The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Facts to be Considered by All Full Preterists

Theology Eschatology
#352

We read in the ESV:

…you have been filled in him…

That little Greek word “εν” does not always mean “in.” It sometimes means “with.”
Perhaps it should be translated, “You are filled with Him.” But to be filled with Christ does not imply that we are sinless. If we are not sinless, then we are not complete.

Paul indicates that the good work that God is doing in us, is a process, and will be completed in the day of Christ after He returns:

Philippians 1:6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

#353

Hermano, yes, Jesus did it all. He was complete in God because he walked according to the Spirit and was obedient to His word.

No. We aren’t complete in Jesus until we walk according to the Spirit, as he did. Hebrews 6:12 says “Imitate those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.”

#354

Yepper he loves em all

No, we are still the free will creatures he meant us to be

You keep contradicting your self. Those who by grace have been saved by faith is merely an acknowledgement of what our God did through the messiah, to his people, and thus to the nations as a whole.

When someone realizes that God has done a great deed in their life, they become… well maybe grateful and want to tell others and their life is changed and their outlook becomes better. They become part of the solution as opposed to part of the problem.

Simple but complex… :neutral_face:

#355

Faith is merely an acknowledgement? Scripture seems to associate it with such things as repentance, confession & freewill & oppose it to things such as being stubborn & an - evil - heart of unbelief. Compare:

4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? 5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

#356

MM - I don’t think that I am contradicting myself, at least in this case. What I wrote makes, I believe, all the sense in the world.
Might it be that…hmmm…we see things differently? :slight_smile:

#357

Let’s go this at a different way,

Those who have been changed by grace there and then where those who were there. :neutral_face:
You continue to push the verbiage of the NT to mean US as in you and me.

And that is alright, but I contend that the NT verbiage has little to do with us. ‘You and me here’.

But that is the big overcomer to at least possibly consider if you want to realize the possibility of a different view.

#358

Yep, that’s where we differ.
And another difference - I don’t have a need to see things differently. I’m always open to being challenged, but it takes a lot to move me.
Bless you my brother!!

#359


Love you man

#360

Dave, to take a step back for a moment… what exactly are you assuming (apparently to you) this “attitude” entailed? Whatever you are possibly thinking his attitude was, HOW are you thinking such didn’t or hasn’t changed? Again, what are you conceiving this to be?

#361

I’m not that deep, davo.
My only concern was/is - I cannot get a good answer - and I’ve been looking around - as to the nature of the reconciliation in question.
Most sources stress that God did not need to be reconciled to the world. Do you agree?
That’s the first step I’d like to see get cleared up.
Then we could go on from there. Thanks for taking the time to consider it!

#362

Ok… so this is where you have me confused. You have a or the primary source, i.e., the very words of Paul — and without any other source influencing otherwise, reads quite directly, as per the actual text.

So WHY appeal to lesser or IMO inferior sources? And… WHO are these sources and on what grounds are you giving them superiority over Paul and his rather straightforward claim? AND IF you are saying it’s not straightforward… is it the text that apparently indicates this or some other “authority” you are measuring the Scripture by?

#363

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

#364

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.)

:open_mouth:

#365

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.

#366

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
#367

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.

#368

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:.

#369

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?

#370

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:

#371

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.

:face_with_raised_eyebrow: