It's meh. {shrug} The textproofing isn't bad, though they missed some of the best ones. (At least they got in 1 Cor 15.)
But the scriptures weren't discussed in much depth, and the theological discussion wasn't remotely rigorous enough. Nor does the author seem to have been intending to do either of those anyway.
Taken altogether, an average 5th-grade level sermon. It does okay for what it is. I didn't notice any glaring errors in the presentation on a first run-through. (I mean insofar as representing an orthodox universalist position. Obviously there are going to be points of dispute in other regards, which an opponent will naturally consider to be glaring errors, and would need to be debated about as such.) I've seen a lot worse.
So, it gets a thumbs-up from the local regular hyperorthodox universalism proponent. {g} But most of the people around here would be wanting something more substantial, and that's both understandable and proper.
(Haven't checked any of the links, which might do a better job; though I'm the kind of person who thinks anything short of five books' length of analysis is not up to par. {self-wry g})
2 comments:
Victor,
This is a very poor excuse for a biblical basis for universalism.
It's meh. {shrug} The textproofing isn't bad, though they missed some of the best ones. (At least they got in 1 Cor 15.)
But the scriptures weren't discussed in much depth, and the theological discussion wasn't remotely rigorous enough. Nor does the author seem to have been intending to do either of those anyway.
Taken altogether, an average 5th-grade level sermon. It does okay for what it is. I didn't notice any glaring errors in the presentation on a first run-through. (I mean insofar as representing an orthodox universalist position. Obviously there are going to be points of dispute in other regards, which an opponent will naturally consider to be glaring errors, and would need to be debated about as such.) I've seen a lot worse.
So, it gets a thumbs-up from the local regular hyperorthodox universalism proponent. {g} But most of the people around here would be wanting something more substantial, and that's both understandable and proper.
(Haven't checked any of the links, which might do a better job; though I'm the kind of person who thinks anything short of five books' length of analysis is not up to par. {self-wry g})
JRP
Post a Comment