For Further Reading: Burton, "Word Study XVI,"

Moon's ideas combine the Korean-Chinese philosophy of Ying and Yang, Korean shaman­ism (spiritualism), with Christian eschatology and spiritual gifts. God, instead of being Trinity, is both male and female. Jesus is not God, but the Second Adam who failed His mission because He did not marry and have children. Christians are Jesus' spiritual offspring by way of the Holy Spirit, His heavenly Bride. Redemption must be completed physically through marriage because the first sins were sexual; Lucifer's spiritual se­duction of Eve and Eve's physical seduction of Adam.

According to Moon, on the day he married Hak Ja Hon "the Heavenly Son came to the earth, restored the base, and welcomed the first Bride of heaven." As a result Moon is greater than Jesus, having restored "the spiritual as well as the physical" ("The Significance of July 1st, 1973," Master Speaks, 381, 7-1-73, 3).

See CHRIST, CHRISTIANITY, CULTS, FALSE CHRISTS.

For Further Reading: Boa, Cults, World Religions, and
You, 164-77; Ellwood, Religious and Spiritual Groups in
Modern America, 291-96; Sparks, The Mind Benders: A
Look at Current Cults, 121-53; Kim, Unification Theology
and Christian Thought. DAVID L. CUBIE

UNION WITH GOD. See mysticism.

UNITARIANISM. This is self-described as "a free faith for the modern mind"; "a faith that will help you develop the religion that is within you . .. [not] . .. the ready-made 'religion of a church.'" While committed to "staunch noncreedalism," its core concept is of a God with single rather than Trinitarian personality or being. Clustering about this concept are certain key emphases: a non-dogmatic approach to religion so that the per­sonal beliefs of its clergy and laity run the gamut of liberalism; a commitment to humanism with a theistic tinge—"salvation by character"; tolerance toward other religions; exaltation of reason; ad­vocacy of religious and civil liberty; eager, un­critical acceptance of science.

They differ sharply whether they should be characterized as Christian. Example: "All of us in the liberal church are basically Christian"; but "Christianity is a religion whose adherents sub­scribe to an essential core of doctrine which no Unitarian Universalist . .. would accept." Their denials include belief in the Trinity, Jesus as di­vine, original sin, eternal damnation, virgin birth of Christ, infallibility of the Bible, miracles, and vicarious atonement. They possess no binding statement of belief. Private judgment in matters of faith and morals is supreme.

Unitarians are found in various Protestant pul­pits and pews. Those openly committed are to be found mostly in the 1961 merger of Unitarians and Universalists in the Unitarian Universalist Association.

See SOCINIANISM, CHRISTIANITY, TRINITY (THE HOLY), ORTHODOXY HERESY UNIVERSALISM.

For Further Reading: Mead, Handbook of Denomina-
tions (4th ed.), 208-12. LLOYD H. KNOX

UNITY. Unity is to be distinguished from oneness, since oneness may be a fact of experience, while unity is a spiritual and intangible quality of har­mony which should inhere in the oneness. While unity is hard to define, its absence in any social unit is easily recognized. The parts of an engine may all be present and share in a common one­ness in the sense that they all belong to the same engine; yet if unity is lacking, we say the engine is not performing properly. So in marital rela­tionship, cohabitation creates oneness but does not guarantee unity (Matt. 19:5; 1 Cor. 6:16). Similarly, Christians are one in Christ—they are actually members of the one body—yet they may be emotionally divided.

Therefore unity is a virtue to which Christians are exhorted (Eph. 4:3, 13; Phil. 1:27; 2:2). The prayer of Christ for the unity of believers (John 17:20-22) has been misconstrued by ecumenists to provide authority for calling for a single church and for branding all denominational sep-arateness as sin. But the unity for which Jesus prayed was spiritual, a true oneness with each other based on a true oneness with the Triune God. The context shows that such a oneness finds its reality not in external uniformity or con­formity but in personal sanctification. It is holi­ness which unites; carnality divides (1 Cor. 3:1-3). Changing denominational labels does not change hearts.

The achievement and preservation of unity re­quires humility, unselfishness, and fervent love. But these are the constituent elements of biblical holiness.

See IMITATION OF CHRIST, SEVEN CARDINAL VIRTUES,

In the 16th century Socinus laid the founda­tion for the doctrine's revival. Against Calvinist doctrines of election and atonement, Socinus ar­gued for God's universal forgiveness because of Jesus' death and resurrection.

Universalism became an organized movement in America about 1800. A leader, Hosea Ballou, asserted that Christ's death conveyed moral, not legal, force over sin. A general conference was established by 1866. Adherents numbered under 100,000 at most. Under various rationalistic in­fluences (and because of inner inconsistencies, its critics charged) the movement lost its Socinian foundation. The movement merged with the Unitarians in 1961 and no longer claims to be a Christian denomination.

"Universalism" should not be confused with "universal salvation," which signifies that Christ died for all—that is, every person of every kind in every nation—although any may reject Him. The Quaker, Robert Barclay, used the phrase "the universal and saving light," whereas the Ar-minian, John Wesley, used the term "prevenient grace" to describe the universal character of sal­vation. The divine witness antecedent to, or even independent of, outward hearing of the gospel, they asserted, is more than a condemnation for sin. For the faithful it is Christ's saving light.

Scholars such as C. S. Lewis and Charles Wil­liams, while acknowledging God's respect for human freedom (including eternal punishment), urge Christians to yearn for the salvation of all, and warn against limiting the freedom of God who is unwilling that any should perish. Yet God in the Scriptures declares the moral bases of sal­vation and gives no indication that these will ever be set aside to accommodate the impenitent. The fundamental tenet of universalism, viz., that every heavenly or human person must in the end be saved, is expressly repudiated in the Scrip­tures.

See unitarianism, socinianism, probation, eter­nal punishment, impenitence, freedom.

Probably no question was as significant to the Scholastics of the 9th to the 14th centuries as the degree to which universals are real. Interest in the matter waned after Aristotle was received into Christian orthodoxy in the 12th and 13th centuries, during which times such theologians as Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas en­gaged themselves most especially with amal­gamating Aristotle with orthodoxy. But while interest in universals waned at that time, univer­sals still is, and always will be, an important matter for theologians and philosophers to con­sider.

See realism, realism and nominalism, realism in theology.

For Further Reading: Suarez, On Formal and Universal Unity; Landesman, The Problem of Universals.

J. Kenneth Grider

UNLIMITED ATONEMENT. See atonement

UNPARDONABLE SIN. Much misunderstanding has surrounded the so-called unpardonable sin. The misunderstanding has grown up in part through incorrect interpretations of a few iso­lated passages of Scripture; in part, too, no doubt, due to an excessive zeal to secure an im­mediate response to the gospel in evangelistic services.

This sin no doubt consists of a repeated and willful attributing to demons the work of the Holy Spirit. This is what Mark 3:28-30 suggests, where we read, '"All the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blas­phemes against the Holy Spirit will never be for­given; he is guilty of an eternal sin.' He said this because they were saying, 'He has an evil spirit'" (Niv). This sin, of saying an "evil spirit" accom-

Some people use Isa. 63:10 to teach that God will refuse to forgive some people, where we read: "Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy and he himself fought against them" (NIV). Adam Clarke is no doubt correct when he suggests that this turning to become their enemy, on God's part, is a reference to the Last Judgment—when probation is past.

Some people feel that 1 John 5:16 refers to the "unpardonable sin," where we read, "There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that" (Niv). This more likely refers to a sin which carries the death penalty in civil law. We are not necessarily to pray that the civil law's penalty will be alleviated, although God might, of course, forgive a person of such.

Since a repeated and knowing attributing to demons what the Holy Spirit does is unpar­donable only from man's standpoint instead of God's, the most important thing to remember about the unpardonable sin is that anyone who fears that he has committed it, and is concerned about the matter, hasn't.

See SIN, REPENTANCE, FORGIVENESS, APOSTASY.

For Further Reading: Carter, The Person and Ministry

One's system of values determines the choices he makes, the things he appreciates and strives for. It guides a person's course of action, and so it determines one's general pattern of behavior.

While it is an empirical fact that all people live by values, there is considerable difference of opinion as to what the basic values for living are. For the Christian, values are not individualistic and subjective. For him the rule or standard for making value judgments is God himself, the highest of all values. The key, therefore, for de­veloping a Christian system of values is found in Jesus' words: "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" (Matt. 6:33).

This reference to the Gospel suggests that the Bible provides the basis for a doctrine of Chris­tian values. In the OT the Book of Proverbs, for example, gives guidance for discriminating among values. It points out that the way of wis­dom in every area of life is found in the fear of the Lord. A NT principle is that persons are al­ways of much greater value than things (Luke 12:6-7; Matt. 6:25-26; 16:26; Mark 8:36-37).

The frequent use of the Greek term axios in the NT further suggests a basis for establishing a standard of values. It is usually translated "worthy," "counted worthy," or "worthily." In such passages as Phil. 1:27 and 2 Thess. 1:11, for instance, Paul indicates concern that his readers may in God's sight be living worthy of the gospel to which they have been called. Another passage of this type is Matt. 10:37-38.

Some of the fundamental human values about which the Bible speaks are: bodily health and care, recreation, home and family, education, work, and the trilogy: the beautiful, the good, and the true.

In the light of what the Bible teaches, the Christian assigns value to anything, abstract and concrete, in relation and in proportion to its worth in bringing glory to God and in advancing His kingdom among men. Anything which does not have potential for glorifying God is not to be considered valuable and should, in fact, be dis-valued.

Even with this criterion, every Christian may

See axiology, truth, maturity discipline, disci­pleship, values clarification.

The values clarification approach utilizes stra­tegies designed to help the student learn to: (1) choose his values freely; (2) choose his values from alternatives; (3) choose his values after con­sideration of the consequences of the alterna­tives; (4) prize and cherish his values; (5) publicly affirm his values; (6) act upon his values; and (7) act upon his values consistently. Many strategies have been developed, utilizing interviews de­signed to draw out values, values games, hypo­thetical values dilemmas, creative writing on personal values, personal goals inventories, or­dering various lists according to priorities, etc.

While many of the suggested strategies can be useful in helping individuals to become aware of their values as well as alternatives, the weakness of the system is found in its root of humanism. While purporting to be not concerned with the content of values, the system itself is a statement of humanistic values and can be a subtle tool in promoting those values. The system begins with man and relativity and rises no further. Values clarification encourages children (who have the least amount of experience upon which to base their judgments) to choose their values without any reference to values and attitudes that have stood the test of time, let alone to God and re­vealed truth. The values clarification approach presupposes that man himself (even the juvenile) is capable not only of choosing his values, but that it is proper to create one's values strictly with reference to oneself.

See values, axiology, humanism, stewardship.

The holy of holies, behind the veil, was en­tered only once each year by the high priest who presented an offering of blood for his own sin and for the sins of the people. The veil was also used to wrap the ark of testimony when the Tab­ernacle was in transit (Num. 4:5).

Matthew and Mark report that at the time of Jesus' death this veil in the Temple was "torn in two, from top to bottom" (Matt. 27:51, rsv; cf. Mark 15:38-39). The writer of Hebrews sees the veil as a symbol of Christ's "flesh," the rending of which opened the way for all believers into the holiest—the immediate presence and grace of God (Heb. 6:19-20; 10:19-20).

In 2 Cor. 3:12-18 the apostle Paul uses "veil" as a symbol for that which prevents a thing from being clearly understood. Referring to the veil Moses wore following his encounter with God on Mount Sinai (Exod. 34:29-35), he declares that when the Israelites read the old covenant "that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away" (v. 14, rsv). It is in turning to Christ that the veil is lifted; then, with "unveiled face" we are enabled to behold the glory of the Lord and to be "changed into his likeness" (v. 18, rsv).

It is quite possible to speak of God's presence during the OT time period as somewhat "veiled." The inner sanctuary of the Temple was covered by the veil. However, in the NT the veil is rent, and we see the glory or self-revelation of God in the person of Christ.



VENGEANCE—VICTORY, VICTORIOUS LIVING

539


See holy of holies, day OF atonement

Don W. Dunnington VENGEANCE. See revenge. VERBAL INSPIRATION. See inspiration of the

bible.

VICARIOUS. This is a theological term. While the term is not in the Bible, the concept is biblical. It is especially appropriate as descriptive of Christ's death. Vicarious defines an act as performed, re­ceived, or suffered on behalf of another person, so that the benefits of the act accrue to that per­son. In biblical theology, it is most often used in reference to Christ's death, as being for us, on our behalf, or in our stead.

More than two dozen specific biblical texts support this understanding of Calvary. In John 10:11 Jesus himself declared to His disciples, '"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep'" (niv). That is to say, He gives His life for the sake of theirs. Later, at the Last Supper, Jesus described His blood as "shed for many" (Mark 14:24) and His body as "given for you" (Luke 22:19). Also, 1 Pet. 3:18 depicts Christ's death for sins as "the righteous for the unrighteous" (niv); and 1 Tim. 2:6 de­clares His self-sacrifice "a ransom for all men" (niv).

In spite of the fact that substitution is inherent in the concept of vicarious, many contemporary interpreters resist the designation of Christ's death as substitutionary. But a careful study of the Greek preposition huper (translated by "for" in the texts cited above) supports the traditional view. A. T. Robertson affirms: huper commonly means "in behalf of," "for one's benefit"; but of­ten it further conveys the notion "instead" as a resultant idea, "and only violence to the context can get rid of it" (Grammar, 631).

Christ died not only in our behalf, but in our stead. He became accursed in our stead (Gal. 3:13); He died in our place (Rom. 5:6-8). That is to say, His death is vicarious. It holds crucial sig­nificance and meaning for us.

See atonement sin offering, cross, cruci­fixion, governmental theory of the atonement.

For Further Reading: Ladd, Theology of NT, 426-28; Robertson, Grammar of the Greek NT, 630-32.