You don’t fix Christianity, you follow Jesus, which always requires course corrections.
shaking dust
Dirtboy,
My problem with your assessment is that you have made yourself judge and jury - if someone doesn’t agree with you, then they are anti-christ…the very thing sass said happens in evangelical circles now. You proved his point.
I’ll only say one thing - Jesus’ mission was to point us to the Father. If you are only looking to Jesus then you are not obeying him…No matter the eschatological position that you hold, when the end comes (I think it’s in the past, I don’t know what you think) Jesus would “turn the kingdom over to the Father.” So, when that time comes (or perhaps it already did), are you going to the Father, as Jesus intended or will you stubbornly stay where you are?
btw, UR does not “point to Jesus.” UR recognizes the work that Jesus did. It was in his work that we are all reconciled to the Father. Read some of my other posts if you want to know what I think about “original sin.”
“My problem with your assessment is that you have made yourself judge and jury - if someone doesn’t agree with you, then they are anti-christ…the very thing sass said happens in evangelical circles now. You proved his point.”
I think that perhaps we all need to discern what we think is going too far and into the antichrist camp. I hope that everyone stricter than you is not guilty in your eyes of being judgemental. That’s a serious charge that you are making. I smell irony…
shaking dust
.
How I used to like this debate. Of course back in my day as a dispensational pre-mil, we were sure Christ would have returned well before now. I was proven wrong! 
For awhile I was influenced by historic pre-millennialism and the teachings of Reeves and Ladd. Christ still didn’t come, seems like no matter how much I studied, God wasn’t ready yet. 
Later my denomination, mostly a-mil and post-mil, voted to merge with a sister denomination that was largely pre-mil. They didn’t want us, and this debate, in my opinion was the deciding factor. My minister at the time was ministering to a post-mil congregation (I suspected he was pre-mil) but he wisely held to a pan-mil position. 
I lost interest in this debate and now look back fondly at the young man who cared enough about God to invest a lot of energy in knowing when our redemption would draw nigh.
I haven’t thought seriously about this debate for a couple of decades. Enjoy, and no matter what view you hold, or what minds you change. God is Sovereign, and it will all Pan Out Well In The End. I’m sure I won’t be proven wrong, this time. 
Amen!
It’s simple English, actually. If someone is NOT for Christ, they are AGAINST (and thus, anti-) Christ. Dirtboy’s claim was that those who don’t “point to Jesus” are not following Christ…thus anti-Christ…
Irony? Not sure what you mean by that. I never claimed that anyone here, including dirtboy, isn’t following Christ just because they don’t agree with me. And it’s not a “charge I’m making” it’s simple English, as I pointed out in my first paragraph.
It always amazes me though, to “orthodox Christianity” universalists are heretics. Then universalists on various forums begin to label others as, effectively, heretics. Then when one of us other heretics try to point that irony out, we are accused of irony…it’s no wonder the Christian world is so screwed up. We can’t even find agreement with people we agree with…
This post is made, not in response to the totality of the conversation, but to the point of how we make honest inquiry; how we seek God. There is a need to do so in a disrespectful way. After you hit that “submit button” one has pretty much consigned him/herself to being an intellectual giant or an ass.
Now to Dirtboy’s concern. Maybe it could have been put less personally, but when one feels very strongly, sometimes the emotion takes control of those fingertips punching the keys. Maybe the brain is too far from the fingers in the same way the mouth is too often put into gear while the brain is disengaged. Perhaps the emotion/spirit overrules and the Spirit of God just takes over and says what needs to be said. Whatever it is, I sympathize with Dirtboy and am myself, very “Christ centered”. I’m protective of my older Brother, Christ as the First Born. Forgive me when I stand up for my family.
What I mean by that is to be Christian used to mean, about Christ. I understand that, that is no longer true in all circles. There is nothing wrong with drawing that line, but once the line is drawn, we should be able to go on our merry way, and realize that we have a very different world view that necessarily impacts our view of UR. One view is centered and revolves around a Christ as God incarnate, and one revolves around God that is spirit, force, maybe even Creator. There’s no way to easily merge the two without compromising, one or both.
That’s one thing I’ve noticed about this site. Those who I’ll call “Christ” Christians for wont of a better term, are more traditional in everything except UR. They are easily understandable to me. When they use a term in context it makes sense. Those who hold to a UR God that is not traditional are far more difficult for me to understand. When they use a term, it seems sometimes to carry a different meaning. We need to be sensitive to this. We need to understand, that this difference in view of what Christian is, is important and foundational. But we are all here to understand the nature of the Redemption that God offers to all.
When I joined this forum a short time ago, I emailed some friends that they might want look in and maybe take part. As I left church today, I was told that one of my friends was praying for me, that I wouldn’t stay here and allow my faith be subverted. Oh well!! They care about me. When we disagree, let it be because we care about one another, and let the one “who feels corrected” view the correction as coming from a heart that genuinely cares about our relationship with God.
@Chris/Dirtboy: I am so sorry that your response to me has gotten you some heat. I personally didn’t see anything wrong with what you posted. In essence I saw what you posted as “You do what you need to do, don’t let anyone else cause you to question what you know is right”. I agree.
I had a friend ask me if I was still mad at him yesterday. I was never mad! Based on a short text exchange we had, that’s what he got. The written word limits us to a degree. We don’t have use of inflection, body language, etc. and the intended meaning can easily be misunderstood. I have gotten into knock down drag outs because of this only to find out it was only a misunderstanding. We’d all do well to keep this in mind and to “Think the best of every man”. 
Good point Sass
There’s also the real possibility of a typo, such as I made on my post of Apr 1. which read “There is a need to do so in a disrespectful way” which obviously should have respectful instead of disrespectful. Hope it wasn’t a Freudian slip of some kind! 
Sorry folks. I didn’t know pointing out disagreement with someone is wrong around here. It seems others are free to do so…
I think that if you’d go back and re-read my post, you’ll find that I was pointing out to dirtboy that I saw his post as attacking…I did not attack him (or give him heat) back. I attempted to show that many of us can still be Christian without placing Jesus above the Father. There are “traditional views” within even trinitarianism that differ on how one sees the trinity - e.g., many in the Eastern Church believe that the Son and Spirit are subject to the Father (the original Nicene said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, while a later Pope-inspired version added “and the Son” or what is known as “the Filoque” after Father.)
Jesus’ mission was to “turn the kingdom over to the Father.” Believing so does not make one non-Christ-centered any more than being Jesus-centered makes one non-Father-centered. Both can have legitimate disagreement without being harsh about one’s legitimacy of being a Christian.
I felt, and still do, that Dirtboy’s comment was saying that if one wasn’t “Christ-centered” as he was, then that person wasn’t of the faith of Christ. If I’m wrong, then I am open to correction…no one needs to make snide remarks about “irony” or “respectful,” etc. Frankly, I didn’t read Dirtboy’s comment as particularly respectful…as I said though, I could be wrong and await correction. But if Dirtboy did intend to be disrespectful, then I would appreciate not having mud, or anything else, slung my way for calling him on it.
And if I’ve been disrespectful then you have every right to correct me. And I have every right to answer, which I have.
Again, I am amazed how universalists can get in arguments over how orthodox one must be to be a Christian when there is not one single denomination (save UUA) that views universalism as anything but heresy (individual congregations within other denominations may allow universalists to be in good standing but not entire denominations).
I will try in the future to refrain from answering posts that I feel are disrespectful…this will, hopefully, help me in not being disrespectful, or perceived that way. I came here to find conversation and that’s what I plan to continue to do. I aim to keep it civil.
ed
Hi Ed. I think I am understanding this a little better now, thanks for clarifying. I didn’t see dirtboy’s post as personally attacking your beliefs. I think he was just making a general statement (of HIS beliefs) and may have inadvertently alienated a couple of people. Guess you saw it differently and that’s ok. I’m wondering if dirtboy was even aware of how you may see the Trinity? I have no idea what was actually dirtboy’s intent. But yeah, if you felt like that was happening…By all means, point it out.
Sass, I really don’t care if dirtboy attacks my beliefs…I felt that he was attacking anyone who didn’t fit into his exclusivist mold. I’ve always imagined that we (universalists) are inclusivists. IF we are inclusivists, we should begin any discussion with something that denotes how we believe…when we say that “this is what I believe and anyone who doesn’t see it this way isn’t following Jesus…” they have a problem.
As I said, if this was not his intent, then I apologize. If it was his intent, then I have no reason to apologize. Contrary to the claims of irony, I did NOT tell dirtboy he is not following Jesus. I simply pointed out that it was Jesus’ job to point us all to the Father, not to himself.
Re: the trinity. I don’t believe in the trinity. Neither am I a unitarian. I am a monarchist. God dwelt fully and completely, in full measure, within Jesus the man. In this way, Jesus was truly divine, and much more so than the rest of us (Eastern Orthodoxy teaches that we are all divine if we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ - and I believe we are). Jesus said that we are one with him, as he was one with the Father. Can’t escape that simple truth about Oneness, not with a clear statement like that. Yet, I do not feel that Jesus was part of a trinity of gods who comprise One God. Again, I could be wrong and I’ll condemn no one for disagreeing with me.
ed
Ed: As far as the Dirtboy disagreement goes, I read you. Unless he wants to chime in and tell us his all intention (which I wouldn’t blame him at all if he didn’t ), it’s a dead issue for me.
Anywhoo, the Trinity… I like what you are saying and as far as the Trinity goes, though I’m pretty agnostic about it. I just have NO IDEA. To me, the scriptures just aren’t clear and when God says: “The Lord your God is ONE GOD”, and “You shall have no other Gods before me”. Well, I pray He graciously lets me keep out of it!
The oneness thing though. I’d like you to clarify a point here.
It’s the “much more so” divine, I’m confused about. How can We be ONE if He is “much more divine” and how can “divine” (as in OUR divinity) be divided as in there is “divine” and then there is “much more so divine?”
Now, I KNOW that Jesus had something we don’t obviously, but I tend to see this more of His ability to tap into it, or His awareness of it, or that God just granted Him that, whatever, but to me divine is divine. It’s like being pregnant, you are or you aren’t. Could this be where the “earnest” of the Spirit comes in? What say you?
Sorry folks I have been away for a while because I’ve had a bunch of relatives in town and haven’t been able to contribute very much. I was quite surprised about what happened on this thread. My post was never intended to be inflammatory or divisive. This is an Evangelical universalist board so I didn’t think that encouraging folks to “follow Jesus” would be an offensive thing. You see, for me, to follow Jesus does take you to the father because that is always where he points…always. “If you have seen me you have seen the father”. “I always do what my father tells me to do.” etc. So I wasn’t calling anyone an anti-Christ or anything. When you are on a board like this there are a diversity of views presented from radically different points of view. Not all of those views are correct. I don’t see myself as “judge and jury” as to who is correct but I offer some simple advice that my brother offered to me and that was “if someone is directing you away from Jesus, then it is probably the wrong way”. He didn’t mean by that that if someone was to talk about the Father, that that was directing people away from Jesus. I’m not a “Jesus only” guy.
Let me give an example. Someone on here recently was trying another church. He was talking to the pastor after the service to tell him where he was coming from. The pastor was very open to UR, which excited him, but when he told the pastor that he believed in all the other stuff quite normally, following Jesus, being born again, etc. etc. the pastor asked him "not to use language like that because it might offend some of the other people who’ve been hurt by churches. The guy literally asked him NOT to talk about Jesus so he wouldn’t offend people. That is a HUGE red flag to me. I understand not talking “Christianese”, but that is going too far. I think it is a good guideline. You don’t have to agree with me. I’m not judging you in any way. I must say though that I was quite taken aback that some guy gets on and tells everyone that God speaks to him all the time giving him new revelations. He was critical of using scripture in discussion and wanted to know only what “God was showing you now”. No one said a word. Then I got on and said “follow Jesus” and the discussion blew up. That really blew my mind. The disciples said to follow Jesus. Jesus said “follow me”. Those should be practically the most non offensive words that Christians could speak to one another, even if you are a unitarian who doesn’t hold to the divinity of Christ because **Christ ALWAYS pointed back to the father. Following Jesus would never lead you away from the father. Only toward him. **
The only person I criticized in my discussion was Brian McClaren. I didn’t sentence him to hell. I just criticized him, and I stand by my criticism. I don’t hate the guy or think he is the anti-Christ. I just think he is wrong. I’m an open-minded guy. I wouldn’t be UR if I wasn’t. I don’t understand why my post was offensive.
Blessings,
dirt
ed,
I have no problem with your beliefs. I think we all try to explain God the best we can and that’s exactly what they are: human explanations of the divine. What that means in reality is that we are all heretics! There is no way we can correctly explain or understand God’s existence or form. That doesn’t mean “anything goes” to me. I do believe in the scriptures and therefore disagree with the book “Jesus and the divine mushroom” that teaches that Jesus was, well, a divine mushroom 
I’m not kidding though. I believe there are statements out there about God that dishonor him and have more to do with agendas than with true seeking. However, I don’t make myself the “deity judge”. I’ll leave that to God. Like I said, we’ll all be wrong to some degree…thank God for his mercy.
dirt
thank you dirtboy for clarifying your comments. I stand corrected and apologize for my misinterpreting them and inferring too much. I hope that, in spite of some differences of opinion, we can continue to dialogue in the future.
Being new to the board, I jumped when I should have waited - zigged when I should have zagged. iow, I should have given you the benefit of the doubt. Again, I’m sorry for that.
peace,
ed