerda heretic chick has just gone too far this time eh?
I just found this post tonight thanks to a FB friend. What is funny to me here (funny as in, ironic) is that you all are doing the same thing to me now that evangelicals do to me regarding my position on hell. You have this “either/or” position in your mind about what I’m saying about the divinity of Christ and make a bunch of assumptions. It’s easy to do when you’ve been in a box all your life (like me), and just can’t imagine an alternative. But I might fairly ask, how much time have you all spent in careful study and consideration of this topic? Or have you relied on what you know or have been taught?
Alex, I’m certainly not watering down the Gospel like you have suggested:
All I’m sayin’…how do you know until you’ve given me a fair chance? Aren’t you doing what you dislike others doing to you about your stance on hell?
LOL…I meant to also add that, first of all, Alex, I didn’t know I was within the confines of orthodox evangelicalism. Since when is UR considered orthodox?
And to “We are all brothers…” When did I ever have any credibility with the evangelical community? 
You guys are really making me feel like the heretic that I am. I’m going to have to move to northern Idaho. 
I don’t think believing Yeshua is fully human inevitably leads to pluralism. Is a narrowly defined “evangelicalism” that important?.. I’m largely an Anabaptist myself (a tradition that would prefer to distance itself from evangelicalism – or Protestantism for that matter – for extolling total depravity/grace to the detriment of obedience); I also noticed we had a Quaker (a non-conformist), and we have an Eastern Orthodox member, and as you noted, a few non-denominational non-Trinitarians. But I think we all generally believe that we need to change our minds, place scriptures as our most authoritative revelation, have Yeshua as our Lord and Saviour and be active with a Christ-spirit life. These four beliefs are said to be the pillars of evangelicalism, and most of us would adhere to them (perhaps excepting the Quaker and EO on revelation). I can’t speak on behalf of the board, but I don’t even need that much to preserve the bond of peace. Shrugs
That’s why I said “may have had”!
I seek the good God. I reject the common understanding of hell because it would be impossible to love such a God with all my heart.
In precisely the same way, it would be impossible to love a God who did not give himself to us and share our suffering. We praise those who give everything they have for the sake of their loved ones. Who could worship a God who did less? The incarnation as traditionally understood reveals the sacrificial love of God. He himself comes to us and bears the heaviest load. He doesn’t merely send a servant to do the dirty work.
Frankly, if you convinced me Christ isn’t God-with-us, then I would leave Christendom and seek the good God elsewhere.
First, the title of this thread is biased to begin with. Is it that concerning? (Bring on the flames…)
wow… are we really defining whether something is truth by whether it’s inside or outside ** orthodox Christianity & Evangelicalism**?
honestly, this is part of the problem. Surely, the only criteria should be whether the scriptures, in their original languages, support it. Anything else is circumstantial.
the cause??? How can proposing something like this, and opening it up to give people an opportunity to actually engage with it be harming the cause? What*** is*** the cause? Isn’t it discovering the truth?
Again, I guess I missed the part where we had to judge things based on the “credibility” it has with the evangelical community. Am I reading that right?? What about judging things based on the credibility it has in the bible?
Well at present, the apostle Paul would be commending her…
Alex, I have to ask, do you describe yourself as an evangelical universalist, or as a follower of Jesus seeking to discover the truth from the scriptures and then live according to that, whatever it is? There is a very big difference…
Not ***all ***of us Julie!!!
Fully agreed. I’ve spent years in a box. I’ve been discovering that initially, when a speck of light creeps through and you realise there’s more outside the box, you’re overjoyed. Then you see that the lid actually opens. Before you know it, you discover that almost everything you’ve ever believed is because you’ve been taught that by people who believe that. It has been a very scary experience for my wife and I discovering that so much of what we’ve been raised to believe has such scant biblical support. This is also not coming from some isolated ivory-tower position. These are issues that are being worked out in our daily lives right now.
Julie, I assure you there is at least one person on here (I suspect quite a few more lurkers) who is genuinely keen to be exposed to things which don’t fit. Being challenged on beliefs is essential, surely. If something’s the truth, it will stand up to questions. Why are people so worried/afraid of challenges to their beliefs?
Me, I have spent a reasonable amount of time studying exactly this topic recently, and while I’m not quite convinced, I feel the biblical evidence points far more strongly to Jesus not being God. Am I a heretic? Maybe. Maybe not.
I’d have to disagree with this. In theory, yes. In practice, hardly.
AllanS, this seriously scares me that you would think this. Don’t you mean “If the Bible doesn’t teach Christ is truly God-with-us, then I also will not believe that Christ is truly God-with-us”?
What you’ve written sounds precisely like someone saying they have a predefined thing that must be true, and if it’s not, then they’ll seek elsewhere until they find it 
Where on earth is the notion of taking ***scripture ***as the authority for life and practice? You know I have incredible respect for your understanding of things, and your willingness and ability to think outside the box, but this sounds like a different AllanS to the one I know!
Pack your bags!!! 
Did you read Julie’s article? Or have you replied without doing that?
Surely even 1 Cor 8:6 is enough to give everyone pause to at least seriously look into what that might mean.
why doesn’t Paul write:
“yet for us there is but one God, the Father, Son and Spirit, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, the God-man, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him”
I’m not 100% with what Julie’s writing, but I’m finding it harder to just ignore things like this…
My replies are not meant to offend anyone and I’m sorry if they do. They’re meant to stimulate rational thoughtful discussion.
No, I didn’t say you were a heretic, in fact I complimented you on your willingness to investigate things, even in the face of persecution.
I’ve been trying to get your attention for a few days, but unfortunately FB is unreliable. I didn’t want to post a link to this thread on FB because I don’t want to take away from your book, or in anyway attack you.
I’m trying very hard not to. I don’t reject you, I don’t think you’re going to hell, I don’t want to silence you, in fact I still see you as a sister & friend, and want to talk with you. I’m simply concerned that the post comes across as Arian, which as far as I can tell makes worshipping Christ as God into idolatry, which means I’m sinning
I realise I’m making assumptions (hence the question mark in the title) and that’s why I’ve been asking you to expand on the post 
For sure, that’s a fair point, I think we should be asking questions.
A reasonable amount, although not as much as you I’m guessing, or others here, like Jason.
I do trust what Jason & Robin say on the topic, not only as they have written books but because more importantly I know them well enough to know they do their homework. However, I still try to always check what people tell me, even if I respect them. Having said all that, I & they, might still be wrong
I didn’t say you were watering down the Gospel. I’m just concerned that if Jesus isn’t the God, but just a god, that other people will say that their god is also an option. I’m guessing this is what happened with UU??
I really do want to hear you expand, which is why I’ve asked you on FB & here to have a dialogue.
Trying hard not to, but it’s hard to not offend on text forums (without facial expressions, body language, etc.).
It certainly can be as it complies with the ecumenical creeds & councils. For example, the Church Father, & universalist, Gregory of Nyssa is still considered orthodox.
We do, and it’s growing.
Sorry, that was not my intention at all.
For reaching the evangelical community with the truth of UR it might be… I’m also not saying those outside of evangelicalism aren’t Christians either.
I agree with these things.
What Paul is doing here, in one of the oldest NT credal statements, is incorporating Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) within the absolute monotheism of the Hebrew scriptures. He does this by adapting the Shema. There is a very good book by NT scholar Richard Bauckham called God Crucified on this subject (published by Eerdmans 1998), showing that the Christology of the earliest Christians was “already the highest Christology, a fully divine Christology entirely compatible with the Jewish monotheistic understanding of God.”
It is certainly good to dig into the scriptures, seeking truth and taking no established doctrine for granted - thank you Julie for encouraging this! However in my opinion, whereas ECT can easily be rejected without denying any claims central to orthodox Christian faith (as Robin Parry argues convincingly in TEU - see p.175), the same cannot be said of rejecting the high Christology of the NT. As for credibility within the evangelical community - this would be more important to some of us here than to others. Robin for one, seems to have the respect of a lot of evangelicals who may not be convinced by his universalist conclusions but respect the way he has arrived at them. Its harder to nurture that respect from those people if you are saying “anything goes”.
When a concerned person pointed out the post on the other forum I was surprised & worried. I like Julie & I like her book, I don’t want to persecute her, but at the same time I’m worried that it looks like she doesn’t think Christ is the God, which means I’m being idolatrous in worshiping Him 
I really want her to expand on this, which is why I started this thread & talking to her on FB.
Not at all, I didn’t say everything outside of those two is false.
Isn’t it Sola Scripture not Solo Scripture? i.e. don’t we still need to at least consider how others in the Church before us have interrupted the Scriptures?
I posted this here to engage, not censor or condemn.
Of course I think it being Biblical, or not, is way more important.
Both, I see no difference 
I agree, and tried to say as much in my opening post.
I’m not afraid to challenge my beliefs 
I would feel that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater…
Yes.
I’m not offended 
AISI the only thing divine in our known universe takes place within the human consciousness. Our wanting to attribute divinity to an all special individual out there somewhere springs from our darkened imagination. We wish for an external physical God who looks and feels like us but who at the same time is completely foreign to us AND came into the world by a completely different means. Weird.
No, you didn’t read that right and I’m not sure why I got caught up in your rant. All I said, and as Alex later stated, is if she maintains a non-trinitarian view she loses credibility with the evangelical community – not with the Bible, nor with the Church and not with the Christ. If we hope to share UR with the evangelical community, then unpopular positions (such as non-trinitarianism) will make this more difficult – whether it’s true or not was largely irrelevant to my original post. I nor Alex said that she loses her salvation, her “Christianity”, her intellectual honesty, her Berean-mindedness or anything else. I actually expressed my hope that God would bless her in her Berean-mindedness. I even stated that I was largely agnostic on trinitarianism. And I also stated that I barely consider myself an evangelical these days and would avoid the term anyway. Sheesh…
We are all generally here because we have questioned a position held to be “orthodox” and indisputable in almost every church. Most of us have rejected that view because we place the scriptures – not Augustine, nor Emperor Justinian, nor Calvin, nor Edwards, but the scriptures – as our most authoritative revelation. And many of us have copped flack for it too. Whether everyone does this consistently in every sphere of Christian thought is another matter – I most probably don’t. But we’re human and we try and practice this conviction (collectively more than most churches I know, I might add). I think our diversity actually bears testimony of this conviction.
I’m not offended at all though. I’m just wondering whether my posts were really that confusing?
This typo is beautifully ironic!
Thanks for your follow-up posts, Alex. But I know you weren’t condemning non-evangelicals. And I can appreciate that this view is concerning to most, particularly to evangelicals who tend to be traditional (…to be fair, non-trinitarianism is historically a heresy).
i first learned to truly question ECT with a modicum of Biblical argument from the Christadelphians. annihilationism was a significant step on the path to me coming to believe in the Total Victory of Christ.
they also believed in a Unitarian approach (albeit not at all a Pluralistic approach), and had some good Scriptures and logic to back it up. i was not convinced of this as i was of their view on ECT being false, but i had to respect their point of view.
they believed that Jesus is the Son of God, but not that He was God Almighty, as some on here have distinguished.
i suppose my main concern here is that knowing how rabid evangelicals in America especially can be, questioning ECT will get you kicked out of churches and branded a heretic…i’d hate to see how far they go condemning those who don’t tow the line of Christ’s total divinity. now, i believe personally in Christ’s divinity, but i have to admit that i could very well be wrong. that God isn’t smashing me for idolatry i take to mean that He is tolerant too…that i don’t have to be 100% right on any one topic for Him to love me. i also believe strongly that i should test and wrestle with any doctrine handed to me by man, and even by God. that way i may possibly find the truth as it relates to me.
Julie is doing this, and while i may not (yet) be convinced, i think that took guts. welcome to the board, Julie…i hope you stick around…most of the people here aren’t keen to burn heretics, most of us being heretics to some degree or other anyway, if you ask the evangelical/reformed Christians anyway! debates might be fierce once in a blue moon, but this is a very civil place with people who seem keen to demonstrate the love of Christ in the midst of debating.