The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Saved from wrath

Hi 1824 :slight_smile:

Well itā€™s been a long time since I rock and rolled :laughing: ; but I do remember there was quite a lot of furious ill feeling between Clark and Van Til ā€“ and their respective followers -over the different weight given to persuppositional arguments in Christian apologetics (or something like that).

In my view, one of the problems with the Van Tils of this world is they are very isolated from the thinking of other theologians and Christian traditions. Itā€™s not only the fault of van Til and his ilk mind youā€“other Christians havenā€™t engaged properly with his arguments to sift them for what has some worth and what does not, and to see how he fits into a bigger story. Heā€™s been largely ignored outside of his circle. Itā€™s always a joy to see a top notch mainstream theologian like Gary Dorrien paying really close attention to van Til as he does in ā€˜The Remaking of Evangelical Theology ā€“ a book that I greatly enjoyed.

Blessings (and listen to your heart as well as your head ā€“ the heart sometimes makes leaps that the head takes many years to catch up with. The space given for mystery in other forms of Christianity allows for this, and celebrates this. Youā€™ll be fine :slight_smile:

I wouldnā€™t go so far as to say one needs to reject Satisfaction theory, only that it is an incomplete understanding, as are most atonement theories by themselves.

The prodigal son was set free from his legal obligations to his father by faith in the finished work of the innocent party (his father) who graciously and willingly suffered in his place. Having been justified, he now will be sanctified by active and willing participation in the loving spirit that unites the members of the household.

But how helpful is this sort of language?

In plain English:

The father says, ā€œYouā€™ve come home!ā€

The son says, ā€œLook what Iā€™ve done. Iā€™m so sorry for hurting youā€¦ā€

The father says, ā€œThatā€™s all in the past. Itā€™s done and dusted. Forgotten. Weā€™ll begin afresh! Tomorrowā€™s a new day!ā€

The son says, ā€œYes. Tomorrow will be a new day.ā€

I wonder if our disagreement is just in the way weā€™re saying it? Iā€™ll try to describe better what I mean, and you can tell me what you think.

True ā€“ on our own we have no hope. I donā€™t mean to say that we can make ourselves righteous. As Paul says, ā€œwho shall deliver me from this body of death?ā€ We are unable.

We are slaves to sin, and Master Sin rewards his slaves with death. But thanks be to God, we have a Savior who comes to set us free.

When I said that God does not justify the wicked, I meant in in the sense we see here:
Exd 23:7 Keep yourself far from a false matter; do not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked.
Pro 17:15 He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD.

That is that God does not approve of judging a wicked person ā€œinnocentā€ nor will He do what is an abomination to Him.

God will not call a wicked or ungodly person ā€œjustā€ while they remain dead in sin ā€“ He justifies the sinner only by making him actually just/righteous.

Jn 8:34ff Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

He sets us free indeed, thus we can be righteous indeed.

The first definition of Ī“Ī¹ĪŗĪ±Ī¹ĻŒĻ‰ (justify) here is ā€œset right.ā€

I believe that is what God does when he justifies sinners ā€“ He sets them right, and the beginning of that righteousness is faith. (Perhaps you would call this ā€œregenerationā€?)

So when it says that Abrahamā€™s faith was counted or credited to him as righteousness, it was because faith really is righteousness.

I hope that clarifies my view a bit. (And let me add, I consider my understanding of this, and all things, a work in progress ā€“ Iā€™m a student, not a teacher.)

Sonia

Wild discussion hereā€¦ but a little too theological for me :laughing:

And Iā€™m one of those more ā€˜liberalā€™ folks (though Iā€™m not sure how one would define liberal or conservative when it comes to oneā€™s beliefsā€¦ one manā€™s liberal may be another manā€™s conservative, and vice versa :wink:) that likes to hang around here 'cuz itā€™s a cool place, and the people are friendly, and not necessarily 'cuz I could comfortably take on the label of ā€˜evangelicalā€™ (though I could comfortably take on the label of ā€˜universalistā€™), so I might not really fit into a discussion such as this :wink:

By the way, welcome 1824, not sure if I said hi yet :slight_smile:

I can relate to your struggle with trusting Godā€™s character and heart, even if our backgrounds and viewpoints and ways of thinking are different. Iā€™ve been through the ringer of fear and doubt and anger and confusion about that too.

Hang in there bro, youā€™re not alone, and I believe the God who is Love is with you :slight_smile:

Blessings :slight_smile:

Matt

Dan,
I finally read through this thread in detail and saw this:

Forgive me for pushing a topic you didnā€™t want to discuss.

It is indeed a big issue. Iā€™ve discussed my universalism at least a little bit with several of the pastors at my church, but I have never brought up atonement issues ā€“ definitely one heresy at a time! :mrgreen:

When I first started investigating UR, it never occurred to me to question PSA ā€“ it was probably a couple of years at least before I did.

Sonia

Mikhail Hany, a Coptic Orthodox teacher explains that penal substitution is not a teaching of the historic church but came about in the middle ages in Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.

Here is the first talk in a series of 12, entitled ā€œDivine Justiceā€:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCjS0YvXeRc