The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Essentials

YES Pilgrim to my knowledge you are fully mistaken… I have yet to meet a full prêterist who “denies the bodily resurrection of Jesus” – as a pantelist myself I fully affirm the “the bodily resurrection of Jesus” – the body that went into the grave was very much the body that came out of the grave, albeit very much alive.

Further up the page Bob posted this comment…

Never a truer word spoken. Well said. :mrgreen:

If there are people in any given fellowship who fall outside of whatever my minimum soteriology is- it is no causes for alarm or disrespect. As a steward tho, one has to decide where to draw their lines for the safety of all participants and staying focused on a particular mission. I would draw certain lines, but in a forum my thought is that anything can be discussed, but not all things can be taught, and to hold the line between discussion and debate, because debate just becomes teaching in a ranting form. If this forum is a Trinitarian forum, which I recognize it as, I am not going to teach and debate the godhead or my view of it, but I would discuss it on a limited basis in a respectful way.The only thing, however, that I really ever discuss about it, is the unnecessary conflicts and exclusions that occur because of a dimly understood thing that is.

Actually, Unitarian is a very ambiguous term. There are the Unitarian Universalists, who now probly dont believe much of anything about the godhead, or even agree if God is in it or if it is just an amalgam of myths, philosophies and avatars.

Then there are the “Biblical Unitarians” who deal with the issue in their own made up(not saying bad, but like Trinity, made up terms) of “God, very God or not God, very God” when is comes to the deity of Christ. This knocks them outside the minimum soterioly requirements of most mainline denominations- altho for the most part they do not include their view on the Godhead as soteriology, and are in most other theological departments just like a bunch of nice Baptist or even Presbyterian brothers.

I have always been intensely interested in the whole Deity thing because it is mysterious and an exciting subject to examine having many nuances and potential perspectives based on the scriptures. The fact that Michael Servetus was burned at the stake for his views really blew my mind, because I have always been the type of person to just look at all the possibilities without getting my ego so attached that i am going to crumble or explode if I am proven wrong or get taken outside my paradigm- I just dig the exploration and I dont think God cares a lick if I am a Trinitarian or a Biblical Unitarian. There is something about Modalism that really bothers me, not the least of which is the aggressive form of sectarianism most of them have about their view, altho I must say many Trinitarians are the same(sectarian). I love Jesus. He is my Lord. YHWH is my Father. Neither of them is threatened by my exploration of the subject, and I rather like that I have never fully settled the issue, boxed it, wrapped it, tagged it in my mind. To me it is a mystery seen through a glass darkly. Maybe that will be wrapped up like a little gift to me some day when, according to the hymn, “we’ll understand it better by and by” :slight_smile:

I’d give you some “high fives” if I could - well said!!

Everyone here realizes that there is a whole spectrum of understandings about Christology and the nature of God, and that theological labels can be fuzzy. But me thinks quibbling over terminology has gotten extreme, such as questioning the use of “Unitariansim” without discussing multiple nuances. Statements such as, “the moniker ‘Unitarianism’… does not necessarily equal non-Trin” seem to me unrealistic. If it’s not reasonable to generalize that folk who prefer the label Unitarian are those who don’t prefer to be called a Trinitarian (as if Robin needs to delineate rare exceptions), then none of us could intelligibly communicate to evangelicals or others with enough nuance to avoid being forever faulted.

It appears to me that firm traditionalists who once flourished on this site have avoided weighing in on this debate. I’ve repeatedly rejected the moniker Trinitarian, and taken heat, including losing my role as a voting moderator. Yet I honestly feel that some of this discussion sounds more defensive and legalistic, rather than serious about fairly communicating. We who feel that we have a high and Biblical view of Christ, and that later forms of Trinitarian language are not desirable do not need to be offended if we are considered non-trin., or to hold a position contrary to the tradition of the evangelical movement. I’m not aware that any leaders here have argued that this makes us less acceptable to God. So I think the only worthy debate which I have sought to preserve is concerning which language is most Biblical, true, and important.

I agree with your last sentence completely and wish I had said it.
Quibbling over terminology, though - I think precision in what one is saying is important. Not - how many angels on the head of a pin? type of precision, of course- but unless we are as precise as we can be, we are going to be misunderstood. Even when we speak clearly, for cryin’ out loud, somebody is going to mis-interpret us. :smiley: But quibbling is of course a distraction.
Sometimes, trying to be precise makes one sound legalistic and picky, when in fact one is just trying to be CLEAR.

Your first sentence gives me hope; if the question is NOT whether those that disagree with Orthodoxy are less acceptable to God or not - that the much more important issue is in fact our acceptableness to God rather than our self-designed orthodox box then I for one feel resolved on this. Happily and giddily. :laughing:

As to the moniker - There are spectrums as you say and as I pointed out, but not everyone here recognizes that, I daresay. It is helpful when labeling a person’s beliefs to state what you mean by the label; they might not agree with it!

You’re a blessing to the Forum, Bob.

I agree with those sentiments, but for many people soteriology is about who is acceptable to God…

Eaglesway, While soteriology likely implies questions of ‘acceptability’ to God, is a universalist’s statement that evangelicals see Unitarianism as not Biblical, a statement about “Soteriology,” or even one that should be seen as equivalent to saying that non-Trinitarians will be rejected by God? I haven’t gotten that impression from even fervent evangelical Trinitarian universalists here.

Hi qaz - JUst askin’ here, not picking a fight - do you mean trinitarianism as set forth here:
ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

Or a different form? - there are a number of trinitarian theories.

As seen in their statement of faith, the linguistic affirmation that satisfied the site team was, “We believe in one God always existing as three persons who are revealed as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

Short and to the point! :slight_smile:
I’m not pursuing a theological debate - really just wondering what form of the -ism is being referred to.
It’s a fascinating subject as long as we stick to a certain Bob Wilson’s advice, which I currently have as my signature.

Like this :question: :laughing:

:laughing:

I havent gotten that impression from anyone either. I just thought that DaveB’s impression about the words “betrayal of the gospel” were to some extent legit, so I was speaking about a general situation where people often attach belief in the Trinity to their soteriology, which would lend some swing weight to those words. In that context, “betrayal of the gospel” could be interpreted that way, but I wasnt trying to pigeon hole anyone, just making general observations about the subject matter as the discussion opened up.

For instance, I do the think the history of how men enforce theology bears on the credibility of their theological constructs, which I mentioned relating to hellism as well as deity issues.

Wise words, and gracious, after taking heat especially. You’ve set a good example for all of us.

Of all the questions that have arisen and are yet to be answered concerning the Muslim religion, the question: Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God? - is most vexing. I’ve been following MavPhil’s extensive threads on the subject, and what I thought would be an easy answer - well it ain’t so easy. I’ve settled on my own opinion, but I’m going to go any further than calling it that. There is a reason I bring this up? Yes, two actually.

1.First, the main focus of the ‘same God’ problem (SGP) as between Muslim and Christian is, for many people, the tri-unity of the Xn and the strict monotheism of the Muslim. I think that’s a wrong-headed approach, but there is a lot of discussion centered around the SGP in trin/monotheist terminology and concepts. Too big a problem to go into here.

  1. It slowly dawns on one, going through the arguments concerning the SGP, that the question will eventually be asked - does that Xn worship the same God as that other Xn? That’s the cutting question.

The answers range from a curt “yes of course” to a curt ‘no’ to a whole lot of not curt ‘maybes’ and ‘probablies’.

Wise words, and gracious, after taking heat especially. You’ve set a good example for all of us.

Of all the questions that have arisen and are yet to be answered concerning the Muslim religion, the question: Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God? - is most vexing. I’ve been following MavPhil’s extensive threads on the subject, and what I thought would be an easy answer - well it ain’t so easy. I’ve settled on my own opinion, but I’m going to go any further than calling it that. There is a reason I bring this up? Yes, two actually.

1.First, the main focus of the ‘same God’ problem (SGP) as between Muslim and Christian is, for many people, the tri-unity of the Xn and the strict monotheism of the Muslim. I think that’s a wrong-headed approach, but there is a lot of discussion centered around the SGP in trin/monotheist terminology and concepts. Too big a problem to go into here.

  1. It slowly dawns on one, going through the arguments concerning the SGP, that the question will eventually be asked - does that Xn worship the same God as that other Xn? That’s the cutting question.

The answers range from a curt “yes of course” to a curt ‘no’ to a whole lot of not-curt ‘maybes’ and ‘probablies’. One’s soteriology does play a part in how that question is answered.
Bob’s admonitions have been to the point (and some of you others as well of course). We must be careful to only add to our confession what is CLEAR in scripture, if we are addressing the SGP.
I hope we don’t go too far down that road - the SGP road - as that road can be disastrous if not handled with extreme care.

I don’t think anyone who has read the NT without bringing to his reading, Trinitarian thought that he had already accepted, would be have found the Trinity anywhere therein, except possibly I John 5:7. But that verse did not occur in any Greek text of 1 John until the ninth century. It first appeared as a footnote, and afterward was copied directly into the text.

I just got back on the forum this evening (log-in issues), so I apologize for missing this hot topic. No way I’m going to read all this. I just would like to share a little about my understanding of the reason this forum was started.

There are lots and bunches of Unitarian websites and discussion sites, and God bless you all and all of the Unitarians. They are accepted and beloved of God. THIS, however, is a site whose very inception was for the purpose of reaching out to EVANGELICALS who do think that Unitarianism (not just for its nontrinitarian doctrines, but for other reasons as well) is a betrayal of the gospel.They just do. Whether or not this is an accurate representation is beside the point. This website was started in order to facilitate the introduction of EVANGELICAL Christians to the concept of Universalism, discussing it as a doctrine that does in fact integrate well with EVANGELICAL doctrines.

That’s NOT to say that our many wonderful and lovely and loving non-Evangelical brothers and sisters aren’t welcome here, or that they are not **very **much appreciated and encouraged to continue to engage in discussion of their viewpoints. No one here (so far as I know) considers any of our nontrinitarian members to be betrayers of the gospel. They’re doing their best to seek out truth and be faithful to the leading of the Holy Spirit. They–all of them–are very welcome to hang out in this Evangelical living room, drink coffee, sip tea, quaff brewskis, and chew fat. That said, it is still an Evangelical living room, and the tenets of this house are basically Evangelical. There are lots of living rooms of Unitarian houses, and in those hang-outs, such a remark (as Robin Parry’s) would be inappropriate. In THIS living room, the whole point is to introduce Evangelicals to a Universalism that does not negate or violate their foundational doctrines. Dissenting friends are always welcome, and encouraged to make themselves at home, but they don’t get to make it into a general public room. It’s still the living room of an Evangelical house.

I hope this doesn’t hurt anyone’s feelings, and the LAST thing I want to do is to make anyone feel unwelcome. It’s just that we do need all kinds of houses, and we need this one to be what it is.

There are of course some language uses, pejoratives for instance, that don’t belong in anyone’s living room. I for one will really try not to name-call or “labelize” (?) from henceforth. And would appreciate the same from the homeowners as, by and large, has been the case. :smiley:

:slight_smile: