The Evangelical Universalist Forum

No Sin — a paradigm shift

Here is an interesting presentation on Paul’s take on law, sin and death

The parable of the unforgiving servant, parable of the sheep and goats, “Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom”… It’s clear to be that unethical behavior is sin.

How much of the video session did you watch :question:

None. I know what Presence teaches.

When Jesus said the things I mentioned, do you think he winked and told his disciples in unrecorded statements that he didn’t actually mean them?

It might be better to raise your first issue relative to your second post in some other thread given you aren’t interested in viewing the material germane to this thread.

I think any attempt to claim nothing a person does, no matter how unethical, is sin, is unbiblical.

That’s fine, but your statement isn’t pertinent to this thread…

Isn’t the idea that there is no sin one of the pillars of Presence?

:face_with_raised_eyebrow:

So he believes that all sin is "coveting ‘God identity’ ".
I think his justification for this fundamental belief of his is extremely weak. All I can surmise is that, if he really believes that sin is coveting God-identity, then for him, it must bear some truth, ie he sees that failing in his own heart (he desires to be God). I see no reason for him to project that universally but it may explain his need to throw out 2000 years of Christianity to produce (out of his own mind) something better.

1 Like

From my understanding, the folks at Presence are simply re formatting or in a better term looking at scripture outside the views held for centuries by Christians.

If you look at Paul as an Apostle to the first century Christians, then yes, much of the ‘idea of sin’ is relevant. If you look at Paul as an Apostle to unending ages of folks who might happen upon His writings and take them as an admonition from God to them personally, I think it is balderdash, and to be specific, Paul being the so called Apostle to the Gentiles would not look very favorable on many of our modern lives if we consider what He had to say. Saying that, the ‘Presence’ point of view is interesting but in my estimation still simply trying to fit the narrative into our lives. I have much respect for the Kings, but the sour idea that somehow evangelical ideas still exist is obvious.

To your point qaz, sin has been done away with in the cosmic realm. You sin today, you will in this life deal with your choices. If you want to point at so called ‘sinners’ that seem to get away with sin, I would say you are naive. No one escapes the specter of death, and if your life if full of sin, your conscience will convict you at some point.

What does that mean? How can sin be done away with if people still sin? That’d be like saying “torturing animals has been done away with” while people still torture animals.

1 Like

Which part of my post do you not understand?

@maintenanceman something cannot be both “done away with” and something people still do. They’re mutually exclusive.

Only in your mind

only in your mind

@maintenanceman how so?

Slavery has been done away with means people no longer enslave.

Breaking people on the wheel has been done away with means people no longer break people on the wheel.

Child labor has been done away with means children no longer labor.

Do you see the pattern? How can sin be done away with while people sin every day?

Well, I appreciate your position, but you obviously are a bit narrow minded when it comes to the Position Presence has put forth.

It is simply a very interesting alternative to the everyday evangelical view.

John… agree, disagree or scratching your head I do appreciate you took the effort to view the link. I’m not yet across all the nuances of this position but I’m leaning heavily in this direction as my faith in God’s grace evolves.

Actually the point he (Doug King) made was that the sin—singular that brought Adam undone was ‘covetousness’ — in Adam’s case… ‘of God identity’ — “I will be like God”. Adam in his stark immaturity overlooked the fact… he was ALREADY like God, i.e., made in His image, so there was no need for this covetousness. Thus coveting was the fundamental or core issue with regards to the sin or as per Paul’s point in Rom 7:7.

What immature first Adam coveted second mature Adam DIDN’T… second Adam didn’t see his equality with God, i.e., being found in His image, something to be grasped, that is… coveted — thus first Adam lost his way to God whereas second Adam became the way to God — and so was highly exalted (Phil 2:6, 9).

That’s an interesting take given your evangelicalism projects the consequence of Adam’s sin universally across humanity… so I’m a tad stumped as to how you find that an issue concerning DK’s view???

You may have missed in the session where DK fully affirms his Christian roots and doesn’t deny, denigrate nor dismiss his Christian past… he simply reframes it in terms of, to quote Paul…

1Cor 13:11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

So in this sense Paul didn’t deride his past knowing it was a vital part of his growth and yet is able to acknowledge in Christ he is growing up, i.e., moving forward into maturity beyond his former days in Judaism (though he did have some harsh words to say about it, he understood enough to know such was his school-master unto Christ).

What I can learn from the biblical story today is more than what I learned from it as a child… these things were no less true then than now, but I have a cognisance beyond yesteryear — and all that without this false notion of junking that which came before, i.e., it all has its place.

That is kind of the idea of the Presence doctrine. John, DK is working hard at trying to show His (Presence) view of scripture. I tend to agree with David to a point. But I will take issue with both of you… The scriptures are simply man made doctrines, the idea of divine inspiration is at least questionable and I know I will get blow back saying that. but it is true. You can only believe what you can believe.