EU overemphasizes "unity" within the Trinity


"]One of the distinctive features of the Trinity is the perfect balance of unity and diversity. I think Universalism as a theological system overemphasizes “unity” while also failing to recognise that evil is an irreconcilable degree of difference.Anyone want to comment? ECT sees God sustaining evildoers forever, whereas EU eradicates evil entirely. Which of those is tolerating evil more?? :confused:


You’re too slow, Robin got there first :stuck_out_tongue: :wink:

"]To me this argument just seems confused.

How do you move from the diversity-in-unity in the Trinity to the irreconcilable diversity of evil within the unity of creation? There is no analogue for that in the Trinity. So one is hardly comparing like with like.

Indeed, I cannot follow the logic of the leap from the need to recognize the place of diversity (which I affirm) to the need to claim that evil cannot be used by God to play any role in his purposes. Surely, if diversity-in-unity is the concern then regognizing that evil is evil (diversity) but can also be used by God to achieve a good end (unity) may strike just the balance you want. Your stance on evil does not balance unity and diversity but simply denies unity.

And does not Scripture itself testify over and over again that God can work through evil to bring about is good purposes. The Cross itself is the supreme instance of this.

Your argument is in danger of implying that evil is a necessary feature of any created universe (including the new creation). If we need evil to add the diversity to the unity then God cannot create without evil. I’m not suggesting that this is your view but the argument you offer may be thought to lean in that direction.


Anyone want to comment? ECT sees God sustaining evildoers forever, whereas EU eradicates evil entirely. Which of those is tolerating evil more?? :confused:

I believe the important question is, which one is more scriptural? From a philosophical perspective evil is not tangible, evil is only the opposite of good (God) as long as God is then evil is. The bible says, God will not always tolerate sin or evil as sin will no longer go unpunished but sin and evil are not synonymous. Evil is only the opposite of God therefore if God brings all to Him then the “affects” of evil won’t exist because no one will be able to resist God’s will but will evil still exist and that doesn’t explain the punishment of sin which is how God demonstrates His intolerance for it therefore I don’t see either, or being more tolerant of evil. If one is saying that somehow punishment of evil is part of drawing all to Him for salvation, well that would not be hermeneutically accurate.

So here’s a philosophical question (which I never do) if God eradicates all existence of evil then how can God be good because if there is no evil then can there still be good?

See the problem with philosophy. God Bless!


Based on proper translations of the Hebrew and Greek, as well as a proper understanding of the nature of God?


Not true. Not every philosophy holds that idea. Evil is not the opposite of good, it is the absence or lack of good (God). So long as God is, Good is. For evil to be an “is” there must be an “evil I AM” - and that of course is heresy.

EU does not believe in an “evil I AM” there is only one God, and He is the I AM, and he is good.

Aionion Kolasin. :slight_smile:

Since evil is the lack of God, then God bringing all to him; being All in All, reconciling All to himself, indwelling in All as All indwell in him - being in Christ, with The Holy Spirit being in them, with Christ and Spirit in the Father — Evil is eradicated by the filling of the void which evil is, which requires that God himself be the thing to fill it. Punishment, is a natural reaction to the unholy being burned and purified by the indwelling Holy.

“The burn means its working.”

God will have true followers, who are truly righteous - that requires Fatherly discipline.

Only if the presumption is based on Dualism. EU does not propose Dualism, it is the very opposite of that both scripturally and philosophically. Evil is thoroughly temporary and finite, Good is thoroughly eternal and infinite.

Scripturally speaking, God does use punishment to draw people to him. Quite often. Israel was flung into captivity countless times in an effort to bring them back around to worshiping him.

Because God is the I AM, and God is Good. There is no “evil I AM” only God. God doesn’t need the existence of evil in order to be Good, God is self-sufficient, self-existing, self-emanating, self-preserving. He is, and He is Good.

To propose that in order for God to exist, evil must exist alongside him is to propose Dualism, which EU does not propose Dualism.

Good is a self-evident truth, it is the self-evident truth, for God is One and God is Truth as God is also Good. Good is therefore, Truth, and Truth is therefore Good.

“Truth is, lies aren’t.”

Evil is the lie, where Good is the truth.

Yes, bad philosophy. Good philosophy however, is an extra-special gift.


God doesn’t need the existence of evil in order to be Good

True. Plus, when evil is done away with it doesn’t mean that there will be no memory of it. We will remember who we are/were, and that we were bought with a price and why. We could still contrast what is with what was and rejoice that God conquered it.


Based on your presupposition which is outside mainstream orthodox Christianity.

Semantics-cold is the absence of heat but cold is the opposite of heat; darkness is the absence of light and evil is the opposite of good. So as long as God exist then so does evil.

The Greeks engineered alot of things including philosophy but that pesky concept of “eternity”…well they just couldn’t grasp.

Not scriptural more presuppositional

I am not promoting dualism. Sorry but you can’t have one without the other

I know that which is why I used the phrase “hermeneutically accurate” because hermeneutically other things come in to play like faith, repentance, surrendering to Christ etc… to bring about a result for salvation

but you can’t have truth without lies. As long as God exist so does evil.

Only scripture is the answer as philosophy relies more on man’s authority than God’s. God Bless! :slight_smile:


Thankfully I worship the Lord Jesus Christ, not doctrines, theologies, theologians, or denominations, or even Christianity.

That aside, kinda odd how “age of accountability” is a feature of today’s orthodox Christianity in a large majority of Christian denominations. I’ll leave you to guess at the implications of that particular statement. I’m sure you understand what I mean by it.



Opposite the way you seem to propose it - implies direct duality. The world is not so simple as “black vs. white” there is Colour and then there is invisiblility. Invisibility is not the opposite of Colour, it is the thorough lack of it, yet behold how Colour is in itself a thing full of spectrum and degrees from greens to indigos to reds to blues to whites to black to greys in between and even amongst colour there is “pigment” and “light” and such things as all of that.

In other words, the cosmos is one big complicated interweaved pile of something, and God who is Good is not less complex than the thing he has made. The same difficulties or impossibilities in “direct duality” that are in effect with a complicated and complex cosmos also follow suit with God, who is an even more complex and higher being of something than the cosmos.

“Opposite” the way you are proposing it, is an incorrect notion based on ‘presupposition’ that in order for Good to exist, it must have a co-existent, co-eternal anti-thesis. If you do this, you dissolve the I AM’s self-sufficiency.

I could very well ask you, what is the opposite of a tree? What is the opposite of a flower? What is the opposite of any of the animals? What is the opposite of a brick? What is the opposite of a stone?

Nothing, would be the most correct answer.

At the end of the day, even darkness and cold are just far lesser levels or amounts of light and heat. There is no fence or line in which they cross to become thoroughly polar opposites.

Neither can we.

When you release your self-sustained belief that you hold a corner market on God, we can probably talk better. :slight_smile:

That’s Dualism.


This is a falsehood. You can very well have truth without lies. Truth is, Lies are not.

1+1=2 would always exist as True (a true fact) even if there wasn’t a single entity in the whole of the percievable and impercievable cosmos who didn’t once ever claim otherwise. Another illustration is that a dog will always be a dog even if there isn’t a single entity in that same cosmos who claims it is a hippopotamus wearing an elephant for a pair of pants doing the tango with a very, very silly hat.

Also, I’d like to point out that “as long as God exists, so does evil” is Dualism.

Dualism is the idea that Good and Evil are co-existent, and co-eternal. Quite literally. If you believe this, then you are a proponent and proposer of Dualism, unfortunately. :slight_smile:

Unfortunately for interpretation of scripture…Which is different from scripture…

I think I made my point here, you can see the rest of the implication in that statement. Scripture is almost always interpreted by a human being, interpretation however is not “scripture”.

But for philosophy, I recall once a very wise God who said to people - “consider the lilies of the field” - that is philosophy.



You’re saying the existence of is God dependent on the existence of evil.

Or maybe you’re proposing the existence of evil as necessarily proceeding from the existence of God.

Wow. Are you serious??

Not sure what exactly to say to that except that I disagree with your presuppositions. :wink:
(And I think they’re unscriptural too!)



Lefein, you’re saying a lot of good stuff I agree with. :slight_smile: Keep it up.

Oxy, this idea is way outside the bounds of the Bible, as well as orthodox Christian belief. There is no biblical evidence for this, which is correctly termed “dualism”. You are simply expressing your presuppositions with statements such as this. Just as you ask others, I’m now asking you to please point to somewhere in the Bible that supports your beliefs here, such as “as long as God exists, then so does evil.”

Thank you and God bless! :slight_smile:


Wow, I don’t even know where to begin. I have an argument for every statement of Oxy’s or Luke’s in this thread but unfortunately very little time (must find a job!) And I’m not sure it’s even worth it, as Oxy would likely just misunderstand and twist every argument you throw at him.

Just know, Oxy, that by trying to play this philosophical (and may I add semantical) mind-games to avoid a universalistic conclusion, you are being blasphemous in addition to being wholly unscriptural. Maybe I should find that C.S. Lewis passage that refutes that idea of evil in the first place.



Here’s the quote, and let me preface it with this little (scriptural) tidbit!:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].
Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)

How can darkness even be created? It can’t, because it’s merely the absence of light. The only way that darkness can be “created” is in juxtaposition to the light. In other words, wherever the light doesn’t end up, there is darkness, much like in a shadow. A light can create the shadows, in conjunction with some entity that blocks it: in other words, us. We create evil by very nature of being fallen and imperfect. However, one day all will be light when God is known as all in all, our Father in whom there is no shadow of turning.


That’s a strawman. I am sure you do but which Christ as we don’t worship the same Jesus. “age of accountability” I see no scriptural support, it’s abhorrent teaching much like the sinner’s prayer and all abhorrent teaching has implications but I don’t see it changing the nature and character of God like universalism does

I wanted to add a disclaimer: the views expressed by me are of personal philosophical opinion with no scriptural support. God Bless! :slight_smile:


Silly notion of yours, I’d have to disagree. I stated a fact, I follow God not religion, orthodox or otherwise. (to the best of my growing ability that is)

Mine is the thorough saviour of all mankind, who will eradicate all evil, make everything right, and make everything the best it can possibly be which is very, very, very good. Who is yours? :slight_smile:

My point was that just because something is in “orthodoxy” (what ever you are trying to imply by that particular loaded word) doesn’t automatically mean it is “true”, just as things “outside of orthodoxy” are not automatically “false”.

Alrighty then.


Also, there are plenty of things that the church universally ascribed to for centuries until somebody came along and overturned it. coughmartinluthercough

Just because the church seems to universally hold to something, does not make it sacred or true or God-ordained, for crying out loud.


Interesting…really? So If I said, the “Christ” I worshipped was really a clown and goes by the name “Bozo” and I exalt him by eating juju beans every 3rd Sunday. Am I wrong in the “christ” I worship and if I am how will you prove it? God Bless! :slight_smile:


Well dear friend, I could only argue that it would be thorough googglesplogomattififfitimipity which is the worst of the smizzembriggets that any gaggleflack could ever splurvip, if you believed the gross error that Bozo was in fact, riding upon an indigo giraffe on the 13th of Febuary (a pagan month), the day he was justly choked to death by a mob of anti-violence protesters outside the city gates of Atlantis, prior to its ascension into the 4th ambient realm.

But then, that’s besides the point of which muffins require a good scuttling over the fire.

In other words, your response to my post is simply missing the point. Majority rule in Christendom (Orthodoxy) is not God himself. Of course, Orthodoxy itself is a thing arguable. There are different forms of Orthodoxy between the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and myriads of differences between the various kinds of Protestants.

Orthodoxy isn’t God, in essence.


No it is not. You said, you worship the God and not some religion, orthodox, doctrinal etc… teaching which I pointed out was a strawman and you called “silly”. My response to you is what if my “christ” was a clown named Bozo. How would you prove I was wrong? God Bless! :slight_smile:


Let me give my own answer here:

  1. We have historical documents that demonstrate that first of all, Jesus was the Christ, and second of all, that He most certainly was not a clown.
  2. The Spirit testifies to our spirit concerning the truth of not only our sonship (Galatians 4:6), but what God is and who Jesus Christ is (1 John 2:27).
  3. The Spirit confirms that scripture is correct about the identity of Jesus not only on this earth but pre-incarnation and post-ascension as well.
  4. Experiential interaction with scripture, testing it 1 Thess. 5:21; coming to our own conclusions about what is right Luke 12:57; judging wisdom by her children Luke 7:35; judging teachings by their fruits Matt 7:16; and walking out and experimenting in this grand thing called the Christian life confirms who and what Christ is John 7:17.
  5. If Christ is a clown called Bozo and requires us to eat juju beans every 3rd Sunday, then he is of no account whatsoever and a worthless god. However, if His life is our life, if everything exists in Him and His flesh was crucified and resurrected on the 3rd day, this has tremendous implications not only for us personally but also the entire world past, present and future.


Nicely done. :laughing: :mrgreen: :wink:


That’s because it is silly. A strawman is building up an imaginary enemy to have a logic-based shadowboxing match with. I simply stated a fact. I worship God, not Orthodoxy, or Religion. You calling it a strawman is very, very silly.

Aan: “I eat brownies, I don’t eat flour, or baking soda.”

Uun: “I call strawman! [Building of an imaginary enemy to have a logic-based shadowboxing match with!]”

Aan: “…You’re very silly”

I could present my view that you’re wrong, but then I’m not sure whether it would be worth it to engage in the argument in the first place. I wouldn’t have to use Orthodoxy though.


I’d let the Truth out of its cage, and seek its prey. I’m pretty sure He’s not a tame lion after all.

I enjoyed making that post more than I should have. :stuck_out_tongue: