The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Poll: Universalists who believe in The Trinity and Free Will

Evangelical Universalism
#62

I think you and I agree that no one dies in a state of perfect sinlessness. The Orthodox Church and historical Protestantism teaches that when a Heaven-bound man dies, Christ instantly perfects that man and makes him sinless. This happens in harmony with the man’s free will. What happened to Hitler upon death is the same as what happens to each and every one of us upon death: The resurrected Christ instantly perfects us in harmony with our free will.

Once again, I am always surprised when a Protestant (who comes from a background of no Purgatory or anything like it) has difficulty understanding Christ instantly purifying a man at death. That is of the essence of Protestantism. The Reformers took a strong stand against the idea of post-mortem processes. Thus (for example), when a good Lutheran died, his brethren said, “He is now in Heaven.” They didn’t say, “After a period of post-mortem purification, he will go to Heaven.”

I would paraphrase Revelation 20:4-6:

Believers lived and reigned with Christ from the time of Acts chapter 2 all the way up to the Second Coming. The unbelievers were dead in their sins and did not enjoy the blessedness of being members of the Church. Being baptized, being a member of the Church, is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are the members of Christ’s Church. Over them spiritual death has no power (unlike the unbelievers who are dead in their sins). The members of the Church are priests of the Holy Trinity, and they shall reign from the time of Acts chapter 2 all the way up to the Second Coming.

#63

I was joking with STT about how he had described himself. That wasn’t aimed at you; and yes, I was also ironically joking that a hyper-trin like myself might be considered even more OCD than STT is (or OD-C rather, which is also an OCD joke based on the actual medical classification).

Sure; I’ve always acknowledged that unitarians (of various kinds) are not only Christian (as long as they aren’t the so-called UUAs who reject Christianity per se), but fit the Apostles’ Creed well enough. A modalist (in various varieties) could agree with the ApostCreed, too.

#64

Ah so - I missed the OD-C thing altogether. :blush:

#65

I’m guessing that Dave B as well as Jason might not totally agree with the original Nicene Creed:

I don’t think they would agree that the Son of God was “begotten of the Father before all ages.”
At first even the Trinitarians of the day accepted this creed, until they saw an inconsistency with the Trinitarian position. So they changed “begotten before all ages” to “eternally begotten” (whatever that means).

#66

That’s a sticking point for me, at least.
Paidion - did you see my question for you on the other thread?

#67

The composition of the Symbol of Faith (typically referred to by western Christians as “the Nicene Creed”) was finished at the Second Ecumenical Council in A. D. 381. The Orthodox Church chants it every Sunday morning and at a great many other times. It still says “begotten of the Father before all ages”. I think the provisional form given to the Symbol of Faith by the First Ecumenical Council in A. D. 325 had different wording on this point.

#68

Before all ages IS eternity. Jesus has always gone forth from God–how could He not? That is who He IS. God Himself would have to not be eternal if Jesus isn’t eternally begotten. Like the light goes forth from the sun, Jesus goes forth (is begotten) from/of God. No light; no sun. No eternal Word, no eternal God. This seems very simple to me.

#69

This might be true if there were not a beginning to time. But there was a beginning, and at the beginning, the ages hadn’t yet begun. I do not believe in an eternal regression of time into the past. If there were such, what was God doing during that “eternity past”? Nothing?

Also God having begotten his Son implies a single act. The early Christians affirmed that it was God’s FIRST act.

I have been suggesting that this first act of God MARKED the beginning of time. So there was no time before that, and thus the Son ALWAYS existed.
Arius incorrectly stated that since the begetting of the Son WAS an act of God, there must have been a time when the Son didn’t exist. But there WAS no “before” the beginning of time. If there were a “before” then “the beginning of time” was NOT the beginning of time, but rather some time prior to that. However, if the begetting of the Son marked the beginning of time, then there never was a time when the Son did not exist—simply because there was no time prior to his begetting.

No, Jesus was not always in the process of being begotten by God. That concept doesn’t make sense. Were you always in the process of being begotten by YOUR father? Or was it a single act?

#70

God Himself? Do you mean God the Father, or a trinity?

If Jesus is eternally begotten, what about when he died? Did ‘God the Son’ really die? But God is immortal…ah, I get mixed up, me.
Dangit, maybe Jason is right. Maybe I AM COD, or OD-C, or whatever the heck it is that I am. :laughing:

#71

Dave, :laughing: My hubby is OCD too. I’m just ADD (according to him). ALL God’s chillins gots to have letters to label 'em. I mean essentially God the Father. Jesus is the expression–the Word of God. Has there ever been a time that God did not/could not express Himself? I don’t see that as a possibility. If the Father exists, then the Son exists. They are one, though two persons. As for Jesus dying–I think that He did die as much as any human being CAN die–but in His dying, God the Father spoke most eloquently of all. Regarding His time in the grave, I think I agree with the traditions of the church re: the harrowing of hell. I’m not convinced by the argument that those who die cease to exist. I think Jesus set the sole of His sandal (in token of ownership) even in hell itself and then led its captivity captive, His own train of joyous “captives of love” on their way to freedom. After all, He told this story in parable form during His three years of earthly ministry. I believe that was a hint as to what He intended to do with His “time” in the grave.

Paidion, I respect you and your opinions and your wisdom. I disagree, but I do respect that you are a wise man and hold your beliefs for reasons that seem very, very good to you. I’m not going to argue about it. If you’re wrong, God will show you–and likewise for me.

#72

If I am not mistaken, Cindy, you just exemplified ‘tolerance’ - the real thing, not the ‘newspeak’ version. Very good.

#73

I’m no scientist by any means, but it would seem to me that time would be movement. Time could exist eternally if there is something that was always in motion. Since God is eternal, there would never have been nothing, and since one cannot create something out of nothing, then all that God has created would be eternal as well. In other words, there would be nothing that God could have used to create anything with except for the eternal elements of Himself. So in this, all that God created comes forth from Him. We are not God ( the Father, Logos, the Spirit, the essence, or whatever else one wants to call Him) but He is in everything that is made. These things do not cease to exist. We may not be able to see them, but they are still there in another form. For example, a puddle of water “disappears” into the atmosphere, however it is not gone. If one looks at the creation, the same can be said of all of it.
I believe that we are all children of God, and when we listen to and obey the voice of the Father that is inside of us, we become Father and Son(ourselves) together as one. We also become as one with all other believers, humanity itself and the creation. As it says in the Scriptures, those who honor the Father, honor the Son(ourselves/man). Likewise, when we do not honor the Father, we not only bring dishonor upon ourselves, but we dishonor our friends and family, other believers, the human race, etc. etc.

#74

Ephesians 4:8 Therefore He says: “When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, And gave gifts to men.”

I know it is a common idea, that is is saying that when Jesus ascended to heaven, he took brought with him those who were supposedly captives in Hades. Some translations even render it as “He led a host of captives.” If Paul had meant that, why didn’t he say it?

“Led captive” is one word, and “captivity” is one word. I would translate it as “He captivated captivity and gave gifts to people.” The two seem to be meant to go together. When Jesus ascended He became the life-giving Spirit. Then through his spirit gave gifts to people, as recorded in
Acts 2. But first He captivated captivity. If captivity itself is captivated, there is freedom indeed! Prior to Jesus’ ascension Jesus’ disciples were not fully free to walk in the Spirit. Remember that Peter, who had walked with Jesus, even denied Jesus. But Jesus liberated his many disciples so that they were able to receive the spiritual gifts that He provided:

To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. (1 Cor 12:7-11 ESV)
.

#75

[tag]Cindy Skillman[/tag]

Thank you for the links, that should give me something to listen to.

Anyway, for some links to the overwhelming numbers of Christian Univeralists who deny The Trinity and/or free will:

youtube.com/channel/UCS-vTscRKVnTq87CvIFdSFw
youtube.com/channel/UCUJIaIEo9mS8o4vU30g351Q
youtube.com/user/truth96130
youtube.com/user/enkei011
youtube.com/channel/UCfaoWemOkxBawheqgOs5-Uw

[tag]Geoffrey[/tag]

Would have Hitler learned anything from this though?

ISAIAH 26:9:
-9: With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.

The point of judgement (at least in this verse) is for the people to learn righteousness.

@Padion

It’s interesting you talk about the word ‘captivity’ because I just made a new topic about Sodom and that word ‘captivity’ (link - [God will restore Sodom’s CAPTIVITY!!! not fortunes.)),
some translations translated Ezekiel 16:35 to say that God will restore the ‘fortunes’ of Sodom and Universalists appeal to this, HOWEVER, other translations say God will restore the ‘captivity’ of Sodom, and of course the English translations are just that, translations, but the inspired Hebrew also says that God will restore Sodom’s ‘captivity’.

The Strong’s Definition for the Hebrew word ‘שְׁבוּת’ translated as “the captivity” means ‘exile, concretely, prisoners; figuratively, a former state of prosperity:—captive(-ity).’.

One could see Ezekiel 16:53 as God saying he will resurrect Sodom and Samaria to make them captives of Hell.

God Bless
Christ Be With You All

#76

Yes.

#77

I doubt whether he would have learned a thing! He wouldn’t have to learn anything since instant sinlessness would be thrust upon him apart from anything he chose.

#78

I would say that this is the moment of enlightenment. Those of us who have studied mathematics will recognize the “eureka” moment. Sometimes we struggle to grasp a certain concept or how to do a particular type of problem. Before the moment of enlightenment all is opaque and senseless. Then suddenly, out of the blue, “Eureka!” It all makes sense, and we wonder how we didn’t see it all along because it’s all so simple and obvious and couldn’t possibly be any other way.

I do not believe that we sinners will have righteousness thrust upon us like the blow of a knife, whether we will or no. I instead believe that the omnipotent Christ, revealed in all His naked glory, will correct us instantly. That instant will contain our free choice to be conformed to Christ. That instant will contain our repentance, our turning away from sin. It will contain our correction. It will contain our education, our enlightenment. It will contain our liberation from sin. It will contain our glorification. It will contain our coming to perfection.

From all I’ve read here on this message board, Paidion, I think you and I are on the same page when it comes to soteriology. (We studied at the feet of the same master, after all: George MacDonald.) Our difference is only a detail of how long does our complete salvation from sin take after the death of the body? You think it will take longer than an instant. I think it will take only an instant.

#79

Geoffrey said:

Your Idea brings up many valid points. I tend to think that we will be at a state of understanding of our redemption the moment we pass from this life to the next. No matter what we have done (Hitler?) we will be in the presence of the almighty Creator.

The problem that many have is in the thinking that a life time of incorrigible sin can not be forgiven instantaneously… (I’m on your side on this) :smiley: I believe this (that it can be forgiven instantaneously) is the gospel message. Fulfilled, said… forgiven, done. Because Christ did it for us.

Somehow we need to get beyond the eye for an eye mindset. What say you? :confused:

#80

Yes it’s got a slight smack of self-righteousness to it in terms of ‘I’ve toiled all my life and along come this joker and gets as good finally deciding 5min to midnight’ …it’s pretty much the attitude reflected in… Mt 20:1-15; Acts 10:15; Jon 4:1-4; 1Sam 30:22-24.

#81

Chad, I have no problem with instantaneous forgiveness. None at all.

That which I doubt is instantaneous transformation of character. In this life, rehabilitation and reformation takes time. Why should it be any different in the next? Because of our tendency to persevere in our wrongdoing a period of correction (not punishment) is necessary.