The Evangelical Universalist Forum

My definition of EU for my new church to analyse

Evangelical Universalism
#1

Next week the leaders of my new church will be meeting and one of the things they’ll be discussing is EU. They thought it might be helpful if I provided a simple dot point list of the specifics of what I believe, without lengthy justifications.

I thought I may as well do it here, and people can give me feedback/suggestions.

Disclaimers:
]This is MY personal definition of EU, and I expect not everyone will agree, which is totally fine, as I’m sure it’s not perfect! :slight_smile:/]
]This is NOT the official Statement of Faith for this forum./]
]I’m writing it with the Dutch Reformed Christian Church, who are mostly Calvinists, in mind./:m]

---------------- Below is what I’ll email, once polished! --------------------

[size=120]Comparing Evangelical Universalism & Reformed Christianity[/size]

There are many forms of Universalism, however, below I am describing the form I hold. I have done my best to present some of the things I see as common ground and areas of difference, however, please ask me if you wish me to clarify anything. I was asked not to include the justifications here, as that would make it way too long, however, feel free to ask me anytime :slight_smile:

[size=120]Common Ground?[/size]

]God- I believe the Trinity is the best description of the one true God, revealed throughout the Bible. I believe God is infinitely & perfectly loving, merciful, holy, glorious, wise, powerful, knowing & just. I believe God deserves all (heart, mind & body) our praise and worship./]

]Christ Jesus- I believe in the incarnation, the physical birth, death, resurrection & ascension of Jesus of Nazareth, about 2000 years ago./]

]The Bible- I believe the Bible was intentionally created by God & man, that it has been well preserved, and when read in it’s original languages and rightly understood by the power of the Holy Spirit, is authoritative in both matters of faith & practice./]

]Sin- I believe any opposition to God is sin. I believe everyone, from Adam onwards, (except Christ) has sinned. I believe sin taints and affects every aspect of our lives. I believe we need God to free us from slavery to sin. I believe sin deserves punishment. I believe God has the desire & ability to rid the universe of sin./]

]Judgement- I believe God will Judge and that some will go to eternal life & others to a place of God’s punishment./]

]Salvation- I believe Christ is the only Saviour, that salvation is a gift of grace, received by repentance & faith (with the Spirit’s help), and that it can not be earned./]

]Missional- I believe God wants us to be actively involved in reconciling people to God, through our love & prayer for others and the proclamation of the Gospel./]

]Ecumenical Councils & Early Creeds- I have a high regard for them, however, like most Protestants, I don’t believe they are infallible, and disagree with some points. e.g. veneration of icons. I believe EU complies with them and therefore remains within the bounds of orthodox Christian faith./]

[size=120]Areas of Difference?[/size]

]The Scope of God’s Intertrinitarian Love- I believe God loves everyone, as a Father loves their child, even those He punishes in order to bring about repentance (by the Holy Spirit’s help)./]

]Postmortem Repentance and Salvation through Christ- I believe that those who go to Hell after Judgement Day, will eventually (by the Holy Spirit’s help) come to repentance and salvation through faith in Christ./]

]“Aionios” should be translated as “of the age(s)” not “eternal/everlasting/forever”- however for many other reasons/verses, I still believe God is eternal and so is life with Him./]

]Penal Substitutionary Atonement (understanding how Jesus’ death & resurrection reconciles us to God)- Some EUs hold PSA, some hold qualified versions and some hold more Eastern views (such as Christus Victor). I can see the arguments for and against the positions, but remain deeply undecided on the matter. At the moment, a qualified PSA is probably where I’m at./]

Driscoll's "FAQ: Predestination and Election"
#2

Very interesting post Alex.

My questions are:

Bible: inerrancy? for or against?
Sin: no mention of Adam!
Missional: “involved” sounds passive as though you have reservations.
Creeds: “like most Protestants, I don’t believe they are inspired like the Bible” this is very peculiar statement, if no one says they are inspired, why bother saying you don’ think they are inspired?! You should define instead what role Church tradition has in your interpretation of Scripture.

Post-mortem salvation; I’d be interested to hear how you think Hell works. Is it more of a purgatorial working off particular sins or more of a general retributive punishment while the Holy Spirit does his work?

aionios: so you’d translate it as “eternal/forever” in most instances (eg Rom 16:26, Heb 9:12, 2 Peter 1:11 etc etc) except where it’s referring to punishment? (Tangentially, probably for our other thread, does this mean that for you the “all/everyone” passages take precedence over the “eternal punishment” passages?)

#3

I was hoping for your feedback :slight_smile:

(Quickly checks Wikipedia’s definition :smiley: )

, Grudem"]Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.Hmm, I wonder what he means by “fact”? e.g. is it a fact that “Everything is meaningless!”. What about things that are true but not historical facts? e.g. Parables.

What is your definition of Biblical Inerrancy?

Fixed. Although when I think about Sin, I don’t just blame Adam (not saying you do either), I think about my own rebellion against God.

Fixed, ironically I had “actively” there originally but didn’t want to sound like we were too important, I agree though, safer to leave it there :slight_smile:

:laughing: I was thinking back to our discussions of the Athanasian Creed.

I was trying to by implication. i.e. I have a high regard for it, but it’s not inspired.

An excellent question! Definitely the HS doing His work. I’m speculating that it will be complex, individually targeted punishment (almost certainly retributive from the perspective of the one receiving it), rather than “general retributive punishment”.

Depends if I settle with approach a or b, still figuring that out, need to research it more (e.g. read “Terms for Eternity”). There are definitely other places where I wouldn’t translate aionios “eternal/forever”. e.g. Jonah 2:6

Yes, as I don’t believe it says “eternal punishment” anywhere in the Bible :wink: Besides that, I think Paul, for example, goes to much greater lengths (e.g. through comparison and repetition) to define the scope of “all/everyone” than he does with the duration of the punishment. (Btw I do think the authors go to great lengths to describe the awfulness/intensity of the punishment :open_mouth: )

#4

That’s an interesting, solid approach Alex. I like how you emphasize all the things you have in common with the commonly held beliefs of the church. Now, if you don’t mind,just one thoughts.

#5 and some ending up in Hell after judgment. Umm, well, Hell speaks of ECT; and if a person ends up in Hell, ECT, then he is not ultimately reconciled to God, but endlessly tormented. So for me, I cannot affirm the belief in Hell as it is commonly understood and defined to be because I believe all are ultimately reconciled to God. I believe that we shall all face the fire of judgment and that fire shall purge us. As to the nature of age-to-come chastizement we might face, well, I trust in God’s grace, mercy, and love for us all. I trust that the chastizement will be as is necessary for reconciliation with God and especially with one another. I believe that judgment’s purpose is reconciliation, that evil is ultimately overcome by good, not more evil.

#5

I’m inclined to agree with Sherman. Ditch the word hell and replace it with God’s refining fire. Then again, you do believe in hell, and maybe saying so will force them to think more clearly…

Apart from that, I think it’s a good outline. Maybe you could put in something about irresistable grace and God’s love for the world?

#6

Inerracy: I’d say it’s “God and man as equal co-authors.”

Sin: The blame is shouldered equally by us and Adam, that’s one of the main points of 1 Cor 15:22 or Rom 5:12-21.

Creeds: But that’s what I find confusing, why would I claim the creeds are inspired like the bible? (They’re part of church tradition which defines our interpretation. You should clarify what you think about church tradition. Although that burden shouldn’t rest on you alone because it’s something the Universalist movement as a whole needs to figure out.)

I wasn’t asking about Septuagint. :mrgreen: It would seem inconsistent to make “eternal punishment” the exception.

This seems to be a case of “Sachkritik”, :smiley: speaking of which all the threads over in a our section are waiting for a response.

#7

Thanks for the feedback :slight_smile: I totally agree, which is why I carefully chose the words “go to”, rather then “end up”, as if you go somewhere, you can come back. However, I’ve dropped the word “Hell” as it’s so loaded with assumptions. In section 5 I’m looking at what they would agree on, in regards to Judgement. In the “Areas of Difference?” section, I do begin to explain what I believe will happen to those in the place of punishment, i.e. they will repent & be reconciled.

#8

Sure, I agree with that definition.

Sure. And he kicked off the domino effect, mind you if he hadn’t, I bet his sons would’ve! :unamused:

Now I’m confused, don’t the Roman Catholic’s have such a high regard for church tradition that it’s seen as infallible, whereas Protestants (including EUs) only have a high regard for church tradition?

Once we finish our current threads (at least 7, if you include FB :mrgreen: ), I think we need to discuss the Septuagint.

Nah, I don’t intend it to be Sachkritik :stuck_out_tongue: I haven’t forgotten them, I’m very keen to reply to all of them but work/domestics are holding me back… (and I had a great idea last night about a word experiment, that I want to try with you when we get a chance)

#9

Thanks, I’ve added the word irresistible, but I’ll need to expand that and add a section on God’s love.

#10

That’s one theory, but Rom 5:12-21 and 1 Cor 15:22 says more than that; “the many died by the trespass of the one man” (Rom 5:15).

Unless someone said to you offline or in a debate I didn’t read no-one has claimed the creeds are infallible. Unless you’ve been secretly debating Roman Catholics?

The argument has always been about the role of church tradition and what it says.

The Hebrew text is considered more reliable than the Septuagint.

Sounds like hyper Calvinism, don’t people get in the end what they truly want? :mrgreen:

#11

Sure.

What do you think the role of church tradition should be?

:confused: we’ll definitely need to talk more about this later.

What they truly want (once the HS has freed them from sin) is God :slight_smile: However, as it muddies the water without a full explanation, I’ve removed it again.

I got some feedback from my brother e.g. reduced the section on “aionios”

#12

[slightly off-topic] Yeah, Luke! Keep studying those passages, because they say even more than that! :wink:

(spoiler: they say that everyone adversely affected by Adam gets sorted by Christ! :astonished: )

#13

My friend Mikey rightly quoting Michael Jensen (mpjensen.blogspot.com/2011/08/brian-rosner-on-paul-and-law-1.html):

#14

Got here via your post in another topic and I read this whole thing again. As much as I dislike Statement of Faiths in churches, I think writing your own and presenting it to your church was a wonderful idea – it’s inspired me to write my own for my new church! I want them to know exactly where I’ve walked from and where I’m inevitably walking to. So far I’ve only managed to ad-lib this rather poorly. One Church member was completely unfazed; another recoiled. Writing it all down clearly is a good idea.

I think it’s immensely wise to be upfront about your theology in such a precise manner (although I understand it’s often difficult) – false teachers always “creep in unnoticed” whispering their fraudulent doctrines to the flock, and I personally think it’s dangerous (for yourself, the church and the doctrine of concern) to be overly quiet about your convictions.

Thanks for the good idea! Godbless!

#15

Alex, I don’t have a lot to offer, but I did have the same reaction as your dad. It occured to me there wasn’t a lot about love, if anything. It’s all about the love of God, his work to reconcile all things because he really loves and not just some of the time to some people. I did have one other reaction, PSA? Really? :astonished: Say it isn’t so! :astonished: That’s a hard one to swallow, have to be some huge qualifiers. :mrgreen:

#16

It took a lot longer, and was harder, than I imagined it would be. Given there are so much baggage with UR, I thought it would be good for them to know what I actually believed.

Amen! I’d prefer to be rejected as heretic rather than a false teacher, a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”.

I said a few things… :stuck_out_tongue: However, unfortunately for the sake of time (& so I didn’t overwhelm the elders/minister), I was told to try to just say what, not why, I believe.

I totally agree!

:blush: I thought I might get in trouble there :wink: It’s only because I haven’t had the time yet to read all the for & against arguments properly. I’m very uncomfortable with the idea that our Father needs to be appeased like a pagan deity but I also don’t know what to do with passages like 1 Cor 5:7b, “For Christ our Passover has been sacrificed.” :confused:

#17

Alex,

I think PSA may be just as big a hurdle as universalism! I haven’t touched that much in discussion with people, though I am convinced it’s not true. Perhaps part of the key to understanding that lies in a proper understanding of sacrifice in the OT. I think OT sacrifice was not substitutionary in the same sense in which we now portray the sacrifice of Christ.

For instance, in Romans 12, Paul says to present our bodies a living sacrifice. I can’t see how that could that fit with the idea of sacrifice being substitutionary. Of course, there were OT sacrifices which were for purposes other than sin, and that might be where this lies. Paul’s use there in Romans savors of dedication, of giving to God out of love, rather than appeasment of an angry God. When it comes to the sacrifices for sin, if I’m remembering right, the person was to lay his hand on the head of the animal, and then it was slaughtered. Generally, I think they say the animal takes the place of the man, suffering the death that the man deserves, but my inclination is to think that the animal becomes the representative of the sin of the man, which the man is giving up to God by destroying – a picture of repentence. Don’t quote me on that – it’s an appealing idea that came to me but I haven’t studied it out. But it would fit with Paul’s statement that Christ was made to be sin on our behalf.

I’m very interested in this topic, but I guess I need a lot more study and discussion on it before I’ll have any confidence on how it all works out.

Sonia

#18

Does that verse really give any support to PSA? Exodus 12 does not give any sense of the passover lamb being punished by God so that God’s people can avoid being punished by him. Instead, the blood of the lamb, the innocent victim who cannot fight back, is used to mark the homes of those who belong to God so that “When the LORD passes through to strike Egypt and sees the blood on the lintel and the two doorposts, He will pass over the door and not let the destroyer enter your houses to strike you.” (HCSB)
When Jesus becmes the fulfilment of the passover lamb, this speaks to me of one who overcomes evil by good, rather than being overcome by evil (i.e. resorting to evil himself).

(this response is off the cuff - I read a lot on this subject last year and can’t remember where this line of reasoning came from - maybe Derek Flood, James Alison, the Holy Spirit?)

Anyway in 1 Cor 5 the context is about the importance of not boasting - which is likened to yeast which effects a whole batch of dough. He is linking this to the festival of unleavened bread (also Exodus 12) and saying there shouldn’t be any yeast/boasting amongst Christians because Jesus, our passover has sacrificed himself.

That’s all I have time for - think about it! :wink:

#19

Alex, How do you define irresistible grace? Do you reject that humans could in anyway delay their acceptance of Christ’s salvation?

#20

Yes, I started considering that when I read theologicalscribbles.blogspot.co … jesus.html

I agree, there’s certainly more too sacrifice then appeasement.

I like the sounds of that :slight_smile:

Same here!

I totally agree that God overcomes evil with God. It’s just that prima facie Exo 12 sounds like the LORD was coming to destroy all firstborn sons, and the only reason He didn’t destroy Israel’s was because of the blood of the lamb. I can see how people then use 1 Cor 5:7b to say the LORD was coming to destroy all humanity, and the only reason He didn’t destroy some was because of the blood of Jesus. Now I’m hoping it will be similar to the “destruction” passages, that although prima facie sound like extermination, with further study (e.g. taking into account other passages) I end up being convinced they aren’t. It’s just that I haven’t done the further study yet :blush:

I agree.

I will :sunglasses:

Hmm… that’s a tricky question!

  1. I do believe that eventually no one will be resisting God’s grace.

  2. Saul/Paul certainly seemed unable to resist when he came face-to-face to Christ. But that makes me wonder why He just doesn’t come face-to-face with everyone now, end get it all over with…

  3. Many at least appear to be genuinely resisting/delaying God now, and the Bible seems to imply that some will continue to for a while after Judgement Day. Now they may not be delaying, but it could just be that some (like the devil) just require more purging??

  4. I do believe without the Holy Spirit’s help we couldn’t even accept grace given to us.

  5. I think God’s love never gives up & never fails, but how much does He “force”. This is particularly difficult, as I can think of many situations where I do need to “force” my son to do the right/safe thing & not do the wrong/dangerous thing, however I also think that I’m working towards seeing him do it without any “force” on my part… Not sure how well this applies to God, as He is also our sustainer & we want to have the Holy Spirit in us.

Anyway, how do I harmonise these? Well, to be honest, I’m not entirely sure.