The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Free Willism or God's Soeveignty in Salvation of All

Okay, so let me get this straight, God sent His Son into the world but not really, He sent Himself? God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son but, well, not really, He actually gave Himself? Jesus taught His disciples to pray to our Father Who is in Heaven but, well, He was just waxing poetic. He really wanted them to pray to Jesus on earth? Jesus came to do the will of God but, actually, according to you, God came to do the will of God? “Not my will but Thine be done” should be thought of as “Not My (God) will be done but My (God’ will be done”? “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” should be thought of: “Myself, Myself, Why did I forsake Myself?” I could go on all day.

“He who has seen me has seen the Father” in that He REPRESENTED the Father who is invisible. He represented the Father in His works, words and miracles. “The Father spoke to us in a Son.” The holy spirit is the God’s spirit. God is spirit.

God created all in the heavens and earth through Christ. That’s what the Bible says. But that proves a distinction between God and Christ, not a likeness or sameness. So of course Christ existed prior to John the Baptist and before Abraham. Jesus said “before Abraham was I am.” Jesus is the One Who created Adam and Eve as He formed them of the soil of the earth.
“Jesus is the beginning of the creation of the God” according to Revelation 3:14 in the Greek. For God to be the Father of Jesus, Jesus had to have a beginning. If you have a child, you were not a father before your first child was born. You were just a husband. Only after your son or daughter came into existence did you become a father. Likewise with the heavenly Father. There was a time when He was only God. Then after He brought Christ into existence He became a Father. So the very term “Father” proves non-eternalness of the Son. “ALL is out of God.” So Christ came out of God. You likewise came out of God but you are not eternal. “All is through Christ.”

“nevertheless for us there is one God, the Father, out of Whom all is, and we for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom all is, and we through Him.” But not in all is there this knowledge" (1Co 8:6-7).

No, the evangel is that God sacrificed His only begotten Son. He didn’t sacrifice Himself. The evangel is “Christ died for our sins.” It is not “God died for our sins.” Please memorize 1 Corinthians 8:6-7 above. Jesus isn’t the God Who sent him into our world to save us from our sins. This Trinity mumbo jumbo is causing you to not believe the evangel properly.

Nice try. So we are encouraged to believe in the “hypocrisy of false expressions”? Jesus is God but He isn’t actually God but He is but He isn’t but . . . .

Who is angry? I am perfectly at peace with my understanding. Let “orthodoxy” believe what they want. But likewise, if they can defend their position, I am allowed to defend mine. I can fellowship with anyone. But fellowship does not mean rubberstamp a falsehood just so we all get along. What’s next jeff? Mary worship?

As to your question if I agree on everything of Knoch, there are some words I wished he had translated a little differently. For instance, for the word [h]uper I think “over” would have been good to use where it is written “Christ died for our sakes” as “Christ died over us.” Just as a man dies over a deck of cards, i.e., the card game became corrupt so he died over that,* it was over us that Christ died*. Of course, “for the sake of” works fine. It is just that I prefer getting closer to the Greek in some instances. P.S. I no longer burn incense to Knoch’s picture on a daily basis. LOL (joke).

Yes.

Actually, the Bible (Numbers 22:28) just says God opened the ass/jenny. It doesn’t say God spoke through a mule.

Yes, God is a Being with personal traits. He loves, has compassion, is long-suffering etc.

God spoke to Adam through Jesus.
God is a Being. He has Being-ness. He is not literally a “person.” He is literally “spirit.” He is figuratively “love.” Representatives of God spoke to Abraham. Remember, the “god” who came to Abraham said he is going to Sodom to see if these things are so or not concerning that city. But the invisible God Who fills heaven and earth knows all. Note the difference?

Let’s look at some different bible translations - of Numbers 22:28

So if God opened a donkey’s mouth and it start’s to speak to you, are you carrying on a conversation with God, a donkey, or something else :question: :laughing:

Or do you normally talk to donkeys :question: :laughing:

Let’s see what the “Calvinism in disguise”, Got Questions site, says at Did Balaam’s donkey really talk to him?:

Out of curiosity, do you even read, what the opposition has to say? Have you read the article A.E. Knoch’s errors in doctrine?

or

youtube.com/watch?v=cX_tE0M3ZCI

God spoke to Adam through Jesus.” — You are just shamelessly making this stuff up as you go… he who likes to say “the bible never says” and yet still no answer.

What? Ridiculous. I point out that Jesus was worshiped and thus must be God and you argue back to me asking if I will worship Mary? I do not understand your logic? Of course Mary should not be worshiped! She is a mere human being! Jesus however was, should be, and will be worshiped because He is God.

That is a total extrapolation into unnecessary fighting words. I am beginning to think you are an argumentative unreasonable person. I was excusing your offenses till now saying to myself that you were just frustrated in the effort to persuade others on the important point about God’s utter sovereignty over all. However, unfortunately you seem to be demonstrating a common characteristics of many Knochites, that of parroting Knoch’s doctrine and being unwilling to engage in reasonable conversation. Knochites have a long history of this type of attitude and behavior.

So now let me get back to reasonable discussion and ask you more questions about your understanding of the nature of who Jesus is. This is the crucial question of anyone claiming to be Christian for to be Christian is to trust, obey, and follow Christ. Yet if our understanding of Christ is not true, then we do not follow the God who is. Please just offer a complete description of the nature of Christ or answer the questions below.

Is Jesus God?
Is Jesus human
Is Jesus an angel?
Is Jesus sinless?
Did Jesus exist in eternity past?
Was Jesus created?
Did Jesus exist before He was born as a human in Bethlehem?
Is Jesus an eternal non-diety?
Was Jesus a regular human until the Spirit descended at his Baptism?
Did us regular humans exist before we were born?
Is Jesus the same as regular humans except that He has been given the Spirit without limit?
What does it mean that Jesus was begotten?
Will our nature be identical with Jesus in glory, in Heaven in eternity future?
Will Jesus be worshiped as God by all creation in eternity future?
Should anything other than God be worshiped?

Please answer these questions.

Jeff. Most - if not all - of these questions, are addressed in the article A.E. Knoch’s errors in doctrine. And the author also gives sound orthodox, biblical and theological rebuttal. I give this article a five out of a five star rating.

While I would **never **reveal “the man behind the curtain”, I have no problems revealing “the theology of the man, behind the curtain” :exclamation: :laughing:

The Bible does say God opened the mouth of the donkey. I’ll rest on that.

Most logically, I’d be carrying on a conversation with the donkey. The prophet didn’t strike God three times. He smote the donkey.

Not normally, no. Why do you ask?

If you go to my web site saviourofall.org and go to this page: saviourofall.org/opposers/Exposing.html you can read lots of juicy replies I made to those who disagree with us.

Losing your temper is no way to converse with someone who does not agree with you.

Per the above, it is you who is fighting. I’m just presenting my side without being upset.

No, I’m not argumentative or unreasonable at all. I like reasoning with other people. I find when they paint themselves into a corner, rather than get upset with themselves for doing that, they get upset with the other person.

And you seem to be demonstrating common characteristics of many anti-Knochites, that of parroting their doctrines and not being willing to engage in reasonable conversation. You people have a long history of this type of attitude and behavior. See how that works?

Is Moses God? (Ex.7:1) Are the Israelites God (Psa.82:6; John 10:34)?

The Bible says He is a human, “the human, Christ Jesus.”

Do you mean does He have wings? No. I have never read in the Bible where it says He is an angel.

He was sinless but on the cross He was made sin.

Did you not read my prior post?

Did you not read my prior post?

Did you not read my prior post?

Ask me using a Scripture.

He was the Son of God and human before and after that event.

No.

The Bible said He was a human just like us and able to understand our problems.

It means God brought Him forth.

Please ask using a scripture? Bibles don’t talk about “eternity future.”

Jesus can be worshiped due to being a perfect image of God. One who is an image of something is not that something it is the image of.
When Jesus asked for a coin He asked “Whose image is this?” They said “Caesar’s.” Was that image literally Caesar or an image of him?

Dear HFPZ, have you not read their so-called “Gospel Truths” here: agatheringinchrist.com/gospel-truths
I find it interesting that they can write against Knoch yet hold to such wrong positions. It is the Kettle calling the Pot “black.”

To be fair, Eusebius, I will read thought their articles you mentioned. :slight_smile:

Thanks HFPZ. Also, what I found interesting, and I say this without being mean spirited or nasty as we “Knochites” are always accused of, (and which is disparaging in itself to call a brother in Christ a “Knochite”) but what I found interesting in the article you referenced against Knoch’s understanding is that they brought up the Greek word “Pros” and that Knoch believed the basic meaning should be “toward,” (which it actually is) but that Knoch translted it as “with” x number of times supposedly showing His hypocrisy. However, what Kevin, in that article didn’t state is that the Concordant Literal always puts “td” attached to “with” where “pros” is used to show the reader that “toward” is the true meaning.

Also, and this is important at least to me in this discussion, let’s just assume for the sake of argument that “with” should be used in John 1:2. This does not really change anything since something or someone who is “with” someone else cannot be that person or being. For instance, if I say I am with my father, I am not saying, and hopefully no one would be crazy enough to suggest, I am saying I am my father. No. When “with” is used, it shows a separation in identity. I am with my son. I am with my with. I am with my dad. But if the word is toward God, it tells us it points us to God.

Oops missed your words above, copied here for further discussion.

You claim some things as given which are not necessarily true. Further these ideas fall outside of any thing Christian. There is a great irony here of you boldly saying others are not Christian above when these words reveal you to be non-Christian. These beliefs are closer to Islam than to Christianity for the Muslims believe Jesus to be a created being and a great prophet. Instead Jesus is the great ‘I am’. He is one with God in that ‘in Him there is life.’ He is the one forever praised, the God-man, Romans 9:5.

I can see that this discussion is going no where faster. The article proposed above is a good read for anyone with questions about the Knochites, agatheringinchrist.com/ae-knoch-errors-in-doctrine.

I think I actually said Paidion was not a believer and you agreed with me on that in that his beliefs are outside the scope of Christian teaching on Christ’s death. There is a difference between being a “Christian” and believe a “believer.” I am a believer. I don’t consider myself to be part of apostate Christendumb. Most people who call themselves “Christian” are unbelievers. They go to church, they repent, ask Jesus to come into their heart and eat cookies after service, all of which doesn’t save a gnat.

What I claim is necessarily true. You saying they are not does not prove they are not true.

Sorry but using tactics such as “guilt by association” by saying my beliefs are closer to Islam than to Christianity is cheap and no way to win an argument. What if I said your beliefs are closer to Satanists? Would that make you happy? Would it prove anything? How about you stick with the issues rather than make statements meant only to inflame people? If the Muslims believe Jesus to be a created being then they are correct in that regard. He was a great prophet. But they don’t believe Christ died let alone that He died for our sins. I’m sure you believe a lot the Muslims believe too. Personally I don’t know much of what they believe except for what I learned in a world religions class in college, for the most part like you do (supposedly). I just know they don’t believe Christ died for our sins or died at all.

Sorry but I am a believer who is in Christ. I am not a Knochite. I suggest you take Paul’s advice and quit bringing schisms into the body of Christ by saying you are of this person or of that person or this person or that person. Rather you should be saying we are IN Christ, not OF anyone. Shame on you. Concentrate on 1 Corinthians chapter 1.

Yeah, Paidion rejects Christ’s atonement and you reject Christ’s divinity. Both of those are cardinal Christian doctrines.

It really doesnt matter if the Son is eternal(having no beginning) or not, in terms of knowing Him. What it is, is an interesting theological discussion, and thats for sure, in terms of knowing about Him.

The same thing applies to whether God completely controls every thing or if man has a range of self determination in relationship to his life and times and service to(or not) God.

Most reasonable people accept a general theory in their own minds that fits in between the extremes. The extremes are usually proposed and promoted fervently by sectarian theologians.

The problem is, theologians get the idea that their perspectives on issues like this are the weight upon which men are “saved” or not, which is evidence of a true lack of understanding of the scriptures they purport to base their opinions on.

Salvation is a relationship with God. Jesus called us to know God and to love one another. Paul brought it down to knowing the Father and Son the Messiah through the Spirit and the word, and expressing that practically among our families and the community of believers and the community at large. Knowing about Him has value, but it doesnt save anyone, deliver anyone from sins grasp, or create a broken and a contrite heart in anyone.

Knowing God is where the depths are. Knowing about God is somewhere in the lesser, elementary principles of the oracles of God, a puddle by the shore little children splash around in because they are not yet mature enough to swim out into the deeper water, or go out sailing on the sea.

If Jesus has no beginning and is God very God by some mystical reality, existing as an eternal Trinity, or if Jesus was conceived in the mind of God as the “beginning” of creation, and is God in nature and eteranl power by inheritance and genesis, or if God by appointment like Joeseph to Pharoah, or whatever perspective one has on that… the understanding of it is not the basis upon which a relationship wth God is established, nor it is necessary to fully understand all the arcane variables of these theories to have a fruitful relationship with God and a deep understanding of the scriptures. The deeper I go the more I see the need to leave a little space for the mysteries.

Theologians like God in a box whose strings and ribbons are held in their hands. They get paid and build careers and gain status by the successful promotion of their views, not by the love of the truth- not to say that to be a theologian is to not love the truth- just to say that truth is a mystery, not a catechism.

God is not obliged to step into these boxes. We are not obliged to exalt them out of due proportion, because our values get jaded when we allow no space for these things to remain a bit misty around the edges, but instead hold them in our simple minds as absolutes to be battled over and applied to men as if they were the greatest questions, when they are not.

But as food for thought, and in the joy of plumbing the depth of mysteries and possibilities the nature of deity is an interesting and thought provoking discussion, as is the “free will/Sov” discussion, until folks who are sure the universe turns on their opinions start getting strident with one another and its no fun any more, because the walls have gone up and the fellowship has come down to absolutely categorizing things God has left as hazy views through a murky glass, so that we might at some point gain wisdom over knowledge and be humbled.

I think He did this on purpose, for His own protection, and the protection of the holy place in which He dwells, from the cacaphony of debate and the self assured ideas of men… so He could slip off out the side door and hang out with those who wonder at the glory of the stars and rejoice in the simple beauty of love and the innocence of childhood… out there in the deep water with those who have been called out of this dark world to keep the fires of love alive, to remain awed at the glory of God and seek to know Him in all His mystery, as the pearl of great price, and enter through the narrow gate, into the kingdom of God.

A most excellent post, thank you. I will keep it close at hand.

I like to add an element to Eaglesway post. I find it’s also important, how we implement Christianity. And not just splitting hairs over doctrine. Although it is certainly good to do so - on occassion. Here’s something I’ve shared in another thread discussion with STT:

“Are Quakers Christian, not Christian—or both?”

Let me also share an interesting article, I’ve found at Having Right Theology Does not Mean You Know God

Another thing puzzles me about the article at A.E. Knoch’s errors in doctrine. I believe they present an excellent rendition of A.E. Knoch’s theology. And an excellent orthodox, theological and Biblical rebuttal.

But I wonder why the long and detailed work again Knoch - I’ve previously mentioned. But they don’t focus on other writers/theologians/presenters, not considered Orthodox. After all, the Calvinists sites Got Questions and CARM, goes after other figures. Interesting thought for speculation. Perhaps I need to more closely, view their article inventory of titles. :smiley:

Hey, Eusebius. Did you do something on a forum or their website, to get Kevin to write that article :question: :laughing:

Like hit him with a virtual white glove :question: :laughing:

or

youtube.com/watch?v=m9Wh66FXZJQ

No I don’t reject Christ’s divinity.