Hidden problem with Universalism

[maintenanceman]

That’s another reason why I stress that the NT is our guide, because it sheds light on the old. 9 out of 10 doctors agree that we should get our doctrine from the NT and stop stressing over the OT.

So your view is that Christians should get their doctrine from the NT, so why don’t we just get rid of the OT, or 2/3rds of our Bible?

[DaveB2.0]

Because what is important in it IS displayed by the light of the NT. Romans. Hebrews. Those 2 books alone re-interpret and focus the OT the way God wants us to understand that.

It’s really clear in my mind at least:
We regard the Scriptures as the records of God’s successive revelations to mankind, and particularly of the last and most perfect revelation of his will by Jesus Christ. Whatever doctrines seem to us to be clearly taught in the Scriptures; we receive without reserve or exception. We do not, however, attach equal importance to all the books in this collection. Our religion, we believe, lies chiefly in the New Testament. The dispensation of Moses, compared with that of Jesus, we consider as adapted to the childhood of the human race, a preparation for a nobler system, and chiefly useful now as serving to confirm and illustrate the Christian Scriptures. Jesus Christ is the only master of Christians, and whatever he taught, either during his personal ministry, or by his inspired Apostles, we regard as of divine authority, and profess to make the rule of our lives. - WEC

[maintenanceman]

Jesus Christ is the only master of Christians, and whatever he taught, either during his personal ministry, or by his inspired Apostles, we regard as of divine authority, and profess to make the rule of our lives. - WEC

What is WEC?

[DaveB2.0]

Remember that book I sent you? William Ellery Channing.

[maintenanceman]

Whatever doctrines seem to us to be clearly taught in the Scriptures; we receive without reserve or exception. We do not, however, attach equal importance to all the books in this collection. Our religion, we believe, lies chiefly in the New Testament.

Channing seems to not at his point in history have a grasp that there are now today some 30,000 denominations in Christianity… Many gurus make for a sloppy soup.

[Bob_Wilson]

9 out of 10 doctors agree that we should get our doctrine from the NT and stop stressing over the OT.

I wish, and I heartily agree with your consistent Christo-centric approach. But you do realize that to most evangelicals, your radical statement puts you on the progressive fringe? Most all those I have known would say that the OT is just as inspired and infallible as Jesus or the NT, and thus appealing to OT texts is equally reliable and suitable for establishing doctrine.

[DaveB2.0]

Channing seems to not at his point in history have a grasp that there are now today some 30,000 denominations in Christianity… Many gurus make for a sloppy soup.

I suppose that most of them differ very little. Seems like everyone - human nature - has a particular hobby horse they want everyone to ride.

[maintenanceman]

But Dave you said and I assume you believe: Whatever doctrines seem to us to be clearly taught in the Scriptures; we receive without reserve or exception. We do not, however, attach equal importance to all the books in this collection. Our religion, we believe, lies chiefly in the New Testament. The dispensation of Moses, compared with that of Jesus, we consider as adapted to the childhood of the human race, a preparation for a nobler system, and chiefly useful now as serving to confirm and illustrate the Christian Scriptures. Jesus Christ is the only master of Christians, and whatever he taught, either during his personal ministry, or by his inspired Apostles, we regard as of divine authority, and profess to make the rule of our lives.

So I assume you, for the most part, see the NT as your focal ground. And that is cool. But if you take the NT without the OT (as many Christians do) aren’t there huge moral gaps for those who want to use the bible as the ultimate moral authority?

[DaveB2.0]

Good question. The NT goes a lot further than the OT when it comes to morality. There is a big difference between ‘don’t harm others’ to ‘Do for others what you would like them to do for you’, which is HUGE.
I think our moral motivation now that we know ‘God is Agape’ is much different than OT believers. We try to imitate the Father, as Jesus did, in loving obedience to His will.
This question needs its own thread, as I’m sure a number of folks would have insights into this.

[maintenanceman]

There is a big difference between ‘don’t harm others’ to ‘Do for others what you would like them to do for you’, which is HUGE.

Thanks

[Paidion]

The model I favor, but can’t prove, would be along the lines of GMac’s emphases: that godly character is a result of symbiosis between God and each person. Following that line, it makes it rather easy for me to speculate that post-mortem, God still has a lot of work to do on everyone.
This model works fine with a robust conviction that God IS love and that any work He does with us, even if difficult for us, is done from love, along with wisdom.
The text “God is Agape” is for me the foundational text, and it is my choice to allow that text to inform my interpretation of other passages. $.02

This is precisely how I think about it.Your two cents worth is more like two millions worth in my eyes.