The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Wow, so what do you really believe? ...Statement of Faith

I have written a defense of the victorious gospel at
I have answered objections here
Here is a reprint of one of my answers for further feedback.

Others> Wow… so what do you really believe? If you have parted ways with contemporary orthodoxy, then what else have you parted with?

Me> Yes I have parted ways with both Calvinism and Arminianism. However, I hope that I have not unneccessarily parted ways with the thoughtful conclusions and hard-won discoveries of Christians through the ages. Disagreement over one point whether major or minor is not reason to disagree cart blanche. For example some Universalists claim that there is no punishment in Hell after death for the unbelieving because a God of love would never do such a thing. However, the Scripture plainly says otherwise in Luke 16:19-31. Other Universalists abandoned the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity to claim that God is one and only one person and became Unitarians. And sadly the Unitarian Universalist movement has lost all anchor to Scripture. They have abandoned the good conclusion that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons, yet one God, Deuteronomy 6:4, Romans 9:5, Acts 5:3-4.

In short I believe…

  1. In one true God, existing eternally as one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, John 14:9-21.

  2. That the Old and New Testaments are the unique, inerrant, inspired Word of God in the original autographs, and the final authority in all matters of faith and conduct, 2 Tim 3:16.

  3. In the sovereignty and active rule of God in creation, the fall, history, revelation, redemption, and final judgment, Romans 8:20-21. That man was created by God in His image, but that since Adam’s sin, all men are sinful and by nature objects deserving of God’s wrath, Ephesians 2:3.

  4. That Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, fully human and fully divine, eternally existing as God, yet born in time of a virgin, and that He lived a sinless and perfect life, 2 Timothy 2:5.

  5. In the historic death of Jesus as the full and only atonement for the sins of all mankind, in His bodily resurrection from the dead, and in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, 1 John 2:1-2.

  6. That all mankind is justified by the grace of God and redeemed on the basis of the death of Christ alone, which is received through faith alone, Ephesians 2:8-9.

  7. That the Holy Spirit is the effective agent in regeneration, bringing individuals to faith and transformed lives, 2 Corinthians 3:18. In one invisible, universal church, the Body of Christ, to which all true believers belong, and in local churches accountable to God, governed by officers with the authority to rule in matters of belief and discipline, Hebrews 13:17.

  8. That believing mankind is rewarded in paradise after death, while unbelievers suffer punishment in Hades after death merited by their sinful nature and their rejection of the grace of Christ, Luke 16:19-31.

  9. In the future, visible, physical return of the Lord Jesus Christ in glory. Titus 2:13.

  10. In the final resurrection of redeemed mankind to the enjoyment of God forever, and the damnation of the unredeemed to the Lake of Fire prepared for the Devil and his angels, forever, Matthew 25:31-46.

Curiously it is rare to find a Christian that says they are 100% Calvinist or 100% Arminian and so most Christians find some dispute with these theologies and an alternative compromise. Yet will most Christians be willing to seriously consider the creed above as I have defended from the Scripture? Will you return with me to the true historic faith and Scriptural doctrine that Christ is the Savior of all mankind?



You can find my beliefs on this forum at My Theological and Philosophical Framework

I think I am tempted to think that a carefully worded statement of faith could somehow build unity and fellowship around the Biblical gospel message. However, some of the attraction to this and other forums is strong debate over Biblical interpretations and epistemologies. While strong debate is not necessarily wrong, in fact it can be useful in pursuing the truth, however, it is not the most conducive to fellowship and worship.

Why do you call Trinitarianism a Biblical doctrine. Nowhere is the doctrine found in Scripture. It is not even hinted at, with the exception of of 1 John 5:7. But that verse wasn’t written by John. It was added much later as a note, and then copied into the manuscript of 1 John in the ninth century.

One would never come to that conclusion from the passages to which you referred above. Nor would these passages even suggest this conclusion to anyone who had not already believed Trinitarianism as it was handed down to present day believers from the fourth century when it became a church doctrine.

I cannot find any thing about “one true God, existing eternally as one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” in that passage. Please explain why the passage seems to say such to you. Rather this is what I find the Son of God Himself prayed to the one true God:

And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (John 17:3)

Jesus called his Father “the only true God” and when He referred to Himself, He added that little word “and” to indicate that He was Someone other than the only true God.

As for the Unitarian-Universalist organization, I’m sure they didn’t become ultra-liberal just because they denied the Trinity. Indeed anyone can become a member of their churches, even atheists. There are many secular humanists who are members. It is because of the Unitarian-Universalist organization that I don’t identify myself as a universalist. For in doing so, one risks being viewed as believing what that organization believes. If it is necessary for me to accept a label for my belief in the eventual reconciliation of all to God, I usually call myself a “reconciliationist”.

Hi Paidon. Good to chat with you again. Hope all is well.

Yeah good point about 1 John 5:7. That is a nasty KJV verse. Though ‘not even hinted at?’ That is a strong statement.

Three persons are discussed in the passage, the Father, the Son, and ANOTHER Comforter, the Spirit of Truth. Seems plain to me. Acts 5:1-11 also attributes Deity to the Holy Spirit, but I’m sure you’ve debated that passage as well. We likely will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Perhaps not. But I understand it to be a step in the wrong direction.

Same here.

I like that.

God the Father, the Son of God (not God the Son), who is the man Jesus Christ, the mediator between God the Father and mankind, and the Holy Spirit are all mentioned.
I see no hint at all of a trinity as set forth by the councils.
Like you said, we will disagree - in a gentlemanly way - on this.

I am with Paidon and Dave on this one. Not much I can add to their posts.

Is this the gentlemen’s way you are referring to :question: :laughing:

For a few dollars more, I could think of that man’s name…

But let me be clear - I am NOT willing to shoot another human being over a doctrine! No way! Once was enough, by golly! :smiley:

I guess we can learn a lesson here :smiley: . Sometimes heated arguments over doctrine are as frivolous as:

A debate on whether a person is laughing at a mule and needs to apologize to it
Or one’s perspective on counting horses. Whether you are “shy one horse” or “brought 2 horses too many”.

I believe everything proclaimed in the voluminous liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Universalism with no post-mortem punishments is taught therein, so I can be classified as an “ultra-universalist”.

Those of my fellow Eastern Orthodox believers who are not universalists sadly ignore the clear teachings of the Church in favor of fallible and erroneous writings. :frowning:

Randy, I didn’t consider the disagreement expressed about “the Trinity” as “a heated argument over doctrine.” Indeed, I saw no semblance of anger from any of the participants.

Or did you post those videos in an attempt to joke about it?

I was just expressing a “general” sentiment - in a humorous way, of course! :smiley:

Okay. That was a quick reply. I revised my post with an additional sentence, and then I saw that you had beat me to the punch. :slight_smile:

so what are you fellas actually saying?

… that Jesus is not a person or that he is not God?
… or that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct person or that he is not God?
… or both?

I know A. E. Knoch led a movement believing that the Holy Spirit was not a distinct person.

so what are you fellas actually saying?

… that Jesus is not a person or that he is not God?
… or that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct person or that he is not God?
… or both?

Well I am the world’s greatest expert on my own opinion so here it is,

Jesus is a person and is The Word of God and deity/divine. As far as God, my math tells me One God means the Father is the one true God but the Lord Jesus is God because as the Word of God he emanated from Father God at some point in the distant past.

The Holy Spirit or Spirit of God also emanated from Father God at some point in the distant past. I’m undecided if He is a distinct person because although bible translations call him “he” I have heard the original greek is gender neutral and can be translated as “it.”

So IMHO to say all three are persons and eternally God simply does not reconcile with “One God” therefore to explain it by saying “it’s a mystery” is not acceptable as an answer.

Hmmm. I know this point has been strongly debated in centuries past. So we may not have any new ground to cover in this forum. Here is a short article that makes sense to me, However, if you are certain of your conclusions I may not have much time for further persuasive efforts right now.

Well nobody follows links but if you really are interested, here is a statement of basically where I as a Christian Monotheist am coming from: … usBook.pdf

Probably nothing anyone is saying is really different, from what has been historically said, by other theologians and philosophers throughout history. The same can probably be said here, about most folks positions that embrace universalism. And the same can be said of counter arguments, by both historical and contemporary philosophers and theologians. So any arguments for or against your position, have already been recorded in history.

Of course, I like how the 2 western heroes I shared videos of, settled their arguments, No more laughing at a mule, without apologizing afterwards. Nor would you get into a dispute about counting horses. Horses and mules are **taboo **subjects. :laughing:

Going back to the original post, is #10 something most universalists/reconciliationists/whatever-you-call-yourselves can affirm? How can you say that the unredeemed will be damned forever, and yet believe that all will be saved in the end? Aren’t these mutually exclusive?

I can see how some universalists say that there will be people in hell as long as they continue in unbelief, but to use the word “forever” seems to clearly state that this will always be the case. But perhaps “forever” only applies to how long the Devil and his angels will reside there. Or, do you use the word “forever” to mean something other than eternal? In either case, it seems a little misleading to me.

I was right there with you up until the last word, which I can affirm, not being a universalist, but was confused as to how you can affirm it.

Also, in #6, if the purpose is to show how you still believe what most Christians believe, the word “all” may be divisive.