Whether negative or positive, many Christians have found what they consider a reasonable and fulfilling theology in John Calvin’s Magnus Opus. Though some on here have little respect for Calvinism, it did give the tools for many Christians to shake off Roman Catholic thought and the chains of its dark theology. Though we may fault it for its view of damnation and predestination, many saw it as the natural outcome of biblical truth. Many still do today. What has kept me from embracing Calvinism is actually Universalism, if I had not learned many of the things I have, I would definitely see it as the most logical interpretation of the Scriptures. What always kept me back was the understanding that Christ actually died for all, that there was no need to limit the atonement because hell is not an issue (if I had not known the last part I would be Reformed for sure).
Anyway I think Origen’s “First Principles” is a good example of Christians laying out a deep and thought-out theology. Though I have not read it fully, I know many have said it is like a systematic theology. A new one needn’t be dry or lazy, in fact it could be very thoughtful, spiritual, and powerful. It would be a major step in helping the majority of Christians see the merits of UR. Denominations and groups disband, ideas and doctrines endure. Just some thoughts.
P.S. Concerning the Trinity, I believe the Holy Spirit cannot be so quickly dismissed from being a person. We can’t ignore how many times He is listed along with the Father and Son. Matthew 28:19 is a notable verse considering the Spirit’s place.
Unfortunately, that is a questioned text by scholars, and the only place in scripture that baptismal formulation occurs. See here: yaiy.org/literature/pdf/07Tr … Matt28.pdf
All other baptismal formulations in the NT do not follow this pattern.
Besides which, I do think that the Spirit is a person, just not a distinct one.
Which scholars? I’ll read that link, but I’ve only ever heard a strange argument based upon Eusebius’ quotes of that text. We have no actual manuscripts or fragments that alter Matthew 28:19, until we do I’m not going to take it as anything other than authentic. Also I see the Spirit as a distinct person in Paul’s writings, “One Spirit…one Lord…one God and Father of all”.
Hello Paidon, I have a copy of that Bible as well. I think it is fascinating how different the Septuagint is compared to our Hebrew Old Testaments. What do you think of it so far?
In general, the Orthodox Study Bible OT seems to be a pretty good translation of the Septuagint.
The Septuagint differs from our Old Testaments because it is based on a different Hebrew text type (in my opinion closer to the Hebrew that the authors used). Translation of the Hebrew of the manuscripts found in Cave 4 of the Qumran match the Septuagint translation and not the Masoretic Hebrew text from which our Old Testaments are translated.
Also, close to 100 NT quotes from the OT match the Septuagint, but not the Masoretic Hebrew text.
I am going to give one simple example:
According to Exodus 1:5, how many descendants of Jacob were there?
The Septuagint says “75”. Thus your Orthodox Study Bible says “75”.
The Dead Sea Scrolls text from Cave 4 says “75” (I have a copy of “The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible”),
The New Testament reference to this verse (Acts 7:14) says “75”,
Now look in your own Old Testament, based on the Masoretic text. What does it say? “70!!!”
So which number do you think Moses originally wrote when he wrote the book of Exodus?
YAY!! Thanks, Paidion. I just got it for my Kindle. I’d prefer a hard copy, but it’ll have to go on the wish list. The Kindle edition was just $4.00 US, which fits nicely into my budget.
Do you mean why would God allow the fragmentation of the church and the challenges in interpreting/understanding scripture – if indeed He’s willing to override free will if necessary? I’m not seeing the connection here. (sorry) But let me talk just a little bit more about free will first . . . .
I would say that . . . I in fact DO believe that God can and will save all His creatures without violating their free will. So the idea of Him overriding free will if necessary is only a hypothetical to me. I think love would require that of Him (should He be unable to save otherwise), if not for the sake of the rebel, then at the least, for the sake of those who love the rebel (including Himself). Even then, I think He would keep it to a minimum – just what it took to get the person over the hump, so to speak.
I guess I need to define my idea of free will a bit and I’ll try to keep it brief. A child resisting his parents’ will that he go to school still has free will, even as he sits pouting in the classroom. The fact that his parents forced him to attend doesn’t make any sort of metaphysical change in him – turn him into a robot, for example. Paul didn’t get to forgo his Damascus Road experience. He might have reacted differently, sure, but considering the overwhelming show of God’s presence, it seems unlikely he could reasonably have been expected to react other than he did. He had his past experience and study of God to inform him and his genuine zeal for God (though without knowledge), and no doubt that did influence his response. Still, that’s knowledge he obtained, and God can give knowledge without obliterating our wills. God’s free will takes precedence over ours just as a loving parent’s over that of a foolish child.
IF (hypothetically) the human were so wicked and depraved as to rush headlong, fully informed and undeluded, cured of any insanity, into his own destruction, and even out-last God’s persistence in drawing him to love (which I personally see as a logical impossibility), THEN (again, hypothetically) I think that God would draw him in anyway. I do think though, that anyone who could do such a thing and continue to do it for all eternity, is seriously broken and in need of repairs.
So, based on that (that is, that I don’t honestly believe it will or could be necessary for Father to violate our free will in order to save us), I think that He has allowed the church to progress and grow in our hands (with what help we’ve had the wisdom to ask and accept from Him). The result is a very human and flawed institution with a touch of the divine. Likewise, the bible is what we have chosen to collect and consider inspired. I know it’s fashionable to demean the procedures by which the canons were collected, but I actually think the fathers did a pretty good job. I believe that scripture IS inspired and (to a degree) accessible to those literate enough to read it. Even in the vastly over-simplified versions (imo – not meaning to be judgmental) the spark remains. I think that it’s a shame we need these very simplified versions, but if we need them then I’m glad we have them. God loves us all, whatever our educational level might be.
Any person can hear the gospel stories in his own language and grasp from them what’s required of him and what God, in Christ, has done for him. In fact, many have and continue to do so. If he believes the alternative to be hellfire, well the less educated tend to have less of a problem with that. Those of us who have the time and inclination to think about these things are the ones more likely to pick up on the absurdity of a God who supposedly is love and is all powerful not being able (or willing) to save those He loves. A witness remains. To the simple, it’s fine as it is. To the educated, the means to understand are available. Those who are thirsty will come, and everyone is bound to thirst eventually.
The quran is generally attested to have been one quran from the beginning, unchanged and unquestioned. Historically, this isn’t exactly true. There were many different qurans at the first, and I’m told the verses that adorn the inner sanctum of the Dome of the Rock differ significantly from those reproduced in the modern-day quran. When Muhammad died, his followers collected his sayings and the writings of his scribes from wherever they could find them. I believe it was Shiek Omar who collected all the qurans he could get his hands on, had them collated and edited them together as he thought best, burned the various versions he collected, and released his approved version as the true quran. The quran contains internal claims to inerrancy, but it isn’t possible to know whether Muhammad, one of his followers, or the good sheik or his editors put those claims (or anything else) in there. Interestingly, the quran also claims that the “people of the book” will be able to verify the truth of the quran (the book being the scriptures of the Christians and the Jews). Thus he gives precedence to the Jewish and Christian scriptures as a fail-safe proof-check for the quran. No doubt he’d learned of the Judeo-Christian scriptures second hand and honestly believed his claims to be valid. In addition, the quran was dictated by one man – Muhammad – over the course of his adult life, and collected in a fairly short period of time following his death. It’s a much more recent work, having been written around 600 AD, and even so, the original autograph(s) aren’t available today. The bible is much, much, much older and was written over a period of 1500 years by many different authors, yet it’s been remarkably preserved by the cultures that deemed it sacred. So there really isn’t much correlation between the bible and the quran.
Differences in the older manuscripts of our scriptures usually aren’t significant ones, but the differences in our translations can be significant. Likewise, the differences in translations of the quran can be significant, which is why Muslims will argue that the quran cannot be correctly understood except in the original Arabic. It’s “perfect” only in its language of origin. Likewise the bible is in fact correctly understood only in its language of origin – and that with a knowledge of the cultures into which it was written, knowledge of the intended audience (which I think, didn’t include us, at least in the minds of the writers), understanding of the situation being addressed, the goal of the writer in writing his book/epistle, and etc. But these things are true of any written work.
We’re taught in school (or used to be) to ask ourselves, who, what, when, where, why, and how. If we use this same procedure for interpreting scripture, it alone can make a big difference to our understanding. To whom was Jesus speaking? Pharisees? priests? the people? His disciples? What was He talking about? (was He addressing a question? elaborating on a teaching?) When did He say these things? (Not only His immediate when, but the when of the setting – this includes cultural context.) Where? (in Jesus case – in Israel, to the Jews – also, immediate location – the temple? a festival? a garden?) Why? (Were the Pharisees questioning Him about something? Had He just done something He wanted to interpret – feeding the 5,000, etc.?) How? (Oral? Written? via a vision? via an epistle? using a parable?)
God could not have written the entire bible (through His inspired prophets, kings, shepherds, fishermen, etc.) in a way that it would be easily accessible to people of all times and all cultures. I’m going back to the thing about making a rock so heavy He couldn’t lift it here. I don’t see that doing such a thing is a thing that could be done. It’s a wonder we can relate to the scriptures at all, considering how and when they were produced. I do believe that His Spirit speaks to our hearts as we read, and that if we don’t allow ourselves to be worshipers of the written word, we can be enlightened by reading it with the inspiration of the HS. But if we parse every syllable, we’re going to be led astray, because while this can also reveal truth, the hyper-literal reading of scripture we’re fond of today has led many away into legalism.
So yes, I think you’re expressing my thoughts reasonably well. Any of the canons when taken together as a whole story will reveal what we need to know of the goodness, love, power, etc. of God. The metanarrative.
I suspect quite “literally” that “75” would be correct; however I also suspect that what the MT espouses or carries is the “thematic” equivalent.
It would a bit like the difference between the Hebrew leaning Matthew who notes Jesus’ “perfect” and thus “thematic” summation of forgiveness “seventy times seven” Mt 18:22] etc, and Luke’s more “accurate” to detail Greek leaning “seventy-two” being sent out (even though many manuscripts render it simply as seventy) Lk 10:1, 17] etc.
It would a bit like the difference between the Hebrew leaning Matthew who notes Jesus’ “perfect” and thus “thematic” summation of forgiveness “seventy times seven” [Mt 18:22] etc, and Luke’s more “accurate” to detail Greek leaning “seventy-two” being sent out (even though many manuscripts render it simply as seventy) [Lk 10:1, 17] etc.
My post was not merely a comparison of “Hebrew leaning” passages vs "“Greek leaning” passages. Rather it was to induce us to consider which is more likely to reflect the words of the original OT manuscripts, dthe Septugint Greek text and Qumran Cave 4 Hebrew text, or the Masoretic Hebrew text.
Yes I agree. My point being certain variations could be understand as occurring according to the mindset [Hebrew/Greek] behind each respective translation. The Hebrew mindset seems to be more thematically inclined whereas the Greek is more analytical.
Example: If an ancient Greek found an 18-wheeler out in the desert he’d likely think… “what is it and HOW did this get here??” If an ancient Hebrew found an 18-wheeler out in the desert he’d likely think… “what is it and WHAT’S inside??” – they had different ways of processing reality.
I think to some extent you are very right, but I also see writing down something akin to a systematic theology (it doesn’t need to mirror what is technically a systematic theology) is a good way for the curious to see how universalism fits in the overall flow of God’s revelation, to see the inner coherence of it. Now ask anyone I know and they’ll tell you that while I like to intellectually search and understand things I also try to live and walk by the Spirit, in faith and not by sight. I see there two things as compatible, as Paul once wrote, “Be infants in evil, but mature in your thinking”. We are to be as children in faith, trusting and believing the revelation of Christ and His Holy Spirit, but we also are able to be taught a wisdom not of this age. It is spiritual wisdom taught with spiritual words by the Spirit of God. My proposal is not to create something that does all the thinking for people, but helps them to think more deeply, something that compels them to search the Scriptures and allow the Holy Spirit to teach them by revelation. Christ being the center, the Spirit being the teacher and guide, and the Father’s glory and love being the end of our whole endeavor. Anyway it was just a thought
I like that a lot AA. I think we spend too much time trying to reconcile the OT with the new. We need to focus on Christ and what he taught and work outwards from there. Paul’s interpretation of the OT passages he quotes are often completely different than the original meaning and he does things with OT scripture we would mock if anyone did it today. Christ and his life, death and resurrection* changes everything*. We need to quit trying to pour new wine into old wineskins!
Just my thoughts as one whose theology is very Christocentric.
My understanding is that a few biblical scholars have questioned that text’s originality over the years, so the list I would imagine is relatively short. My understanding is that those who have questioned it have questioned it on contextual grounds, early church practices, and it’s absence from other NT baptismal prescriptions. Unfortunately, the earliest manuscripts we have date from about the fourth century, and there are no earlier surviving copies, so it’s impossible to tell if there were any earlier MSS that were altered later. However its inclusion, if indeed original, says nothing about the relationship between the “persons”, nor does it even name them as ‘persons’. The fact that “in the name of” referenced in the verse is singular in form is also suggestive that it is not referring to three persons, but one. This would appear, if anything, to suggest a modalist view of God, assuming at least a binitarian understanding. The other possiblity is that rather than persons, this passage just names three different names for the one God, in which case a modalist understanding wouldn’t be necessary.
This is actually done other places in scripture, i.e. “His name shall be called; Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace”. Here we have a clear demonstration of several names of God given, without having to infer from this that God is 5 persons.
Here is another interesting article discussing the controversy over Matt. 28:19 jesus.rlbible.com/?p=265
an excellent way to put it.
they can be immensely helpful, but i think we’re meant to have the law of the spirit written on our hearts.
but let’s not abandon the idea…it may still be helpful
The Kindle edition was just $4.00 US, which fits nicely into my budget.
