The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Should we form universalist congregations?

I do not believe that safety is defined by feelings. I think of my wife’s Italian parents who as children lived for years in the war zone that was World War II. They had all the problems we have, plus invading Nazis, yet they are not shrinking violets afraid of their own feelings. I think the last thing contemporary Americans (or Europeans, or Australians, etc.) need is encouragement to be self-absorbed and touchy. Quite the contrary.

I do not believe that the Church is largely to blame for the sins of those outside the Church. The Church has been saying for ages to live lives of chastity. Those who do not live chastely suffer the ills of promiscuity. This is unavoidably true, even if God did not exist. One who plunges a knife into his arm will bleed, regardless of Calvary. What is the fruit of our society that insists upon sexual degeneracy, and that insists that calls for purity are unloving and wicked? Physical death (especially abortion), divorce, re-marriage, de facto polygamy, broken homes, ubiquitous pornography, heart-broken children, poverty, parents abandoning their calling, abandoned children, sexual abuse, venereal disease, etc. THAT is what breaks my heart. What we call “love and tolerance” is moral laxity, laziness, lack of love, and even contempt. Promiscuity hurts all it touches. It hurts the sinner. It hurts the sinner’s loved ones. It hurts society as a whole. It makes it more likely that children in our society will grow-up to be promiscuous, thus spreading and expanding the cycle of hate. Sex outside of marriage is hatred of both God and man.

Churches that do not stand against the tide of annihilating perversity have simply become “the Church of What’s Happening Now”, aping the secular culture, and they even stand guilty of self-righteousness. (“What wonderful Christians we are to approve of Mike having a live-in girlfriend! Unlike those awful, judgmental Christians over there who say that Mike shouldn’t be doing that.”)

One of the Orthodox Church’s most beloved saints is Saint Mary of Egypt. She lived a life of 17 years of unimaginable sexual perversity before repenting at age 29. She is venerated and glorified because of turning away from sin to holiness. She was never treated with kid gloves, nor did she ever bemoan the fact that somebody hurt her feelings, etc. Nor did she pretend that her life of sin wasn’t thoroughly repugnant and evil. Nor did she ever blame the Church for her prior sinfulness. She placed the blame squarely on herself, and nowhere else. I am guided by her example.

Was your first clause (“Maybe you can get off your high orthodox horse”) written with compassion and love? I have not observed any arrogance whatever in Geoffrey’s statements. Indeed, he demonstrated his humility by not answering you in kind.

I ask everyone’s forgiveness for such and outburst. You are so right.

Thank you for your response, Maintenance Man. I forgive you with all my heart (though you did nothing against me).

Well, I obviously have to say sorry to Geoffrey, though you brought it up but it was him that I cut. :smiley:

My apologies Geoffrey.!!

Groveling sucks.

But I am willing to put up with it if for no reason to somehow ignite you (I want to use the word Neanderthal’s but I won’t) to the idea that love is necessary to all. If you can learn to love without condition, you will really know what Christ’s love is.
Paidion, you need to grow up and realize that your idea of repentance is quite different than the Christ’s.

Geoffrey, you need to understand that there are people who need our help… They are in sin and need someone to talk to and worship with, even if we don’t agree with or condone their actions.

Enough said.

I have done my part, and spoken my piece,

Peace :smiley:

Chad :laughing: Love Wins!!!

Thank you very much. :slight_smile:

Paidion and I disagree on quite a lot of issues.* I would not say, however, that he needs to “grow up”. He reminds me so much of George MacDonald that I hate it when I have to disagree with him. He is the better man.

*At the same time I learn a great deal from him. His translations of the Greek words (which are typically translated as “eternal” and as “punishment”) as “lasting” and as “correction” have given me great light and joy. I can never repay him for that.

They use wine and unleavened bread. Here is the reasoning:

In the New Testament, leaven (yeast) was considered to be a symbol of evil or falsehood.

"How is it that you fail to understand that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (Matt 16:11,12)

So we use unleavened bread to symbolize the Bread of Life (Jesus) in whom is no evil or falsity.
Similarly we use unleavened wine. Wine symbolizes the blood of Christ which is pure and gives life. In the preparation of wine, all yeast settles to the bottom as dregs, and the pure unleavened wine is skimmed off the top. Grape juice contains yeast cells that has fallen into it from the air.

I must point out, that we don’t consider the communion to be only symbolic, but also to be a sacrament (a means of grace).

Well… it is the Greek word “μετανοια” (metanoia) that is translated as “repentance.”
The word is made up of the prefix “μετα” (meta) which often means “change” and “νους” (nous) which means “mind.”
In English, “metamorphosis” (derived from Greek) means “change of form.” For example, it applies to a caterpillar changing into a butterfly.
The Online Bible Program defines “μετανοια” as “a change of mind.” So does the NASB Greek lexicon. So does the G.Abbott-Smith lexicon.
Strongs Greek lexicon defines the verbal form as “to think differently.”
Louw & Nida define the verbal form as “To change one’s way of life as a result of a complete change of thought and attitude with regard to sin and righteousness.”

So are all these experts (some of whom have doctorate degrees) all wrong, while you, MM, are right?
Do they all need to “grow up” whereas you are the only mature one who understands Christ’s use of the word?

I think this quote above shines a good bit of light as to HOW things are handled in evangelical thought. Repentance IS unquestionably linked “with regard to sin and righteousness” – BUT NOT exclusively so, and the problem is, as I see it… “repentance” is NOT the sole property of “sin and righteousness”. Even in both Testaments sometimes the injunction to ‘repent’ is in regard to sparing one’s self from impending destruction and that a change of mind leading to changed behaviour would avoid certain calamity; and this quite apart from the notion of “repenting from sin/s” etc. Here’s a good example:

In this instance their potential to “perish” has nothing to do with sin per se but rather, their stubborn-mindedness (Mt 27:25) in refusing to hear Israel’s prophet i.e., Jesus, and consequently the price they would come to pay for not heeding his warnings… and thus change their minds (repent) and live.

I read somewhere in N.t. Wright that the word ‘repent’ was used in a secular sense, when a conqueror would implore the conquered to 'repent, and trust in me". The connotation was obviously not related to moral sin as such.

I agree, Davo, that “with regard to sin and righteousness” is not actually a part of the definition (though examples of “repentance” often involve a change of mind concerning sin). The essence of the meaning is “a change of mind.” I like to define it as “a change of heart and mind” (though I admit that “a change of heart” is not actually part of the meaning.)

That’s interesting Dave and certainly fits with Wright’s notion that “Jesus is Lord” as opposed to “Caesar is Lord” as being a political statement. This is kind of backed up by this interesting quote on Acts 4:12

Found HERE.

I don’t know Paidion, I don’t think that’s an unreasonable reading because any significant (genuine) “change of mind” is going to affect a “change of heart” which can only be seen in its accordant “change of behaviour” – secular or religious for that matter.

The key there qaz, is **not **what others think - what do you think? And the only way you can have an informed opinion - regarding a church - is to visit it (i.e. ask questions, observe, listen, watch, etc.).

My understanding of ‘change of heart’ is in part inspired by J B Phillips rendering of the word. He maintained that from his perspective, the heart is where conviction lies within us. :smiley:

I would look for what is called a “Continuing Anglican church”:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuin … n_movement

In short, the Continuing Anglicans have continued with the faith of C. S. Lewis.

The mainstream Anglican church, in contrast, has become the Church of Anything Goes. I do not think they have excommunicated anyone since before I was born. (I’m 46 years old.) Amongst other things they have:

bishops who deny that Jesus Christ rose from the dead
priestesses
widespread acceptance of abortion, homosexuality, fornication, divorce, etc.
widespread acceptance of every theological deviance you can imagine (denial of the Virgin Birth, denial of the deity of Christ, etc.)

Out of all the western forms of Christianity, historic Anglicanism is the closest to Orthodoxy. As such, I am deeply distressed by the deep inroads of rank heresy within the church that C. S. Lewis and George MacDonald used to attend. At least the Continuing Anglicans are keeping the torch alight.

I am an Anglo-Orthodox Traditionalist (AKA Anglo-Catholic and Continuing Anglican movement, with an Eastern Orthodox twist). That’s the one I like. In the words of Wiki: :smiley:

Holy Fool, a few questions for you:

  1. Do you attend a Continuing Anglican parish? Are these parishes very easy to find, or are they somewhat rare?

  2. What are your beliefs regarding the veneration of the Theotokos, the saints, and the orders of angels?