The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The Scandal of God's Justice

Evangelical Universalism Arguments for Evangelical Universalism
#1

Great article (so far) on the meaning of sadaq and dikaisune and justice/righteousness as understood in scripture. bobbrinsmead.com/t_The_SCAND … E-Pt1.html

I just found this – it was referenced in Tom Talbot’s section on George MacDonald in Parry’s “All Shall Be Well”. I haven’t finished reading it (Part 1, I mean), and many of you will already be familiar with some of the things the author discusses, but he puts it together VERY well, imo, and it seems to me so far to be a great resource.

Short: the Hebrew understanding of righteousness/justice (the same word is variously translated both ot, Septuagint and nt depending on the preference of the translator) is based on fulfilling one’s responsibility/duty in relationship. The duty of God is spelled out in His unilateral covenant of blessing with Abraham in which He promises to bless Abraham and his Seed and through him, to bless all the nations. Our (Latin) understanding of justice is based on a distributive system ie: giving to each one according to what he deserves. In our western systems of justice, justice is the opposite of mercy. In Hebrew thought, however, they are practically (not quite) synonyms. In fact sadaq is often translated “mercy” or “kindness” (eleemosune) in the Septuagint.

That’s as far as I’ve gotten. It’s easy reading and I’m sure anyone who has the time to look at this will enjoy it. :slight_smile:

Blessings, Cindy

Dubious UR Criticism: Your God is too “Sentimental”
#2

By the way, there are three parts to this essay (published in subsequent issues of Verdict), which can be found at the same address link but with 2 and 3 as the final numeral before .html.

But just in case, here are all three links (repeating Cindy’s):

bobbrinsmead.com/t_The_SCAND … E-Pt1.html
bobbrinsmead.com/t_The_SCAND … E-Pt2.html
bobbrinsmead.com/t_The_SCAND … E-Pt3.html

All three are very well worth reading. From part 3, “Grace is the starting point and under girds everything. Law merely exists in the service of grace (see Gal. 3:16-19).” I could add more detail but I couldn’t put it more succinctly myself.

(Well, perhaps it’s a bit too succinct: justice, properly understood, is the fulfillment of grace, even at the level of God’s own self-existence. Thus law exists in the service of justice by existing in the service of grace. I’m pretty sure the author of the paper would agree, as would St. Paul. :slight_smile: )

I do think the author goes too far toward the middle of the 3rd part when he says that putting grace before law means the end of all systematic theologians and the end of saying “thus far may you think and no further”. That would be infinite religious pluralism, the idea that all ideas are true and none are to be called false, which this author himself clearly rejects – such as when he vociferously argues against law being the fundamental reality and the basis of theology! While I do think it’s true that “Those who are secure in whom they believe will not be so inclined to quarrel with other Christians about what they believe,” the author has worked pretty hard in his article to quarrel with a majority of other Christians about what they believe – because he himself thinks right belief on such matters is important and wrong belief leads to tragedies.

It would however mean the end of the gnosticism endemic in Christian history, the doctrine that salvation occurs through proper profession of doctrine. Boo, heresy! :laughing: :sunglasses:

Don’t let my one major criticism (so far) deter members and guests from checking out this three part article, though. Once the self-contradiction is removed by adjusting the scope of one of his claims to something more realistic (and less self-refuting), that doesn’t affect the main gists of his argument and analyses at all.

#3

Hi Cindy
Interested you came across Brinsmead, he had an interesting perspective that caused bit of a stir in the 70’s/80’s in the SDA church… TotalVictory and I had bit of a chat about this a couple of years ago on here.

[Dubious UR Criticism: Your God is too “Sentimental”)

I never met him but he had quite a high profile here in Australia (amongst SDA’s) for a while. He began as quite a conservatistfundamentalist then progressed through the stage of thought that you have linked to then sadly (in a way) I believe gave it all away some time later and basically became a humanist giving away Christianity as such, I think. He died a few years ago.
I haven’t looked recently but there was some interesting profile stuff on the net if you’re interested and he did have quite an influence as I understand it on the reframing of the beliefs of the World Wide Church of God.
You may find the link above of interest. I think the article I posted on this link may be a convenient summary but I haven’t checked your links yet so it may be the same.
Anyway thanks Cindy I’ll have to revisit it again.
Cheers S

#4

Hm. Well, if he became a secular humanist, I can’t say I would be surprised, because the main inconsistency in his paper (in the third part anyway) is an effective rejection of doctrinal importance. This is in the middle of talking at length about how important a right understanding of divine justice is, remember, including strong criticisms of what happens when we get the wrong understanding of it.

Sigh.

#5

Jason said

Yes that’s interesting Jason.
A background system (in this case SDAism) that holds room for some variety of emphasis and perhaps differing peripheral views has however at its core raison d’être a few unique doctrines that form a distinction from the rest of Christianity. It also has, perhaps because of this uniqueness, an inevitable close community and social life that ‘belonging’ brings.

For instance, as an example and possibly significant in this case Adventists see the pre-eminence of God’s Law to be the very reason for the continuance of this ‘fallen’ world, that God is proving to us and the watching unfallen universe that his Law (including the Sabbath) which they say is His character, is vindicated.
It sees a great Controversy between God or more specifically Jesus and Satan; Satan accusing God - that His Law can’t be kept. Each distinctive doctrine of course has a corollary of beliefs that follow.

Whilst the conversation continues and the discussion of differing views goes on, on all sorts of levels, everything holds together but when an individual such as Brinsmead moves beyond the exploratory to then holding and clearly putting forward his differing views some fall out is inevitable.

Like a three legged stool once you kick away one doctrinal support the whole lot starts to collapse as one of the corollaries of unique beliefs is that they are often interrelated and before long you realise that your perspective no longer really fits at all, having argued away all the uniqueness.
I think inevitably therefore a divide opens up that can no longer be breached even more so for someone at the centre of discussion as Brinsmead was (though interestingly not actually holding any official position in the church). He then really put himself beyond the discussion and inevitably beyond the community, and I’m sure the community assisted the process whether deliberately or just inevitably as happens when the common ground has gone.

I wonder too if he really had arrived at rejecting doctrinal importance ( though I wonder if he had thought this through whether this is really what he thought at this stage given, as you say, what he said earlier) whether ones departure would inevitably be hastened by the inevitable conclusion that all that one had previously argued for and stood for (and he was vocal on more than just this topic) no longer has any meaning.

A lesson that I take from this and am reminded of quite frequently when feeling a bit disenfranchised from my roots and the vague feeling of no longer belonging is to ensure ones foundation is on Christ and remain open minded and not sold on a denomination as such; this is not to make a judgement on Brinsmead who as illustrated in this series in the Verdict contributed much clear thinking and I think left a legacy, a ripple effect, not necessarily realised by himself.
Nice chatting S

#6

A very interesting analysis, Sturmy, thanks! SDAs and Baptists are relatively closely related (compared to other Protestants), but we don’t have many SDAs around here so I don’t get to read much about what goes on from the inside of the group and how the subtleties of SDA theology work out.

“to ensure ones foundation is on Christ” – absolutely, although I’m always curious to see how more liberal theologians try to hold to that when they keep reducing what the foundation is supposed to mean. I guess the parable of a foundation made of sand would apply to them. :wink: