The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Should we form universalist congregations?

I would not join any group that condoned self-destructive behaviors. Sexual immorality causes immense destruction. Condoning such behavior is tantamount to condoning (for example) meth addiction or Russian roulette. In each case “tolerant acceptance and love” equals death. Actual love says, “Buddy, you are standing way too close to the edge of that cliff. You need to back away, now, or you’ll fall to your death!”

Mixing sexual immorality with heretical Christianity goes way, way back. Some of the Gnostics engaged in sexual immorality as part of their worship service. At least one sect of Gnosticism in their worship services partook of “sperma-communion”. Yes, it’s what you think it is.

The Orthodox Church takes I Corinthians 5 as the standard as to what to do with a notoriously sexually immoral member. (I say “notoriously” because how could one ever know if someone kept his immoralities secret?) Such a one cannot take communion until he has left his sin.

There is all the difference in the world between a humble, penitent sinner on the one hand, and a brazen sinner who thinks his sin is not sin, and who thinks the Church is bad for labeling his sin as sin.

You are right, but the problem you have is that we somehow think God’s Spirit is somehow applicable to us and not others, so, we look at someone’s detestable position and say we will not fellowship with you if you… fill in the blank. :unamused: But as I see what the Gospel message is, everyone has the law of love written on their hearts and on their minds… they are struggling :confused: to find what God wants them to be. Not unlike many of us in many other area’s. :smiley:

You don’t seem to understand, God did the work of reconciliation, in spite of us, and that though some will not recognize that gift, it does not make it any less actual. To say you have to repent, is to put a condition on the Christ’s cross. You may well be willing to do that, but I am not. I stand with what Christ has done for humanity. Hard hearts to the contrary! :cry:

John the Baptizer understood the necessity of repentance. It was his main message:

Jesus the Messiah understood the necessity of repentance. It was his main message:

Peter understood the necessity of Repentance. It was the essence of his message to the Jews who were responsible for Jesus’ death:

Peter also said to the men of Israel:

Peter also indicated that the alternative to perishing, is to repent.

Paul understood the necessity of repentance:

Yes Paidion, we have been trough this before. My contention is that Christ secured the reconciliation that God intended to all in spite of us. This is the love you tout continually, (but you say with a condition,) Unfortunately, you can not get to this point without doing something yourself, which is a form of legalism, so trading proof texts for the next few years will do neither of us any good, though I will continue in hopes that seekers will see that there is a alternative to your legalistic tendencies.

Anyone with a smidgen of intellect, can search these forum post’s and figure out the different positions.

Enough said.

Peace

Chad

And having said that, Everything you quoted was about the Coming judgment/destruction of Israel in 70AD.

If you cannot accept the statements of John the Baptizer, Jesus, Peter, and Paul said about the necessity of repentance, then I guess there’s not much that can be said that will help you to understand their teaching about its necessity. Were they all legalists?

Stating that “doing something yourself” is a form of legalism seems to be merely your private opinion, so that you can feel secure in doing nothing, whereas Paul writes, “Working together with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain.” (2 Corinthians 6:1). We may think we can receive God’s grace without coöperating with Him, but it will be all in vain.

Legalism is related to legislation. One dictionary definition is:

I see no way that “doing something yourself” is a focus on written law to the exclusion of the intent of law, elevating strict adherence to law over justice, mercy, grace and common sense. “Doing something yourself” has no relevance whatever to law or legislation.

So you added the statement that my quotes were all about the destruction of Israel in A.D. 70. Is that the way a preterist dismisses any passages with which he disagrees?

Paidion said

Well, your sarcasm aside, I don’t see it as a dismissal at all.

Here is how N T Wright makes these arguments in his book Simply Good News:

Your Idea of repentance and the *way you take what was being said out of context *is in my view a flaw, because you take what is being said to folks 2000 years ago and trying to shoehorn it into a modern scenario, and as someone said, 'It just aint gonna work!"

I will agree, every Christian WILL REPENT, that is have a change of heart that will ultimately, change their life. But this repentance is a result of an understanding in what Christ did and not a condition to getting there.

Your use of the account of act 2:38 is a prime example, What is always left out by the legalist is the fact that preaching took place, (acts 2:16- 2:36) and if we read acst 2:37 " Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”

We see that they “were pierced to the heart…” So and understanding of Christ came and was realized. Grace had done its job, the realization of who Christ is preceeded the need for repentance. Faith was established right then and there, and they knew in there heart that they needed to do something, so they asked and Peter told them to change and be baptized.

I’ll end with a short story that happened to me not long ago… I met a young man at the lumber yard. We chatted for a bit and the name of another young man came up, a man that had gotten into some very bad trouble. The young man looked at me and said “he (the man in trouble) needs to get himself saved” and the context was that the troubled man needed the Lord. But I was taken aback by the notion that he could some how save himself by saying a prayer or being dunked in the water or… repenting!

I maintain the Lord has already done His part at the cross, and what he did was complete. I also maintain that humans need to understand what Christ has done, not activate it by doing or saying something.

I’m sure this is not the last we’ll tangle about this, and I, quite frankly, understand your position because I was there at one time.

*Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; *

He has Justified all who are sinners, not by repentance, but by grace through Christ’s redemptive act at the cross.

Peace

Chad :smiley:

And I ask this sincerely, “what difference does that make?” :confused:

No, he’s not. He’s a P-Zombie positional person. See

or

youtube.com/watch?v=vggzqXzEvZ0

However, I have incorporated his position and that of the** Left Behind **series, and extended it to Universalism. I showed how - during the tribulation - we would have a world like AMC’s Walking Dead, both on earth and in Hades. Then Christ will come to reconcile the remaining humans and P-Zombies. :laughing:

I think I should dedicate a Zombie love song - to this theory. :exclamation: :laughing:

or

youtube.com/watch?v=YCVMuevcCvY

Here’s also a link to how P-Zombies, fit into Universalism at P-Zombies and Universalism. It’s every bit as sound, as someone presenting a position of hard theological determinism and universalism - for example.

http://b.dryicons.com/images/icon_sets/handy_icons_set/png/128x128/up_arrow.png

Certainly they weren’t “legalists”. The statements regarding “repentance” needs to be seen in their setting of ‘covenant renewal’ i.e., Israel’s covenant renewal… and then in terms of “men everywhere” (Acts 17:30) who Israel as ‘the people of God’ were to represent.

The “works of repentance” were NOT something required in terms of passing through or meeting a requirement to enter true life beyond the grave, but were what was required of those CALLED into divine service ON BEHALF OF those from among whom they were called or “saved” –– thus from a pantelist perspective saved to serve; NOT saved to finally get into heaven as usually taught. This is why Jesus said… “many are called but few are chosen”.

The typical Calvinist-type understanding sees the few (the elect) as called or saved to Heaven with the bulk of humanity sent to hell. The biblical pattern however is that the few minister deliverance (salvation) ON BEHALF OF the whole. In OT days this was best demonstrated in the whittling down of Gideon’s elect men… warriors who were select of God to bring deliverance (salvation) to or ON BEHALF OF the greater whole. In Jesus’ day this was the work of the firstfruit saints following Jesus’ lead… ON BEHALF OF the greater whole, Israel. These then were they with the imprimatur to demonstrate works worthy of their calling.

The current conversation in this thread began with qaz disapproving of a church that taught that homosexual sex is a good thing.

Is anyone here saying that churches should indeed teach that homosexual sex is a good thing? God forbid.

But Zombie or P-Zombie, heterosexual sex - is a good thing. I think. :exclamation: :laughing:

Now I’m off to ponder a deep, philosophical question. Would zombies bother Frankenstein’s monster, or just leave him be :question: :laughing:

As long as the man and woman are married, yes. :slight_smile:

Heterosexual sex outside of marriage is as destructive as homosexual sex.

The single best book about sex I’ve ever read isn’t really about sex, though it is. (“Huh?”) It’s C. S. Lewis’s Perelandra. I agree with Lewis in thinking it his best book. (Well, to be precise, he held it and Till We Have Faces to be his two best books.)

Well, here is qaz’s original statement

So my questions are:

#1 If we love our neighbor as our self and our neighbor is involved in this lifestyle, wouldn’t we want them to come to church and hear the gospel?
#2 From our knowledge do we know that this church is teaching that homosexual sex is good, or that, being pro-LGBT, they merely allow those folks to come and worship without having to worry about their safety?

The church I attend is known in our community as the church where anyone can attend. Our focus is those with addiction problems. We have folks come to worship and bible study that are, to be honest, quite messed up. They are always welcome to stay as long as they don’t become too belligerent.

A couple years ago a man showed up at our church, started coming every week. Turns out he was a pedophile. He met with the pastor, told him his whole story. The church welcomed him. The pastors daughter, who had small children, was incensed, and left the church. This guy had been run out of nearly every other church in the area he had attended. On the day that he had to go to finally do his time in prison, we gathered around him and he cried and said that he was a changed man thanks to the church and wanted us to know we were the only ones that believed that he could change.

Having that man there, our church became fodder for the gossip crowd. The pastor even took his car to get it fixed once and some men sitting around the auto repair shop called him the ‘pedophile preacher.’

No we did not advertise that we are pro pedophile, but we did what we thought we had to do in love.

My point is that everyone needs a place to safely hear the gospel. :smiley:

#1: Yes.

#2: I’ve come across many “churches” that teach that homosexual sex is good. I’ve never come across a church in which members or visitors had to worry about their safety.

Hi qaz and Geoffrey,

Geoffrey said

Maybe you can get off your high orthodox horse and understand there are people who need help. Christ came for the sick and lame and lost of Israel, he was firm but compassionate. This is love. So those of us who 2000 years later, are confronted with the same things, we might well look to the Christ for how we are to deal with these issues.

Do neither of you possibly understand what emotional abuse is. They (your idea of sinner) are not SAFE when they don’t feel safe!! You don’t have to touch a person to intimidate them. Your body language, your looking away, your not being willing to extend your hand to them no matter what… :astonished: The spiritual effect of such abuse is not only brutal, but leaves, in some cases, everlasting scars. Scars that are hard to get past.

Unfortunately, In my opinion, much of Christianity is OH SO willing to inflict such wounds.

If any one needs to repent my friends, it is us Christians :exclamation:

Davo said:

So David, what in your estimation does that mean for 21st century Christians?

Hey Chad… :mrgreen:

I think it would be useful/healthy for “21st century Christians” to try and NOT reinvent the wheel in terms of God’s redemptive measures and simply live-out the reality of fulfillment in terms of… ‘witness’ (God has done it: WE don’t have to TRY and make it happen), ‘worship’ (thankful hearts: acknowledging His grace to all), ‘works’ (practice the golden rule: “love thy neighbour”).

Or let me put it like this as per… Witness – Worship – Works

From a fulfilled perspective… does God still call and move men’s hearts post Parousia? I believe He does, but NOT in terms of redemption from the sin as THAT has already been fulfilled on God’s level in Christ (Jn 1:29; Heb 9:26; 2Cor 5:19 et al). But if in terms of witness, worship and works then by all means YES, God can and does move peoples’ hearts in service of Him and to others.

Israel’s age of covenant fulfilment (AD30-70) did not negate the other or further workings of God. Such workings are clearly demonstrated in the bible through those who were NEVER under the likes of the Abrahamic covenants, old OR new. For example: 1) the Gentile king and priest Melchizedek (worship). 2) the Gentile messianic king Cyrus (witness). 3) the generous gentile Cornelius (works).

NONE of these are recorded as being part of “the covenant people of God” yet ALL performed the will and works of God in a more than affirmative ways under His hand of blessing.

Thanks for the input! :smiley: