The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Probably the best resource Ive found ever

I told you not to open this thread you sinner! :stuck_out_tongue: now that you are here thanks to clickbait

If I can get just one person to read this and come to an understanding of it then it will probably be the greatest thing Ive done in my life.

This has to be the most valuable thing Ive ever read in my entire life and even corrected me on a few things I had misconceptions about.

It also sources its claims with scripture and annotations to the verses.

Very valuable read and really entertaining.

If you have like 30 minutes I BEG AND IMPLORE you to read it.

Im a layman myself and they made it even make sense and easy to understand and follow for me.

And if our lives here are just a beginning to such an amazing story I can only anticipate what God has planned next.

Ok ok ok, since you’re going to read that pdf I posted elsewhere -wink- , I WILL read your thing above right now.

That was interesting! It also helps to explain why there has been some mutual head-butting around certain issues here. :relaxed:

1 Like

repost it. ill read it. This will probably be my last post for a while other than to just help people who may be dealing with doubt or fear.

Don’t worry about it - not a big deal.
What you posted was not very long - but it was packed.
Stick around!

No seriously! I am interested. I just forgot what post it was that you linked it.
And yes that link I posted is packed with information that I, personally, find super accurate.
And like you said it explains, imo, a lot of confusion among people who believe. Some of which I also had confusion about.
Ill still be around. Just gonna sit back though and not jump into any debates. I think God needs to work on me with patience a bit more and maybe give me a tougher set of skin so Im not as bothered by some things that are said.

Hope your day is well!

And don’t worry about it too much - the place where I first posted it - it was clicked a grand total of ONE TIME! And that was me!!

“so that in him we
might become the righteousness of God.”

  1. How could a imperfect human attain the perfect righteousness of God through their own imperfect actions (past,present, and future) ? It would also change the source of righteousness to us instead of Christ? It would beg the question are we “not knowing the righteousness of God, and their own righteousness seeking to establish, to the righteousness of God they did not submit.” roman 10:3 Also saying “we might become” leaves room for doubt in Gods salvation of those whom are believing. This only causes worry and fear. And as we know perfect love casts out all fear. If we are in fear we have not been perfected in love for our God.

“The righteousness does indeed remain God’s; but this “righteousness” never leaves
behind the all-important sense of covenant faithfulness”

  1. Of what covenant? The old covenant was only to Israel. And they couldnt and didnt complete their covenantal faithfulness which is why the kingdom was postponed. At what point would we realize if they couldnt do it for many many years that its just humanly impossible and rest in Christs righteousness? And if we are currently in the new covenant what is new about it if its the same law and pardon as before?

“And the difficulty with this, despite its being enshrined in a good many
hymns and liturgies, as well as in popular devotion, is (a) that once again Paul never
actually says this anywhere else;
(b) that here it is God’s righteousness, not Christ’s, that
“we” apparently “become””

  1. This i find this a bit odd, Gods righteousness dwelled in Christ. Thus it could be said both that it is Gods righteousness as well as Christs. Further more Paul, often though he does reiterate points of interest, doesnt need to reiterate it again to make it true. Also Id say romans 10:3 is a close parallel of reiteration.

“. 3 in
particular he has done so in relation to the new covenant which God has established in
Christ and by the Spirit”

  1. Again id have to ask whats new about it? there was laws and pardons and scape goats in the old covenant. If the new covenant is just more of the same could it be called “new”. Likening Christ as just a one time scape goat I dont think is a radical change to call it new. And doesnt give enough glory, imo, to what Christ ACTUALLY did which is justify those whom are believing on Him alone for our salvation.

“Paul’s whole activity its specific focus:
All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the
ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself,
not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of
reconciliation to us.”

  1. This brings up a good point. How would God be conciliating us with our own unrighteousness before Him, UNLESS His (and Chists) righteousness is being imparted to us. How are we REconciled if we are still at odds with Gods favor and trying to still earn it and falling short because the law is infirm through the flesh.

“on behalf of the Christ in whom God was reconciling the world”

  1. I would argue how would God reconcile the whole world if most do not even try and establish their own righteousness and that is how we are to get “the righteousness of God”? Unless Christs righteousness be imparted to them at a later time (the consummation of the ages).

“for our sake God made Christ, who did not know sin, to be a sin-offering for us, so that in him we might
become God’s covenant-faithfulness.

  1. That is not what is stated in a literal translation. Hes putting in his own words to make an argument. And therefor holds no more merit than a king james who justifies its translation of gehenna sheol hades and tartarus as hell based on their theological assumptions. I feel before this point the author was trying to justify his changing of the literal translation to fit his theological outlook on justification and likening justification as pardon and forgiveness and human merit. Point 2 is where he introduces this idea then circles back around to it to make his point. I, personally, would consider this circular reasoning in a sense.

“the “righteousness of God” in this verse is not a human status in virtue of which the one who has “become” it stands righteous” before
God, as in Lutheran soteriology”

  1. Id argue it does. And I give thanks to Christ for that gift. Knowing I havent, couldnt, and therefor never would attain the perfect righteousness of God. And it could ONLY be imparted, not earned.

"… the “minister of the new covenant,” the
one who has “become the righteousness of God.”

  1. How could one “become” the righteousness of God if it is actively being attained by human merit? One could say becoming but become is past tense as in done not doing.

I got all the way to the conclusion but I got to go finish making this sweet tea :stuck_out_tongue:
I enjoyed the read but I heavily disagree with the implications.
Just thought, even if you dont agree or I missed something in the article which may make some of my points invalid, that Id share my thoughts.

Ive always been a theosophical kind of guy so I always try to see reason and logic in scripture.
And to me us attaining Gods righteousness, even just as a positional standing, by our own selves and merit seems illogical.

It’s a matter of sound exegesis imo. And there it was. We’ve all got a sacred cow or two that needs to be gored - Paul gores that ‘we have God’s own righteousness’ cow pretty well.
But - you’'ve got that whole barrel of stuff from the link you gave - you may never be able to see things in a different way, through that lens.
BUT - if the best historian/theologian we have today puts that kind of time into a verse or two, I would be wary of shucking it aside. That’s me.
Good luck to ya.

1 Like

Imo free will is the biggest golden cow. Where most people end up worshipping themselves for “acting righteously” of their own merit and attributing their salvation to themselves. While others have no peace with themselves or God because of being sold this golden calf that they cannot live up to the impossible standards of.

As far as theologians, I’m probably one of the very few who puts little emphasis on what men teach. ESPECIALLY of the religious variety.

Good luck to you as well.

Wow… did someone somewhere use the word patronising ** rotflmao **

1 Like

Where did i patronize him. i dont think pointing out the logical conclusions of free willism salavation is patronization. Even said In my opinion, he is free to have his own. Nor did I intend it as such, as your patronizing remarks blatantly do. you should be the last one to try to correct me even if it was.

Oop! R is not responding to me but apparently the alter-ego A is… confusion much :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

even a broken clock gets glanced at from time to time.

By the same standard seems you “forgot” again that you are wasting your time.

Changing topics per usual.

1 Like

ATR, I read the article as requested. No offense, but I think the person who wrote it is way out in left field. From the way it sounds, God was making false promises to people as if it’s some sort of game. Follow these laws and I promise to send a King to rescue you. Psych, sorry it’s not possible. You lose. Really?

I think you misread the article or may have missed a part. Because it states that israel, under the law, has not been forsaken because of Pauls evangel to the nations apart from law and current administration. But has been postponed, until the fullness of the nations come in, because israel rejected their messiah at pentecost.

“Act II comes to a close with the fulfillment of Jehovah’s promise** to “His chosen people,” not withdrawn, but merely postponed to a later time period, to allow certain other vitally important events to take place.”
" God never goes back on His promise—the Messiah will return—His second coming"

Israels promise was never forsaken or forgotten. They didn’t “lose”. Their promise wasnt abandoned as youd make it sound to be. They will still get a 1000 year kingdom to all who keep the law and accept their messiah. Paul makes it clear God has NOT cast aside His people He has already known and has simply postponed it to bring in a program for the nations. A jew or even proselyte can still hold to the old covenant law and promise of the 1000 year earthly kingdom as the bride of Christ but would be much more wise to come into the Crucifixion of Christ, into the fulfillment of the law, into new creation justified by faith and transcendent Grace for an allotment among the celestial as a member of the body of Christ.

You should also take the citations of scripture to test what is being said in each chapter and see if its being stated in scripture itself. I had my YLT next to me as I read it. Test it in scripture. That’s what this exposition wants you to do, which is why it foot notes verses for the statements it makes at the bottom of the page.

I appreciate your time and input. But it seems you’ve overlooked or misunderstood that critical part of the exposition. Especially act two whi

And I didnt take any offence. Thank you for reading it,being civil, and giving a reason why you disagree.

Without rightly dividing what is to israel and what is to the nations most of these become outright and obvious contradictions and makes scripture nothing but a mess…

ATR, This guy says, “Overlooking the fact that they were mere human beings and that it was impossible for them to conform to all of the law which would have required them to be perfect.”
“It was Jehovah’s objective to force the Jews to conclude on their own that they could not observe laws which would restore them to Adamic perfection.”

So if God has made it impossible to keep the laws which He requires, then how is this promise to come about? To me, this is a false promise. It’s like telling a person, “Fly like a bird and you will receive the promise.”, when he has no wings to fly.

The author also says, “God assigned every player his character, implanted every thought, directed every action, dictated every word that was spoken throughout the performance.”
'Not one single being had a voice in what part he was to play."

So God creates evil people to play their parts, directing every action and word, yet “He abhors imperfection.” This makes no sense to me.

“From the time the first Adam disbelieved God, mankind has been condemned to a physical deterioration process, the inevitable results of man’s imperfection.” Adam is basically condemned along with the rest of mankind for something that God made him do??

No problem. There are a lot of looney tunes out there and if you ask me, this guy is one of them. Just putting in my two cents for what it’s worth.:slightly_smiling_face:

When he writes it on their heart. And when His judgements are on the earth and produce righteousness. I’ve already explained the promise isnt “false”,“forgotten”, or “abandoned”…

Such is judas himself. Not ideal but necessary and prophecied of. God also didnt delighted in the sacrifices but commanded them to do that as well.

Isaiah 45:7
“I create light and darkness,good and evil (rah). I your Lord do all these things.”

“I shall harden whom I may be hardening, and have mercy upon whom I have mercy”.

“Shall the potter not have right over the clay to make from the same lump a vessel of honor and another a vessel of dishonor?.. Then why is He still judging for who has withstood His counsel? Who are YOU,oh man, to be answering back to God!”
^that one is the exact same objection you are presenting now. I’ll stand with Paul and say who are you to question His intention?

Guess im one of em. And doesn’t make much sense to try to explain something that’s already been written off.

So have a good one.