I would like to express my apologies to you for not making my view of “faith” and evidence clear. I understand now how you could think I thought in such an extreme view of faith by my comment “Faith with proof is not faith at all”. I should have made it more clear. I myself am, in most respects, a self-taught learner of the bible. This is probably why I don’t understand most of faith’s titles. It is also why I don’t think like most would when it comes to studies of the texts. There are many professing christians that wrap up their thinking and book-end it within the scriptures only without going outside them to look for maybe further evidences that may help there understanding. It is hard for such ones to accept anything on the outside of “their understanding” of the scriptures themselves. I have found much of my evidence through going outside my traditional belief at the time, whether it be Calvs, Arms, Caths, etc. To be locked into just one faith only brings, what I would call, a stalemate of beliefs. Reading the same proof texts, projecting the same arguments, defending the same cause only because it is the root of their “characterized” belief.

Now I am not bringing this up to cause someone to grind teeth here, but look at what is called “Evolution”. If one that proclaims a religion does not go outside their views to look at what evolution proclaims, how is one to understand another view, or even better their own view? I myself have wandered how, with all the evidences within evolution, one would not believe or, at the very least, have some belief of it. I mean, just because some theologian states that the earth is only thousands of yrs old, created in 6 days, and was totally flooded, does not make it true, especially in the light of further evidences outside their box. To be close minded to such a view stunts the growth of one’s mind and causes enmity between it and most other views. This is just the closed mindedness that the Jews had in accepting Gentiles into the promises without their traditions being followed. They just couldn’t fathom doing so. I can’t say that I would believe in all forms of evolution, but my goodness, to deny some of the data that evolution provides would be like denying my own hand in front of my face. I don’t want to be close minded as to be brain washed into a belief only to see myself as a fool 30 yrs later, and then holding to it, despite the evidences, just so others with the same belief would not see me as one. Ponder to the end is what I say!

I know that some on this site doubt. I have my doubts also within my own beliefs. For instance: I am contemplating whether what I belief ’speaking in tongues’ is could be true or not. Or that maybe the book of Revelations events ended in the first century instead of being at the end times. Or maybe Adam and Eve were personified names of “groups” of people rather than individuals. Or whether Jesus could actually be construed as God. These things can be called “heretical” in mainstream christianity, but it will not keep me from my pondering. As for my current belief in “universalism”, although it has blown away many of the contradictions in my thinking and has made many things straight for me, but to call it absolute truth would again be “closing my mind” in a box. There are certain things they believe that I don’t. Skepticism can be healthy in its own way. I can be pegged as what one would call a “ponderer”, which tends to keep me outside the box at times and on the edge at others, and at other between two or three, but to just jump in and seal the lid would block light to my learning.

Once again, I applaud the skepticism in one’s beliefs in Christianity. Growth in truth is a good thing within Gods plan, but I say “who says that skepticism cannot promote Growth in His children”. Kyle, once again, I thank you for you words and kind attitude. I leave you with a tid-bit of words from a “ponderers” mind. Peace be with you sir.

You ask, ”what does this mean?”

Did not God created the heavens AND the earth? If He is Wonderful, He shall create AND destroy Wonderfully.

Did He not tell you that He would be making you in His own image? Was Adam likened to his Creator? For I say he was not. Was it before or after the serpent beguiled the flesh of your flesh and the bone or your bones, that He said “man has become as one of us”?

Was Adam not created by His Word? Is His Word still sounding? Are you not Flesh?

And by His Word did He not create the One to be Flesh and Spirit?

Did He not do All Things First? Did Adam till the ground first? If God had not tilled, you would not be. Neither did Adam breath First. Again, If God had not Breathed, you would not be. One is His Work, the other His Life, but the creation is One.

So it is with His Word. He uttered but Once, but it was Heard Twain, by the Work and by the Life, who are One. It went forth by the Flesh and will return by the Spirit. This is It’s order. It will return! Even now His Head is out of the Womb, but His body remains. But Rejoice, a Son is Coming!

Flesh shall die by what It has Heard and the Spirit shall Live by what It has Heard, but the Sword in One. Until all have Learned, this Edge and Edge shall Rule.

Flesh has glorified the birth of its sons, but the Father beholds only the Head and with anticipation awaits his Son who is ALL.

The Word Lives! Now is Love. It will no more go forth by Flesh, for now It has returned. What did you think would dwell in rest? The Going Out or the Returning? ………………Home!

I say this unto you Adam, you are not finished.

As far as free will and determinism, our beliefs are polar opposites. I mentioned that I tend toward open theism. This is the position that the future is partially determined and partially open, and the specific course the future takes depends open the contingent actions of humans in genuine give-and-take relationship with God. That summary is very basic and there is a lot more to it than that, but no time to go into every detail. I do think that Scripture makes the most sense when read within the open theism framework, and that scripture supports open theism. Again, could go into more detail but won’t. If you are interested, the leading proponents are John Sanders, Clark Pinnock, Terrance Fretheim, and Greg Boyd. I’m not sure that the web resources are that great – but John Sanders The God Who Risks, 2nd ed is the most complete and well-written presentation of open theism. These proponents are constantly called out as heretical by the self-appointed protectors of orthodoxy. So even if you completely disagree, you should appreciate their willingness to stay with what they believe to be the truth even in the face of derision and name-calling.

I really would like Christian universalism to be true. I am obviously not a staunch defender of eternal punishment: But why would he need to physically torture them for eternity? That is inconceivable. But even if we view hell as eternal separation without the fire and brimstone and all that, why base it all on a decision made in this short lifespan?. Here I was not questioning your view but posing difficult questions to myself and/or to the doctrine of everlasting separation (or punishment). I will read and pray more on this matter. Does the fact that I want it to be true distort my ability to interpret scripture correctly? Or perhaps I hold (tentatively) to beliefs that I do not want to be true in order to think that I have not developed my beliefs based on personal wishes?

Peace,
Kyle

Here: http://www.tizag.com/htmlT/htmlitalic.php

end italics </i&gt

with no spaces

To begin italics, use without the quotes.
To end italics, use without the quotes.