Saturday, October 7, 2017

A Systematic Understanding of Universalism-Part 7

In Search of a Coherent Narrative

Part 7: A Systematic Understanding of Universalism

All right, it has been nearly two years since I last added to this series. Thanks to a reminder from a reader on a previous part, I was reminded of the fact that I had not finished it! Life tends to get in the way, but hey, that is what life is about after all.

So far we have discussed problems with Arminianism and Free Will, problems with Calvinistic predestination, then we talked about the many scriptural evidences for Universalism as a viable option. Now I would like to look at how Universalism could work as a narrative. 

As you can probably tell by reading through the series, I do tend to subscribe to a deterministic understanding of Universalism due to the many reasons outlined in previous posts. However I must note that many, many people who believe an evangelical Biblical-focused version of Universalism do accept the notion of Libertarian Freewill. But, how is that possible? I mean, if God does not have control over whether all people get saved or not, then how can you be a Universalist? Well, they basically say that although there is a lack of certainty that God will save everyone, they believe that in the aions of eternity God will not give up – His love for and pursuit for us is forever. Basically, if you roll the dice for infinity then you will eventually get the odds you were hoping for and all people will be convinced over to God’s side.

Anyways, that is not the type of Universalism that I will be talking about in this post. I don’t believe that Libertarian Freewill makes functional sense and therefore alternatively I will attempt to pull together an understanding of how a deterministic interpretation of Universalism could fit together.


Putting aside the Scriptural evidences for it in previous posts, Universalism for me provides a beautiful narrative that carries the hope that all people will be restored to God and that we can one day live in harmony with each other. It also makes philosophical sense in that Everything can be united in God and His goodness - the original Cause (this is probably another series in itself). Everything needs to have its beginning and end in God, for all things are from Him, through Him and for Him (Romans 11). It makes no sense to me that Evil and death would rule in a “Universe” consummated in God and His goodness. Universalism also can explain why evil could exist at the same time as God’s goodness without diminishing the power of God and His subjection to the will of man.


In short, The reason I subscribe to a deterministic understanding of the world (other than scripture) is due to my belief that a causal chain or web (“this” caused “that” and so on and so forth) is the most logical way to view the world. Eventually everything must stem from the uncaused Cause i.e. God. Libertarian Free Will as some kind of reality distinct from the uncaused Cause just doesn’t make sense in any way to me as illustrated in Part 3. The only alternative I see at this stage is determinism. 

In this article I illustrate how a Deterministic Universalism narrative could work in three areas pertaining to Christianity. I have chosen these three distinct areas because they answer how I believe Universalism has a better way of narrating the world we live in than Arminianism or Calvinism. These three areas also address potential objections to Deterministic Universalism which you may find useful. These areas are:
  • Molded Over Time. Looking at who deserves to be saved and who doesn’t, and exploring how God works on us over time.
  • The Greater Good. Here I focus on addressing the “problem” of evil and why the existence of evil is necessary and valuable. 
  • Responsibility. Am I really responsible for evil if God caused me to be evil?


I would like to begin with a thought experiment - What or who defines who we are?

Are you the you 5 years ago? 10 years ago? Or are you the real you right now? Or are you the you of past, present and future forms of yourself all at the same time? Some people may consider others like Hitler (Yes I have heard it) never being worthy or able to be saved because of how horrible he was. Yet, who is “Hitler”? Hitler the boy? Hitler the adult? Or Hitler in 10,000 years-time, or something else?

My point is, only God our Maker knows the ins and outs of the fabric of our being, that is, who He determined us to be through the aions of time and also our potential. Who are we to say who at any point in their lives are not worthy of or able to be saved? Are we their Maker therefore knowing all their potential? Definitely not!

Could it be that God has designed people like Hitler to be a prime example to themselves and others as a recipient of grace and mercy in action - the greatest good? I mean, sometimes wicked people become the greatest helpers in history. Take the New Testament Paul or even people like John Newton. It is often their stories that inspire others to do and value what is good. Could not God be continually working on those not yet saved, through the aions of time, weaving their own unique story that only they could be the protagonist of?

Our unique strengths and weaknesses that make us who we are ensures that we are truly individuals as God has deemed us to be. If God only made the people with “good” characters, then there would be less diversity because the people with more “difficult” characters would not exist. 

All people are worth saving, not just the “good” ones. Jesus said that he did not come for the healthy but for the sick. God made you… and me, as we are. We would not exist as we know ourselves if evil did not exist – we would not be us. 

Romans 9 illustrates a helpful picture of how God works with us. God is seen as a potter moulding vessels (us) on a potter’s wheel. Some of us may spend a longer time on the potter’s wheel depending on the raw materials God has created our unique essence to be, but all are valuable. God has made us unique like none other. It is through a process of time, like a potter moulding clay, that God is forming us into His perfect image. It could be that our nature at creation will determine the methods and tools necessary that God will use to form us into the vessel He aims to make, with all the intricate detail that makes up who we are. 

Basically, we ourselves would not exist as we know it (or not at all) if evil did not exist – we would not really be us – who we are today.


I cannot talk about the above without talking about this aspect of Universalism. Yes, “the greater good” sounds like a catch phrase from Hot Fuzz, but it is something that we all implement in our lives. We sacrifice something for a greater good. Suffering can be much the same. 

For the Arminianist, the greater “good” is that people have Free Will even though it fosters evil in themselves and those around them. Evil is seen as an unfortunate by product of Free Will. Free Will is the ultimate good, not “goodness”.

For the Calvinist, God’s sovereignty and symbolic judgement of evil is what is the greatest good. Although in some sense this is an apparently honourable view of God, like when Faramir bravely followed orders and rode against the hordes of orcs in the Lord of the Rings. However, it leaves much to be desired in order to be convinced that Faramir was in fact truly “good” for leading his soldiers on a suicide mission. 

I have a rather different understanding of what the greater good could look like through Deterministic Universalism. It involves trust in our Creator, much like Faramir trusted his father, but not without attempting to understand what may be the reasons behind God’s actions in light of eternity.

Some of you may be thinking like the above section “If God wants to create robots that expressed His goodness then why not only create good people? Why make people with the potential to be evil at all?” Yet, If God is wanting the greatest expression of what is good, then in theory He would (by natural and necessary reflection of His nature) create a world where the greatest possible good can be a reality. 

If you imagine a perfect world, it commonly would include a world without suffering and sadness… a world without evil. But, what is missing? In fact much is missing from this imaginary world. It is not just evil that is missing, but also good. Without the existence of evil, we would not have greater forms of good such as – Mercy, Forgiveness, Self-Sacrifice and love in the face of suffering etc. They would not even exist. We would not experience the sensation of being forgiven or forgiving others which can build deeper and more meaningful relationships with others.

Jesus said in Luke 6 “32“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” 

Take one of the most popular songs (by John Newton) in the western world: 

“Amazing Grace how sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see…”

Notice what Jesus and John Newton are expressing? 

The song Amazing Grace was written by John Newton - an ex-slave trader - who when he realised what he had done wrote this song. It resonates in many of our souls today because we all have done things we regret and are able to appreciate the mercy bestowed on us by God… and others. 

What I am saying is, is that it is NECESSARY for evil to exist for the GREATEST FORM OF GOOD to exist. We wouldn’t have the greatest love story of Jesus Christ dying on the cross as an example for us to live by if there were no evil. Through the existence of evil we now can experience the true value of goodness in our lives. We even see this in our day to day cares. We experience being hungry which can be an uncomfortable feeling. Only once we have experienced being hungry do we truly value eating food. Likewise, if we have never experienced evil, then how can we truly experience or value what is good.


So some of you may be wondering how we can be responsible for our wrong doings if God determined us to do them.

I think the problem comes with an age old understanding of responsibility in the context of Free Will. We tend to think that an evil act must be paid for because a person has freely chosen to do something evil and therefore must be punished in order to appease an abstract justice system.

I tend to interpret responsibility more as an identification of where something or someone has gone wrong. Instead of seeing an individual as having freely chosen to do an evil act, I must ask what brought them to choose to do such and act. Doing this will hopefully get to the root issues, rather than issuing justice through a form of using fear-based punishment. A more sincere world would be where people choose to do good because they saw the value in it and wanted it, rather than doing it because they have to. 

So if we have done evil, then yes, we are responsible. Not because we freely chose to do it, but because it is something in our character that needs to be addressed. It may be that a form of punishment is necessary for correction, but not because of some arbitrary sense of justice that has to be appeased. Looking at human responsibility like this helps me to be more empathetic towards others, while at the same time not overlooking the need to change unhelpful behaviour.


The Universalism I am advocating pulls together the logical prowess of Calvinism, while also grasping the Arminianist understanding that God wants to save everyone. Which I feel provides us with the best of both worlds. 

It may be difficult for many to come to grips with a deterministic understanding of the world, simply because of the cultural messages about Free Will/Freedom we have all been subjected to through various movies and songs. It may take some time for us to look anew at scripture passages that we have been taught to read in a particular way. It may take some time for us to explore for ourselves the possibility of Universalism being a reality – please do so. 

I do not pretend to have wiped away all problems of evil. I do not know why God would allow certain horrible situations to happen where I cannot see a possible justifiable greater good to come from it, but it at least provides hope through the darkest of times. 

Philosophers like Voltaire and Bertrand Russell may have a problem with this way of looking at things. They critiqued philosopher Leibniz’s idea that God has created the best of all possible worlds. They claimed things like – there is too much evil in the world to deem it as being the “best”; and if evil exists in the best of all possible worlds, then why should we even try to combat evil? After all, evil is a part of God’s best of all possible worlds. 
Poignant thoughts… yet, on the contrary, believing that God created good and evil does not necessarily mean that I value evil (or the amount of it) in and of itself, but instead value the Process of overcoming evil which then allows the greatest forms of good to come into effect.  

Seeing the world in a more deterministic hopeful way enables me to trust God more than I ever did before. God is not at the mercy of mankind’s Free Will, nor am I at the mercy of my own or other’s “Free “actions. Instead, I am free to be who God made me to be. It helps me to feel more compassionate for others and to remain more positive in negative situations. It also gives me more confidence to share the good news of the gospel, because I am not sharing it through a sense of imminent defeat. Ultimately, I can confidently do God’s work knowing that each and every small and large action, do actually matter in the grand scheme of things.

Thank you for reading, and I hope you have enjoyed the series. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to ask.

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

Seeing Beyond a Story

Christian Renewal Church has recently initiated a blog where myself and several fantastic authors are going to write/type once a month to encourage and challenge one another.

My latest post written for the blog is looking at narrative theory (Story telling) and how it impacts how we view ourselves and others around us. Story telling is something we all do regardless of how open minded we think we are. In contrast Jesus often broke past the walls of stories we built up around ourselves and around others. Jesus changed the linear plot in many people's lives and also changed how we can see the world.

You can find the Christian Renewal Church website and subsequent blog by clicking the link here - ENJOY!

Sunday, February 21, 2016

Matthew 20 - An Unfair Story Made Fair

I recently came across in a Bible reading one of the most potentially abhorrent and unfair passages in scripture - Matthew 20. It is where Jesus talks about the Kingdom of God being where the first will be last and last will be first - He ultimately treats people unequally. 
But is it really unfair?

The story is about a master who goes out in the morning and hires workers for a day's wage. However, the master continuously goes back to the market and hires people to work for him that same day. The master even goes out in the late afternoon to hire more people (who were standing around looking for work). At the end of the day, the master pays all his workers the same day's wage that he agreed upon with the workers he hired in the morning. The morning workers were upset that they didn't get paid more than those who arrived at the end of the day (naturally). The master simply replied that he was able to do with his money as he pleased and that no agreement was broken between him and the morning workers. The master merely decided to pay the late-comers the same as the morning workers out of generosity.
So what is Jesus trying to say that the kingdom of God is like?

This passage could be seen differently by capitalists (who generally look out for equality) and socialists (who look out for equity). From a capitalist perspective, Jesus emphasised the freedom of choice that the master had with his money. The master didn't need to pay anyone more and is free to run his business as he pleases. On the other hand, from a socialist perspective, Jesus may be telling us something more about the Kingdom of God. He may be saying that the master is free to use his money as he wishes, yet advocating a mindset or value system more in line with socialist ideas of equity. 

The story suggests that there was not enough work for people in the market place, and the master who was able to supply a living wage to these people also felt compelled to do so out of grace. The master chose to endorse more equitable values in order to produce equality among workers. In the West we tend to celebrate "freedom" of choice (along with economic freedom) to decide our own future and make our own paths. However, Jesus here seems to be talking about a Kingdom where our economic wealth and "freedom" is used to put in place means by which those with less can have more and likewise also be free from poverty.    

Thus equity is necessary to bring about equality, and necessary to treat the first last and the last first - A Kingdom where concern for the well being of others makes the world go around.

How do you think the Kingdom of God is pictured from this passage?     

Saturday, January 30, 2016

God, Justice and Love

Have you ever wondered what is the purpose for Justice?

Is it an arbitrary consequence for a broken law... or is there more to it? What is God's idea of justice from His perspective? Have we settled for a far simpler version of justice than God intends?
It has been a tendency of societies to punish people without the intention of restoring them - i.e. through imprisonment and capital punishment. Not only that, but often Christian doctrine upholds a punishment concept of justice instead of one focused around love and restoration. Often concepts of justice seem to seek to satisfy some abstract idea of justice, and to force people to be "good" through fear and compulsion. 

Yet, there is another way of looking at justice. If we look at justice from the perspective of love ("God is love" - 1 John 4:8) it brings a different perspective for the purpose of justice. By seeing justice through love, ideally we can seek after a practical restoration of wrongs where all parties experience compassion and love. Such a practical restoration could be where the wrong done is made right, both within the wrong doer and with the victim. I ask, is it really enough to try make people "good" through arbitrary judgements? Does it even "work"? Shouldn't our aim be to restore the conscience of a person to the point where they want to do good, not out of fear, but out of courage? Surely that would produce a more wholesome society. 
It is interesting that studies show Restorative Justice is more successful than punitive punishments on many accounts such as reducing recidivism, reducing post-traumatic stress amongst victims (including revenge), and both offenders and victims are more satisfied with Restorative Justice than conventional criminal justice. (See Restorative Justice: The Evidence)

We were having a heartfelt and thoughtful discussion with Cindy Skillman over at the Evangelical Universalism forum on the subject "Post-mortem punishment and the perfect love of God". She had this gem to share which I thought was so well put I had to post it here on the Benevolent Hecklers. She compares human justice with God's justice. She ultimately asks what God's attitude is towards post-mortem punishment using a Biblical concept of love. Let me know what you think!   

"This is what God (through Paul) says love looks like:

1 Corinthians 13:4-8
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails.

Some say that God would LOVE to save all people, but He cannot because they refuse to be saved. Love never fails. Some say that when we die in the flesh, God gives up on us. Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. AND Love never fails.

Sure God can punish for the purpose of healing. Earthly parents do this, and we submit to it. How much more should we willingly submit to chastisement from our Heavenly Father who always does it for our good? Earthly parents who punish for the sake of punishing and NOT to heal and reform an erring child, are considered monsters--rightly. And THAT is only temporal, temporary, earthly punishment. Yet we think that our Heavenly Father will punish to no purpose other than revenge and so-called "justice," not for a short time, not to reform, not to cure, not to make anything right but ONLY to administer far in excess of Moses's limits of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth--forever and ere.

Justice is NOT taking an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. That is only a limitation on excessive punishment. Justice is not eternal torment, whether or not eternal torment is deserved. Justice is not the chair for a murderer or prison for a lesser criminal. Those things are human attempts at justice, or human attempts at imagining ultimate justice.

Justice is making things right.

None of the punishments we could administer or imagine could ever make things right. Justice means you get your murdered wife back, and the man who murdered her becomes the loving brother to you and to her that he ought always to have been. THAT is making things right. Everything else is a poor, impoverished human attempt to prevent the criminal from having an advantage he denied his victim. Did he kill? Let him not live, for his victim is dead. Did he steal? Let him have nothing, for he has diminished his victims, forcing them to support him without their consent. THAT is the best WE can do. It is far, far from the best God can do."

Friday, January 1, 2016

God is With Us

Last Sunday I heard this great sermon from down here in New Zealand, preached by Matthew Guddatt. He is a Britain, come down to NZ and is currently a youth pastor.

So what is the big deal about this sermon?
I haven't often heard a sermon where God's sovereignty and power is connected to our daily lives.

Here is a summary of what the sermon covers:

- Matthew talks about the greatness of God and how we cannot limit God to one name, but He encompasses many names describing Him.
- He also talks about how the church today can have a tendency to go back to Old Testament ways by having super spiritual "priests" (pastors, and elders) who harbour spiritual connection with God for the lay people. Matthew points out that we are all called to be priests and all can access God.
- Lastly he talks about how God is omnipresent. I like how he says that God is in the very breath of the atheist, and that church is not the only place to find God. Matthew points out that God can be found anywhere and we don't need to chase conjured up feelings and emotions, but to know and have faith that God is with us anywhere.

Matthew has a good sense of humour and is easy to listen to. Click the link below to listen -

Photo Retrieved from:


Thursday, December 24, 2015

Merry Christmas Everyone!

May the Lord bless you all and thank you for the very interesting and helpful discussions that have happened here. May we remember Jesus Christ the Saviour of the world this day!

Sunday, November 22, 2015

Faithfully Valuing the Limits of Scripture (PART 7 - HOW TO READ)

This series explores the nature of Scripture (specifically those aspects which many of us find uncomfortable) and what our approach to Scripture should be as a consequence. This exploration is needed because our intrinsic human biases cause us to assume that God's nature / aims / priorities / etc all line up with our modernistic worldview, which focuses on detailed accurate synergistic information. However such an approach to Scripture clashes with many of its properties. Our response tends to be to curate Scripture, or to minimize our engagement with the aspects we find difficult to explain. Instead, we should engage with all of Scripture as God designed it, and challenge our perspective on it when needed. What does it look like when we value the uncomfortable aspects of Scripture?

The series so far:

  1. Introduction
  2. Progressive Revelation
  3. Relationships and Cognition
  4. Morality and Evil
  5. Coping with Evil I
  6. Coping with Evil II
  7. How to Read (this post)
So far I've spent a long time justifying my belief that God is more interested in the meta-cognitive goals of person-hood, expression, and relationship. Now I want to start exploring the practical aspects of reading Scripture. 

Scripture's purpose, specifically, is to be a collection of some of the individual progressive revelations of God's person-hood throughout history, which taken together He has deemed to be the most universally useful expression toward encouraging relationship with Him. It does this in an incredibly dynamic way. If we focus on cognitive information and a harmonious synthesis of theology, we can miss a lot of what the Bible has to offer toward relationship with God, and at its worst it can lead us to minimize aspects of Scripture to the point that they are almost useless to us. How should we approach Scripture keeping relationship in mind, and balancing the usefulness and limitations of cognition toward this ultimate aim? I have some general principles to share, but this is something I'd like to grow in more, so please share your own thoughts!

How to Read Scripture:

1) Immerse yourself in the passage, allowing every aspect of yourself to be impacted by the experience. We don't expect each expression of a person to be perfect and balanced - and likewise with each revelation - but they are unique and beautiful and insightful. By reading Scripture and inviting the Holy Spirit to speak through it, you are touching an aspect God, a deliberately designed expression of Himself! Never let this slip by you. 

2) Utilize flawed cognition to your relational advantage. Despite its limitations - which I have emphasized in my defense of God's relational aims - cognition is central to our approach to Scripture for obvious reasons. Firstly, Scripture is written in a language, meaning cognition has to be engaged to even start experiencing it with your other non-cognitive faculties. Secondly, 'Immersing yourself in the passage' is something that's not under much of our direct control, since all our faculties are overwhelmingly influenced by external circumstances, our subconscious, and each other. However, cognition is unique in that it is also (at least partly) consciously controlled, which gives us an avenue to steer and focus our other faculties of experience. If we are discussing how we should control our approach to Scripture, this control has to occur through our cognition

3) Attempt to cognitively understand what God intended for people to experience from his designed expression in Scripture. How Scripture's designed relational purpose is realized - or whether it is realized at all - varies between individuals. Our cognition needs to understand the intended experience if it is to steer our experience in the right direction. 

4) Deliberately consider multiple different experiences of God from the passage in mind. I think this is one of the most productive ways to attempt to properly experience God's expression through Scripture. These different perspectives help us break out of our worldview and so avoid subconscious worldview hijacking of our cognition, so we can consider God's intentions for the passage more clearly. But more profoundly, they help us stick to the first principle of relational experience (rather than cognitive accuracy). If we understand another person's relational experience, it allows us to experience an echo of God ourselves. In addition to the hypothetical 'universal intended experience' we're trying to understand from a passage, it's as if we were experiencing a personalized expression of God by proxy (albeit one with greater potential for error in our understanding, and with less universal benefit than Scripture itself). 

5) Start with some 'high yield' perspectives. Perhaps most useful is that of the original intended audience or of the author, since these are clearly going to be integral to God's intended experience of his expression in that passage of Scripture[1]. Also helpful to consider are the experiences of early and/or orthodox church consensus[2]. A final group of helpful perspectives are those of individual saints who you discern to be relating well to God in a holistic sense - these may be dead or living saints, famous or privately known[3]. 

6) Allow your cognition to function naturally and form a harmonized view of God as a person. Try to see God through each of the expressions you experience which you deem to be intended by God, or genuine healthy relationships. Remember you are trying to understand a person in the light of all their complex expressions. Don't make a God up who wraps perfectly around all these 'experiences' (this can never take into full consideration the dynamics of person-hood). Instead try to understand the God who expresses Himself in these ways

7) Don't let our modernistic worldview hijack your cognition and make an idol of it. This is an imperfect process and does not define 'relationship', though it is useful and natural.  Do not be distracted away from the aim of relationship with God.  Remember that the hypothetical 'universal intended experience' is actually going to be a spectrum of experience, just like any public expression in earthly relationships. Do not become obsessed with the difficulties of forming a harmonized view of God. Focus on God's intentions for Scripture (rather than picking 'the best' interpretation), and focus on God as a person (where Scripture springs from Him, rather than the reverse). Where cognitive perplexity exists, relate to God through this (some perplexity is a normal part of any relationship).

Its more (or less) intuitive

This approach is fairly intuitive and natural - read the passage for what it is, and consider the spectrum of legitimate ways to experience God through it (even if they contain different mixes of cognitive gaps). Despite its simplicity and intuitiveness, this approach IS difficult - because our worldview isn't happy with cognitive gaps, and because this approach requires us to put aside our preferred priorities and seek God as HE wishes to be found.[4][5]


Reading Scripture should utilize cognition to focus the rest of our faculties and allow our whole being to experience God as He intends. At the same time we need to be vigilant not to focus excessively on our cognition, or elevate its importance above other aspects of relationship. One way to do this is to deliberately consider the spectrum of legitimate experiences of others through Scripture - including the original audiences and authors, church consensus, and individual saints. We should let our cognition form a harmonized view of God, a God who would express Himself through all these experiences. But there will always be perplexities of person-hood and relationship that our cognition cannot 'solve', and we need to be careful not to assume that this means something is 'wrong', and not to let this distract us from relationship.
  • Are there any other reading / interpretation techniques that you feel are important to enhance a proper relationship with God?
  • Do you agree that considering a variety of perspectives is important?
  • Do you agree that considering the whole experience - not just the cognitive aspects - is important?
  • When deciding which experiences are useful to consider in your interpretation of Scripture, how much attention do you pay to the cognitive aspects of that experience?
  • How do you feel about accepting inevitable perplexities when it comes to forming a harmonize cognitive view of God?

Coming soon...

  • Next I'll deal with some further issues people have with this approach to Scripture, specifically how it can seem to threaten traditional theological processes and the concept of 'inerrancy'.
  • After that we'll explore some specific examples of progressive revelation and how a relational approach to Scripture leads ancient and modern saints to Him, but through different cognitive paths. 


[1 - When attempting to understand the experience of the original audiences and authors, it can be helpful to remember how progressive revelation functions to serve relationship with Christ. Each passage was written to enhance as much as possible the revelation of Christ to the intended audience, taking into account their interpretive bias, and the historical processes God intends to drive as part of his expression to mankind. Thus this consideration can be helped a lot by an understanding of the times and cultures and language etc (which can seem daunting), but a lot of this can be gleaned from the Scripture itself. Important things to remember is that these audiences did not have subsequent revelation to balance their cognitive experience of God, that they had different priorities and worldview to us, and that they had genres of language that we aren't too familiar with in our modernistic society .]

[2 - Church 'concensus' is clearly not unanimous, and has also frequently been plagued by political and selfish motivations. However, the greater unity there is among those who seem driven by a desire to relate to the God of Scripture, the more authority this consensus has as a legitimate intented experience of God.  After all, the church - functioning this way - is the means by which we trust God to have chosen and preserved Scripture in the first place. This kind of concensus can allowing many doctrines labeled as heretical by the modern American/Western church, and can also be troubled by the influence of the current worldview (e.g. Greek thinking paved the way for modernism and tended to idolise cognition).]

[3 - The more you know a person yourself and are persuaded of there relationship with God, the less 'orthodox' their cognitive views need to be in order to be useful. Conversely, some 'orthodox' saints may have an experience of God that is less than convincing, and so may not be worth considering.]

[4 - Our modernistic mind will search for reasons to avoid worldview reform - e.g. by disregarding it as 'post-modernism'. This view is post-modern in the sense that it recognises the problems with modernism, but it is NOT postmodern in the sense of denying the reality or importance of cognition, absolutes, truth, consistency, etc. This approach relies upon the essential foundation of absolute reality and consistency in the person of God - but our experience of God should not derive all its meaning from how well we grasps all the cognitive details of God's absolute reality and consistency. The incarnation reveals how God is more than willing to 'empty himself', forgoing some aspects of His reality in order to better express others (e.g. His willingness and ability to relate to us).]

[5 - Even if we agree with this approach to Scripture, it doesn't make the difficulties go away! Our preference for cognitive information is deeply ingrained in our culture, and makes us constantly think about how this approach deals with cognition. What a shame to miss the beauty of the big picture, because we are thinking too much about how the picture is bigger than the sum of its parts and can't be contained in a cognitive description of it! What a shame to miss Jesus because we're thinking about how a person can't be described well with words alone! It can be good to understand how cognition and relationship interact - but Satan can use anything to distract us from actually relating to Jesus.]