The Evangelical Universalist Forum

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

Evangelical Universalism Arguments for Evangelical Universalism
#141

Kind of subjective. We all have the tendency to define reality by our own experience, and the scriptures concerning the deity are not all that clear or it would not have taken a couple hundred years and the intrusion of emperor Constantine to work out the terminology and the details now known as the Trinity. At one point in the struggle Constantine was of another persuasion, and Arminius was in the ascendency and Anathasius was in disfavor. On such carnal circumstances as the whims of the Emperor of Rome these things were established- and that causes me concern :slight_smile:

To me, it is a sublime exploration involving no fear or confusion because I don’t see God as being so invested in our definitions and catechisms.

From my perspective He delights in our questions and challenges and is not worried about exactly how we see it because, “Who has known the mind of the Lord and who has been His counselor.”

We see through a glass darkly, whether we will admit it, or not.

One thing I feel certain of(doesnt mean I am right, but nevertheless I do feel certain about it) is that God has not given, as yet, to men, a clear view through the veil into these things we discuss and upon which we speculate. Weighting our speculations down with the gravity of another persons eternal destiny or their present standing before the Lord is(imo) presumptuos- but regardless, I know He loves me, He knows me and I know Him, and I am satisfied .

#142

If that is true, then this would include Jesus Himself. For in His prayer to the Father, he said:

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

He not only addressed His Father as “the only true God” but by that little conjunction “and” indicated that He Himself was someone OTHER THAN “the only true God.”

#143

In reviewing the posts, I encountered this question today. I hadn’t noticed it until today.

Yes, “Paidion” is a name I chose as an identity in posting to forums. I selected it for its original meaning “trained little child.” I hoped to be exactly that (in spirit), though I know I have failed in that role many times. The verbal form of the word in Greek means “to train a child.” But later, “paidion” came to mean any “little child” as you have indicated. “Paidion” is the diminutive form of “pais” which simply means “child.”

By the way “paidion” is pronounced “pie-dee-on”, with the emphasis on the second syllable.

#144

I believe Jesus is God very God, because “so it pleased the Father to meke all the fulness dwell in Him.” He is God very God because YHWH planted a seed of Himself in the womb of Mary. The holy child born from her whom was the first and last incarnation of God, the unique, only begotten Son.

This does not make the Son equal to the Father, except by the faulty “logic” of men who insist that God, who is the source of all things and does as He pleases, was not “pleased to make all fulness dwell in Jesus”- even tho the scriptures say He did. They say Jesus was already filled from eternity past, but that’s not what the scriputres indicate imo.

Then, after His resurrection and ascension, Jesus “received the Holy Spirit” and poured it forth upon all who call on His name in sincerity and faith, the Lord and Messah, The Son of God. God was "in Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed One. Anointed wth what? Anointed with the Holy Spirit wthout measure, filled up to all the fulness of God, the Author and Finisher, the first of many sons unto glory- the prototype.

And of His fulness have we all received, with exponentially multiplied grace

And you are in Him having been filled.

The whole creation eagerly awaits the revelation of the sons of God.

But having sat around and chewed this over with Sir Anthony Buzzard(Biblical Unitarian authority), who believes Jesus is not “God very God”, because he thinks logic forbids that God could make Himself dwell in Jesus in such fulness, I wonder where these logic restraints come from, because all true logic comes through the Logos, who is both the Wisdom and the Power of God, God manifest in the flesh.

If you say to me, “Jesus cannot be God very God without being co-equal to the Father”, I would say, “Thats not what the scriptures lay-out, everything Jesus is was vested in Him by the Fathers good pleasure, and He said so plainly on multiple occasions.”

If you say to me, “Jesus cannot be less than the Father and still be God very God”, I would say, “Why, because you say that is the full spectrum of logic? Or is that just the limit of your perception?”

The scriptures give many indications that Jesus is truly God, very God. The scriptures give many indications that the Father is greater than Jesus. You say that is not possible? Your logic dictates that? I should rely on the interpretaions of religionists past and the wisdom of the degenerate “great ones” like Augustine, Calvin, Knox and Luther? Over the words of Jesus, Paul and John?

But to say if you do not believe Jesus is God very God,(and exactly as te orthodox Trinity doctrine defines it?) they cannot be “in Christ”? Yikes!

The movement to return to primitive apostolic faith should receive a modicum of respect, and a nod to the possibility that these catechisms and systematic theologies have not been evolutionary steps toward enlightenment so much as tangents and degenerations from the true faith, “once and for all delivered to the saints”

Its a direction more than a destination, because to the one who has more shall be given, he that has not, even that which he has shall be taken away.

I know, I am insane and content with my madness, MUAHAHAHAHA :laughing:

#145

Eaglesway, you mentioned that Jesus was “God very God” who made all of His fullness dwell in Jesus. To me, this is basically saying that Jesus was simply God in a man’s body. If this the case, and as some say Jesus was fully God and fully human at the same time, then I suppose that in some instances, He would be talking about Himself as God. At other times, He would be talking about Himself as a human in order to set the example for us. If one so happened to be God Himself in a human body, would He really tell people this? For one thing, many would just think the person is a nut job. Secondly, we might get the idea that if this human person is God, that means we are all God as well. How does one go about describing God as a human while He is not really human, and that we as humans, while we have many God given attributes,we are not God?

On another note, the Old Testament speaks of people being filled with the Holy Spirit.
Exodus 35:30-31 says this: "And Moses said to the children of Israel, “See, the Lord has called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah; and He has filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom and understanding, in knowledge and all manner of workmanship.”
Exodus 40: 34 mentions the glory of the Lord filling the tabernacle. “Then the cloud covered the tabernacle of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.”
What do you make of Luke 3:22 and Matthew 3:16 that say the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus right after He was baptized?

#146

Thanks DaveB… BTW your private message receipt is turned off :slight_smile:

#147

Thx for the heads-up!

#148
#149

LLC, I enjoyed your post. Very good perspectives and questions. These are the logical dilemma that put fear and awe in the hearts of those who are willing to examine the issues surrounding the definitions of deity.

I don’t claim to have all those answers. I mostly answer questions with other questions when it comes to this topic, because I don’t think there is a systematic theology that is sufficient to the task- which is why I object to all the little boxes and the ribbon of soteriology wrapped around them.
I dont think a little confusion is bad, if it leads to more truth- and easy answers are not always complete answers. I receive no sense of completion from the orthodox trinitarian doctrine, so I query and postulate- from the scriptures.

I believe Jesus was completely limited to humanity in His incarnation. He did not ever know all things while in His human body. He never possessed all power while in His human body(my opinion). He did not receive the “spirit without measure” until after His resurrection and ascension. (“the Spirit was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified”…“Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear.”)

Paul says God “made” all the fulness dwell in Him(Col 1), and that He is the “fulness of deity in bodily form”(Col 2). The kicker to that is that He was born of a virgin. He did not receive a sinful nature anymore than Adam was created with one. Adam chose it. Jesus, the second Adam, did not. He resisted unto death, He overcame through the life that was in Him- by faith.

The reason I say He was God very God, in a sense, as I am defining it- is that God took a piece of Himself and placed it in the womb of Mary. The uncorrupted replication of His divine nature that came forth as a seed(Logos) was Jesus, the “radiance of the Father’s glory and express image(grk charakter) of His nature” (Hebrews 1)

I believe in the pre-existence of Jesus…And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. Jn 17:5

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross Phil 2

When He died, all that He was with the Father was planted in the earth/clay/us, to be raised up in His likeness. (Except a grain of wheat fall into the earth and die it cannot bear fruit like unto itself)

We receive the “word implanted” which is able to save our souls(James somewhere)

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which lives and abides for ever. 1 Pet 1:23

He is the unique, only begotten God -Son of God, but while on earth He walked completely by faith. Faith was His portal and His fountain. Morning by morning He gathered manna as He waited upon the Father and quieted His soul for the days demands,

During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Hebrews 5:7

We are adopted by the implanted word, grafted in to Him, taken out of Adam, reborn into the true Vine, Messiah Jesus. As “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself” it is “Christ in you the hope of glory” that makes us children of God.

No confusion there, we are not God, we are however, through Jesus, being “filled up unto all the fulness of God” and glorified because of the free gift of grace.

It is grace that qualifies us through adoption. It was obedience, birthright and inheritance that qualified Him.

#150

If we accept the book of Revelation as valid, then He didn’t know all things after His resurrection either.

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John … (Rev 1:1 ESV)

Revelation was written after Jesus’ resurrection. The above verse indicates that God gave Jesus a revelation of things to take place quickly, and Jesus revealed it to John, who then wrote it down.

By the way, the Greek word “ταχος” means “quickly,” not necessarily “soon.” It may refer to events taking place and ending quickly, even though they may occur thousands of years later. Both the Holman Christian Standard Bible and Young’s Literal Translation render the word as “quickly.”
Rotherham translates it as “with speed.”

#151

If you are interested in a rich contrarian discussion of the ‘before the world existed’ passages in John, you can listen to this podcast, which is scriptural and reasoned. I think it will change your mind, but maybe not.

trinities.org/blog/podcast-62-dr … l-of-john/

Notice the red arrow in the attachment. Will play it right on your computer.

#152

No man knows the hour, not even the Son, it is reserved to the Father… another possible example that Jesus didnt/doesnt know all things after His resurrection.

Also another good verse tht Jesus is not equal to the Father even ascended and glorified.

I think “genesthai en tachei” means “come to be immediately”. I personally dont believe John’s revelation is a chronological eschatology of future history. I believe it is primarily a series of pictures of spiritual realities, revelations to and of the Bride, His church- some of whwich touch on the future and the end of the age, in the sense of the consummation of things already in existence.

#153

“If we suffer with Him we will also reign with Him” 2 Tim 2:12

“For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.” Roman 8:18,19

For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. Hebrews 2:10

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. Eph 2:7

He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we would be a kind of firstfruits of His creation.… James 1:18

I think the idea that we were all saved just to “go to heaven” is nearly as destructive to the gospel as the idea of eternal torment. Understanding why God has done all these things and what He is creating seems to me to be “obviously fundamental” to understanding His wisdom, His truth.

Take the “whys” out of wise and what do you have?

All things will be gathered into one in Christ, for what? What when it is done? So we can sit aroun in a Christian Nirvana and suck our thumbs and stare at an image of God as we sing praise songs?

Forgive my sarcasm :slight_smile:

We speak a wisdom among the mature that the rulers of this world do not know- otherwise they would not have crucified Jesus. They disarmed themselves through the foolishness of their wisdom, being darkened in their understanding, blinded by their lust and greed and desire for authority.

Picture…

Little children drawing lines on the ground of the earth, the moon the sun and the stars, as opposed to a hologram of an ever expanding universe, as opposed to soaring in the Spirit through that ever expanding universe.

Draw it on the ground and say, “This is what it looks like, agree or get out!”

To a certain extent, to me, it is about starting and ending points. What are we missing as we stare at our drawing on the ground rather than looking to the sky and yearning to fly?

To what end has God done all these things? Certainly not so that we can define Him. He defined Himself in Jesus, the one who came in mysteries and parables.

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7“Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Nicodemus said to Him, “How can these things be?”

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the Father also loves the one born of Him. 1 John 5:1

“THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.” Romans 10:8-11

“If you confess with your mouth Jesus is part of the Trinity and believe in your heart that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three; co-equal, co-eternal and one in essence, existing as one God in three persons- you can be in the church and go to heaven.” Lamechiah 10:4

Or be excluded from Christ for believing otherwise. Or be burned at the stake for teaching otherwise. And be tormented forever in either case. :laughing:

A rather disappointing gospel imo. I prefer to believe we will be priests and sons of God restoring souls, celebrating life and creating portals through an ever expanding universe \o/

#154

Hi Dave,

I listened to some of Dale’s podcasts. I have spent time at Atlanta Bible College. I taught a class as a guest speaker there once- not as a Biblical Unitarian, but rather as a “why none of the above are totally true” proponent. I know one of his guest speakers. I am very familiar with their position and while I think I completely understand the position, I just don’t completely agree with it.

It requires making to many adjustments to too many plain faced statements in the word of God. Sort of twisting the scriptures to fit a particular paradigm.

I like Paidon’s attitude towards terminology. Jesus called YHWH the One true God. So I agree with that. Jesus said, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me”, so I agree with that. "Jesus said, “My Father is greater than I” and “All authority on heaven and earth is given to me by My Father”, so I agree with that, as it stands, just as Paul does in 1 Cor 15: 25-28. Paul said Jesus is before all things and that God created the all things through Him, as does John in his gospel, as does the writer of Hebrews(1:1-3), so I must agree with that, as well as with many plain-faced sayings, “I can do nothing without my Father…the Father in me does the works”…“For so it pleased the Father to make all fulness dwell in Him”

So the rub for me is this. Conversations may be had about how Jesus pre-existed, in what form, etc- but His own use of personal pronouns in reference to it causes me to agree that He was conscious of Himself and His part in the plan as He performed it. He then, in obedience to the Father and the purpose for which He Is Who He Is, submitted to being found in appearance(schema-echo) as a man, he humbled himself becoming obedient…

Ah well, I am sure you know where all that leads. We probably are mostly all quite familiar with the various views.

So to me a Biblical Unitarian must disregard or reinterpret Jesus’ own words to make Him not existent as a conscious id before the incarnation- much like an ETr must re-interpret such statements as “If I am lifted up from the earth I will draw all men unto me” and “Behold, I am making all things new”…and when Paul or John agree with those staements by Jesus the ETr must re-interpret those plain-faced sayings of John and Paul as well.

I just don’t reason that way. I am definitely willing to chat about whether my understanding of certain plain faced sayings in the scripture are correct, and willing to examine my position by the context of all scripture. But I don’t believe it is hermeneutically or exegetically correct to shy away from or re-state these plain-faced statements. They are their to limit our speculattive tangents, in my opinion.

Believe it or not- I don’t care what the truth is, because whatever is true is true whether I see it clearly or not. I have nothing to gain or lose by adhering to one view or another, because my only joy is in discovering what is the truest image I can see through the looking glass of the scriptures.

I note however, that Biblical Unitarians are largely annihilationists. I consider the inability to see ultimate reconciliation in the scriptures as an indicator of myopia, because it is one of the foundations- elementary principles of the oracles of God, listed in Hebrews 6. Also, having spent a lot of time with them, I find Biblical Universalists to be strongly attached to their agenda, and not very willing to listen to alternative view- just as are Modalists and Trinitarians. I am a staunch defender of the “mystery of Deity”. I dont think it is absolutley clear. I accept all the primary views as reasonable in measure, acceptable to discuss, impossible to debate, and not legitimate soteriological issues.

What I really believe is that the one who believes in the Son has the Father also- before that person even has the wherewithal to consider the details, and before they become religious enough to determine that someone else is not saved if they dont see it like them :slight_smile:

All those who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

#155

Perhaps this brief YouTube video,will shed light on Biblical Unitarianism. :smiley:

#156

Well obviously we are going to disagree on that point. I think it is very clear that those ‘plain faced statements’ are not plain at all. And, I’m not a unitarian btw. But the following appear sound and faithful to the scriptures:

“Philippians 2:5-11 is not Paul’s attempt to explain the “Incarnation” or how a divine being divested himself of his divine prerogatives. It is not an exposition about the preexistence of Christ. Instead Paul uses a real life example from the life of Jesus to illustrate his appeal for humility and mutual submission. Like Adam Jesus was in the “form of God.” Unlike Adam he did not attempt to become “like God.” Instead he chose to deny himself his rights and took on the form of a servant. In obedience to his Father he embraced the shameful death of the cross rather than attempt to seize likeness with God.”
“The so-called “preexistence” of Jesus in John refers to his “existence” in the Plan of God. The church has been plagued by the introduction of non-biblical language. There is a perfectly good word for “real” preexistence in the Greek language (pro-uparchon). It is very significant that it appears nowhere in Scripture, but it does in the writings of Greek church fathers of the second century. These Greek commentators on Scripture failed to understand the Hebrew categories of thought in which the New Testament is written.”

so sometimes, plain is not plain.
But we’ve made our positions know, and I hope there is sweet peace between us.

#157

Dave, you brought up a good point. I agree that Greek commentators may have failed to understand the Hebrew thought in which the scriptures were written. I don’t believe in the pre-existence of Jesus as a third person of the Trinity because I don’t believe in the Trinitarian theory. Eaglesway, there are things that are said of Jesus that also apply to man which have been written about in the Old and New Testaments. However, you did bring up a good point about the name of God. This is one of the reasons I believe that Jesus was God in the flesh. In John 17:26, Jesus says this: " And I have declared to them Your name. Who knows, I may be reading into this from my own perspective, but from what I understand, Jesus never called God by any specific name. I don’t even think He called God Yahweh. There are plenty of passages where He refers to God as the Father. So, what is God’s name? My answer is Jesus.

#158

And His Father’s name is:

#159

In ancient Israel, God’s name seems to have been expressed by the Tetragrammaton.

In English, this is expressed with the letters “YHWH.” By inserting vowels, the word “Yahweh” was formed.

However God commanded that his name not be taken in vain. So sometime in the past, the Israelites came up with the thought that if they never pronounced the name of God, then they could not possibly take that name in vain. I don’t know when or how that decision was made—but is was.
Whenever God’s name appeared in the Scripture, the term “The LORD” was substituted. This was carried over in to the Septugint, the Greek translation that was made several hundred years before Christ. The English transliteration of the Greek is “ho kurios”. And so the New Testament writers in Greek always used “ho kurios” wherever YHWH occurred. Jesus quoted such Old Testament scriptures, but of course the writers of the Gospel wrote “ho kurios”. Thus even if Jesus, in quoting the OT had uttered the name “YHWH,” the writers would have written “ho kurios” in its place.

This practice had some wierd results, such as the following verse:

“The LORD” is not a name. But YHWH is.

#160

Thanks Paidon. Good information.