Back in the 80s in Australia there was an advert for a beer called 'Clayton's'. If i remember correctly it advertised the beer as "the beer you're having when you're not having a beer".
I've just thought of a new adapted usage for this kind of phrase.
"Perichoresis: The universalim you're having when you're not having Universalism."
I came across the Perichoresis movement in the late 90s. I learnt some great things from the books of Baxter Kruger etc and am still grateful for what i learnt - especially the grand vision of how deep and huge the impact of the Incarnation is, and about the true relational idea of God - through discovering that the Trinitarian concept is fundamentally about relationship.
However, as time went on i gradually began to see inconsistencies in the Perichoresis movement. They would talk as universalists yet always deny they were teaching this. On the one hand it teaches that all humanity IS seated at the right hand of the Father through Christ and is reconciled to Him, yet would say that not All humanity is saved. Or there would be word games - ie - they would say that everyone is saved - but they can still experience hell, cos God respects their free will' etc.......Huh!? There was a lot of talk about 'assurance' yet in the end i found it opened up the door to potentially more 'unassurance'. There can be no assurance if any part of the salvation story is finally up to me.
In the end i found that they merely shifted the goal posts back further....there were still goal posts! And I could only come to the conclusion that it's message was 'Glorified Arminianism'.
I can still enjoy the books put out by Perichoresis, but only if i read them as they appear to be - seeing all creation as actually redeemed and that all humanity is really saved.
I hate labels but if i were to have one it would be some kind of almalgamation known as 'CalBarthian' Believer in Universal Salvation'
Sherman wrote:He, or I should say "this quote" sounds more inclusive Arminian to me, seeing all saved except those who continue forever to reject Christ. Boy, mistranslating Gehenna as Hell sure has messed up a lot of people!
Caleb Fogg wrote:However, I finally had to put the book down, because he continues to take Scripture and cram it into his preconceived ideas of what it should mean. I was driving myself crazy thinking either this man is brilliant or he is terribly mangling scripture. Really what he does is take some good ideas about the primacy of Christ's death and resurrection, and our participation in those realities, and tries so say that almost every parable is about that. It became quite maddening actually, because I so wanted to like the book.
Has anyone else had this frustration with Capon?
On the cross, he has shut up forever on the subject of guilt: “There is therefore now no condemnation. . . .”
Caleb Fogg wrote:Pilgrim,
Glad to hear I'm not the only one who had this experience with Capon. BTW, who is the picture in your avatar?
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. ....
Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Sherman wrote:He sounds more inclusive Arminian to me, seeing all saved except those who continue forever to reject Christ. Boy, mistranslating Gehenna as Hell sure has messed up a lot of people!
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests