The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Facts to be Considered by All Full Preterists

I fully agree! When it comes to the tribulation and the Zombie Apocalypse .

  • If it didn’t happen around 70 AD, with a conspiracy to cover it up.

  • And if we should interpret folks having these visions as literal, rather than symbolical - of a deeper meaning.

  • And if I’m stuck here when it happens…akin to being in the AMC shows, The Walking Dead and Fear The Walking Dead.

Thne I’ll probably be singing the song at Eddie Rabbit “Driving My Life Away”. This will “definitely move me.” :wink:

“One thing I’ve found… the road rarely rises up to meet you until you’ve begun walking.”-- Michele Jennae

Good news Randy… I can put your active mind to rest — there was absolutely NO zombie apocalypse relative to the AD70 parousia, and thus no conspiratorial cover up.

You may however have a case for AD30, as per…

Mt 27 51:53 Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.)


I was only asking if you think that God reconciled Himself to the world through the work of Christ?
Step 1. If we differ at this point, that would be interesting.

Well as you’ve seen some will quibble over the semantics of who to who, but in short and quite SIMPLY as Paul states, and I can think of no other way… “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself”, period. And as I’ve noted elsewhere… Paul’s following imploring is SIMPLY the invitation if you will to step fully into the blessedness of that reality, which is where the likes of repentance and faith come into play.

Let me put it another way… those ascribed as being “in Adam” did NOTHING to be so placed in him, i.e., they didn’t need to acknowledge, confession nor believe in Adam — it was a unilateral imposition. Likewise, those ascribed as being “in Christ” did NOTHING to be so placed in him — such placement ON BEHALF OF ALL was the sole work of the Father and Son alone.

Repentance and faith are matters of responding to the call of God in terms of service to Him… that’s a different matter. However, the UNILATERAL work of reconciliation to where God in his amazing grace CHOSE to no longer hold to man’s charge that which stood over and against him, i.e., their trespasses, is what Paul speaks of in this passage.

I’m ok if you’re not buying this deal Dave, but it is the stark difference between my position (pantelism) and that of universalism… to me it is uncomplicated without any attempt at explaining away supposed difficult verses — it’s NOT difficult IMO, but that’s me.

1 Like

Thanks again davo for a thoughtful answer; and as usual you make good points, most of which I agree with.
I do have a concern about humanity being ‘in Christ’. Being ‘in Adam’ - well we’ve seen empirical evidence of that., alas. But if we say that in the SAME way all are now ‘in Christ’ - not so much. In fact the entire tenor of both testaments is God calling for change, big change, right now.
I’ll get back later after I give it a little more time.

If we understand that reconciling means “to bring back to a former state of harmony,” then, yes, God DID need to do something to reconcile the world to Himself. Our state of harmony was broken with God when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit at the serpent’s suggestion, and we couldn’t fix it. But God told the serpent that He himself would fix it, by sending Jesus: "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” Gen. 3:15.

As I mentioned to DaveB,

But God’s successful effort at reconciliation through his Son was not because He was angry with us, and needed to be appeased. (See, Is God Bloodthirsty? )

The two sides to the “returning to harmony” are: 1) God to us, and, 2) us to God:

  1. That God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 2 Cor. 5:19.

  2. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 2 Cor 5:20b.

So I fully agree with Davo here:

—yet I am still both a futurist, and an evangelical universalist :soccer:.

I think you overlooked what I actually asked: My question read:
“Most sources stress that God did not need to be reconciled to the world. Do you agree?”

I didn’t ask if we needed to be reconciled to God; that was going to be the next point.
But this first point was; Did GOD need to be reconciled TO US?

What are your thoughts on that question?

That’s the burning question! Very good, Dave. I certainly agree that God does not need to be reconciled to us. He does not change! It is we who must change, and thereby be reconciled to Him. In the Scripture, it’s all about being reconciled to God. Not one word about God being reconciled to us.

I referred to this matter earlier in this thread and, of course, Davo responded with one of his usual putdowns:

I’m not saying I disagree… BUT as I’ve already asked, can you share these so-called “sources” of yours?

Did GOD need to be reconciled TO US?” — NO… God being above all didn’t need anything. BUT this is a bit of a red herring question IN RELATION TO Paul’s words being discussed here BECAUSE Paul wasn’t even saying this. Paul said… “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself…

The question you’ve raised reflects a typically shallow theology that refuses to accept Paul’s words as is, i.e., that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself — and so seeks to explain away what is right there in front of your eyes, right there in the text — and this is done BECAUSE the plain text threatens and undermines this weak theology.


Actually davo, I see the text also. My question over and over has been - what does it mean?
God did not need to be reconciled to the world. Is anything plainer than that?
The text is one thing, the context is another. As you know. The question I was asking was about the larger context. It is not a shallow question; if you would just listen.
The question gets to the heart of all atonement ‘theories’. Was Christ offered as expiation or propitiation? Did he die to satisfy an angry Father, who just HAD to punish somebody?? That would be propitiation.
Or was the death of Christ expiation - dealing with mankind’s sin?
Was His sacrifice dealing with wrath or with sin?
Perhaps you cannot see why this is important, because your very strong theology has already answered it. But not to my satisfaction.
Weak, quotha!

Maybe, just maybe, you are looking at this in a different way… Let’s say that history happened. Christ came and was born of a virgin and lived and was crucified, and like the prophets said he arose from the dead three days later. Israel was redeemed and mankind was delivered. So, is this not great news? We can be exasperated with different idea’s about what Christ has done.

Ideas about atonement theories are just that… theories.

Pick your flavor and have at it.

Hope all is well.


All is well, thanks.
But the fact is that the facts aren’t enough! I do believe in each of the historical things you mentioned - but why is it good news?
There is an entire context that tells us why it is - Scripture. And scripture speaks of atonement, and of reconciliation. Again, those facts are not enough! We have to understand them, and because they are not perfectly clear, explanations will differ.

Ah - you were editing while I was writing. Still, my post here stays the same.
I’m happy that you are happy with your theory!

That is hard to deal with. Gotta have facts :smile:

No question of that; gotta have facts.

Dave… I wish I could answer as bluntly as you bluntly ask without you taking it all personally.

YES… it’s ABSOLUTELY plain — the text DOESN’T even raise your suggestion/question that “God did not need to be reconciled to the world” AT ALL… so why keep raising it?

Put simply Dave, YES or NO… do you believe “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself”? What thereafter might be the consequences of your belief in how THAT shapes the rest of your theology.

Well, I’ve got a few smarts but I’m no mind-reader… I didn’t realise you had all that in mind when you raised your query over the 2Cor 5:19 issue. Perhaps you can explain how/why apparently believing that “God did not need to be reconciled to the world” is relevant to this text WHEN the text doesn’t lend itself to that, OR how your questions above relate to… “God did not need to be reconciled to the world”??

Yepper, and perhaps the problem is in the way we perceive what scripture is saying. If we look at it (scripture) as in speaking to us here and now, it will be a big difference to believing who scripture was written to talking to folks back then, and working out the ramifications that paradigm means.

That’s it in a nutshell. We choose our POV based on lots of factors.
Faith has many roots, but minimizing what to another person is critical to their understanding of ultimate things, threatens the whole tree of their life.The metaphor is getting away from me…

In any case, when we are dealing with human beings, we are dealing not with creatures of logic, but rather creatures of emotion. I reckon we just have to live with that.

Yes, but the question is, what does that mean. Even if one tells oneself & says a million times that it says the world (all mankind) was already reconciled & forgiven (for all time & eternity) at the cross in 30 AD, that doesn’t make it so. Though it is said if one tells a lie enough times, one may actually come to believe it is truth.

Another thought is that reconciliation in 2 Cor.5:19-20 is considered by Paul as an “ongoing process” (p.256 of TDNT, Vol.1). The “phrase ήν καταλλασσων in 2 C. 5:19 does not denote a concluded work: “He was present to reconcile the world to Himself”; when and where this work will be concluded is not brought under consideration in 2 C. 5:19-20. For this reason we should not draw from the fact that Paul thinks of the world as the object of reconciliation the deduction that reconciliation for him consists exclusively in the removal of the relationship of guilt between man and God, since the world as a whole is not a new creation etc. This would amount to saying that what Paul explicitly calls the ministry of reconciliation and the self-reconciliation of man forms no part of reconciliation. Paul does not say that the world is reconciled (καταλλαγεις). The reconciliation of the world is as little finished as the απoβoγή of the Jews. Both have begun in the cross of Christ, and both are in the course of fulfillment (–> 258). We can call the world reconciled in the Pauline sense only as we anticipate the execution of that which is present in the purpose of God and in the foundation” (p.257, Friedrich Buchsel, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol.1).

“The compound of “was” and the participle “reconciling,” instead of the imperfect (Greek), may also imply the continuous purpose of God, from before the foundation of the world, to reconcile man to Himself, whose fall was foreseen.” [Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary]

Unlike yourself… I would never dare infer the Apostle Paul ‘tells a lie’; I simply believe his words as given… but that’s my choice and you’ve made yours.

Again, Paul is pretty clear elsewhere as to the WHEN and WHERE this said reconciliation IS brought under consideration, in terms of verses 19-20…

Col 1:19-20 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

Yep… it is truly astounding the lengths some will stretch in their vain unbelief thereby nullifying the word of God.

And the lengths some will go to not to share what ‘reconciliation’ means.