My definition of EU for my new church to analyse

[Alex_Smith]

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

Sure, I agree with that definition.

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.

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

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.)

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?

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

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

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

Yes, as I don’t believe it says “eternal punishment” anywhere in the Bible 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 )

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

Nah, I don’t intend it to be Sachkritik 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)

[Alex_Smith]

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 irresistible grace and God’s love for the world?

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

[Luke]

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

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).

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

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.

irresistible

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

[Alex_Smith]

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

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).

Sure.

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

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

The Hebrew text is considered more reliable than the Septuagint.

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

irresistible

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

What they truly want (once the HS has freed them from sin) is God 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”

[NealF]

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

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).

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

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

[Luke]

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

“Allow Paul to say one thing at a time. That is: when Paul says ‘we
aren’t under law!’ let him be a passionate rhetorician. A coherent but
not systematic thinker. See Romans 5 - Paul sound universalistic, but
if you read him patiently, you see that he isn’t. “

[WE_ARE_ALL_BROTHERS]

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!

[amy]

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? Say it isn’t so! That’s a hard one to swallow, have to be some huge qualifiers.

[Alex_Smith]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I believe God is infinitely & perfectly loving … salvation is a gift of grace … I believe God loves everyone, as a Father loves their child

I said a few things… 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.

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 totally agree!

I did have one other reaction, PSA? Really? Say it isn’t so! That’s a hard one to swallow, have to be some huge qualifiers.

I thought I might get in trouble there 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.”

[SLJ]

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

[revdrew61]

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.”

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!

[james.goetz]

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

[Alex_Smith]

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.

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

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.

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

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 like the sounds of that

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.

Same here!

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.”

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).

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

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.

I agree.

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

I will

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

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.

[james.goetz]

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

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.

I am no expert in Reformed theology, but I suppose that the Reformed doctrine of irresistible grace implies that humans cannot delay accepting God’s gift of salvation. (Perhaps somebody reading this thread who is well versed in Reformed theology could verify this.) Likewise, saying that nobody will reject God’s grace continuously forever does not mean that you believe in the doctrine of irresistible grace, which is a cornerstone of Reformed theology.

[Alex_Smith]

Maybe it’s only when God personally reveals His grace to someone it’s irresistible (e.g. Saul/Paul), and that all those who appear to be resisting/delaying acceptance, haven’t yet had the personal, unambiguous encounter with grace, and therefore aren’t actually resisting the irresistible?

However, doesn’t irresistible imply one doesn’t have any free will? I think I’m a soft determinist, if that means God gets His way but somehow makes space for us to make real decisions? Do I have to be a determinist to be Reformed?

[james.goetz]

Maybe it’s only when God personally reveals His grace to someone it’s irresistible (e.g. Saul/Paul), and that all those who appear to be resisting/delaying acceptance, haven’t yet had the personal, unambiguous encounter with grace, and therefore aren’t actually resisting the irresistible?

However, doesn’t irresistible imply one doesn’t have any free will? I think I’m a soft determinist, if that means God gets His way but somehow makes space for us to make real decisions? Do I have to be a determinist to be Reformed?

I suppose that Reformed implies compatibility of divine determinism and human free will, a type of “compatibilism”
(plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/). Is this what you mean by “soft determinism”?

Given this, I suppose that Reformed implies compatibilism with an inscrutable compatibility of irresistible grace and human free will.

By the way, my view of conditional futurism implies conditional election. So all in all, I do not work with Reformed theology apart from the general sense that Arminius considered himself part of the Reformed tradition.

[Alex_Smith]

Maybe it’s only when God personally reveals His grace to someone it’s irresistible (e.g. Saul/Paul), and that all those who appear to be resisting/delaying acceptance, haven’t yet had the personal, unambiguous encounter with grace, and therefore aren’t actually resisting the irresistible?

However, doesn’t irresistible

imply one doesn’t have any free will? I think I’m a soft determinist, if that means God gets His way but somehow makes space for us to make real decisions? Do I have to be a determinist to be Reformed? I suppose that Reformed implies compatibility of divine determinism and human free will, a type of “compatibilism”(plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/). Is this what you mean by “soft determinism”?

I read a bit of that definition and it sounds the same, what’s more I discovered Wikipedia says the terms are equivalent.

Given this, I suppose that Reformed implies compatibilism with an inscrutable compatibility of irresistible grace and human free will.

Yes, that’s where my thinking is at the moment, I could well be wrong as it seems to me to be a complex topic. Either way, even with compatibilism, I think God determined to softly determine some things, rather than Open Theism (if I’m understanding that correctly ) i.e. God knows what He’s doing.

By the way, my view of conditional futurism implies conditional election. So all in all, I do not work with Reformed theology apart from the general sense that Arminius considered himself part of the Reformed tradition.

I look forward to reading more of your book to get a greater understanding of conditional futurism, as what I’ve read so far is interesting

[james.goetz]

Given this, I suppose that Reformed implies compatibilism with an inscrutable

compatibility of irresistible grace and human free will.Yes, that’s where my thinking is at the moment, I could well be wrong as it seems to me to be a complex topic. Either way, even with compatibilism, I think God determined to softly determine some things, rather than Open Theism (if I’m understanding that correctly ) i.e. God knows what He’s doing.

Well, open theists believe that God knows what he is doing. But they believe that God does not always know the definite results of his actions because God doesn’t exhaustively determine everything while God sovereignly limits the possibilities. Anyway, there are two Arminian views of divine sovereignty: first, traditional Arminian simple foreknowledge; second, open theism.

Simple foreknowledge means that God has always exhaustively known the definite outcome of all future events, but but without exhaustively determining all outcomes. Nothing happens without God’s permission, while God sovereignly ensures that his purposes will prevail.

Open theism teaches that God has always known all possibilities of all possible universes, while God has always known his best response for any circumstance that could occur. But God does not exhaustively know the definite outcome of the future because he allows chance and free will. Also, nothing happens without God’s permission, while God sovereignly ensures that his purposes will prevail.

I strongly lean toward open theism while I cannot absolutely reject inscrutable simple foreknowledge.

Also, if we hypothetically eliminate the possibility of open theism, then I would strongly lean toward inscrutable simple foreknowledge while I could not absolutely reject inscrutable compatibilism.

Additionally, I believe that Saul could have rejected Jesus on the road to Damascus, but that rejection would have been highly unlikely.

[fmichaeldw]

Alex,

My first attempt at making a quote! Here it is from your opening.

Alex said : God- I believe the Trinity is the best description of the God revealed the Bible. I believe God is infinitely & perfectly loving, holy, glorious, wise, powerful, knowing & just. I believe God deserves all (heart, mind & body) our praise and worship.
unquote

Just a small suggestion. How about adding “merciful” even tho implied of course by “loving” and “just”.

Also I take the opportunity now after joining the forum in July this year to say what a great encouragement and blessing it is to read regularly every day. Thanks to you all!

Michael Witty
at Barcelona

[Alex_Smith]

I think God determined to softly determine some things, rather than Open Theism (if I’m understanding that correctly ) i.e. God knows what He’s doing.

Well, open theists believe that God knows what he is doing. But they believe that God does not always know the definite results of his actions because God doesn’t exhaustively determine everything while God sovereignly limits the possibilities. Anyway, there are two Arminian views of divine sovereignty: first, traditional Arminian simple foreknowledge; second, open theism.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Open theism teaches that God has always known all possibilities of all possible universes, while God has always known his best response for any circumstance that could occur. But God does not exhaustively know the definite outcome of the future because he allows chance and free will. Also, nothing happens without God’s permission, while God sovereignly ensures that his purposes will prevail.

It makes me more comfortable, knowing it doesn’t reject God’s sovereignty.

I strongly lean toward open theism while I cannot absolutely reject inscrutable simple foreknowledge.

As you can tell, I haven’t really looked into open theism as I was told it was heresy (although given other “heresies” have turned out not to be heresy, perhaps that’s all the more reason to check it out for myself!).

Also, if we hypothetically eliminate the possibility of open theism, then I would strongly lean toward inscrutable simple foreknowledge while I could not absolutely reject inscrutable compatibilism.

I don’t absolutely reject inscrutable simple foreknowledge but lean towards inscrutable compatibilism

I believe that Saul could have rejected Jesus on the road to Damascus, but that rejection would have been highly unlikely.

Yes, highly unlikely or impossible, it’s hard to know.

Just a small suggestion. How about adding “merciful” even tho implied of course by “loving” and “just”.

Excellent suggestion, I’ve updated it

Also I take the opportunity now after joining the forum in July this year to say what a great encouragement and blessing it is to read regularly every day. Thanks to you all!

I’m delighted to hear that!