Davo - thanks for the post.
I’m very interested in what you mean when you say that God “unilaterally forgave the condition of humanity’s sin”.
You’re definitely drawing attention to the word ‘condition’ - why?
1 Like
I posted this in another forum thread here. But I’ll reproduce it here - for everyone’s benefit.
I came across this long essay…Which appears to be pro-Pantelism. I tried to put this on a separate line. But it doesn’t work for the Pantelism or Comprehensive Grace article. I’ll be interested in article feedback…from ANY pro, neutral and anti pantelism factions here. Here’s the Pantelism or Comprehensive Grace (Short version) article.
I found this statement interesting, in the short version:
This is actually very similar to the soteriology of the Primitive Baptists, whose “orthodoxy” is not usually questioned. They too believe that God saves purely on Grace, and not on a person’s choice (even if “enabled” by “election”). They point out that The “faith” that “grace” works through to save (Eph.2:8) is the “faith” OF Christ (Gal 2:16), not our faith “IN” Christ. (which is fallible as it is, as we see). So to them, God randomly saves independantly of “duty faith”.
NOT that I will embrace Pantelism…or Esoteric Christianity that Theosophical oriented, Liberal Catholic clergy teach…or what Christian Science teachers and practitioners teach.
But the short and long version articles, are VERY interesting indeed.
Anyway, back to entertaining my dinner guests.
Davo, thank you for the rich and very helpful exegesis! I do agree that the nature of the cited “overlap” is at the crux of our differing approaches to affirming the wider text. And I hear you to emphasize reconciliation is already resolved on God’s side, and that the need is on our side, which you describe as “the human response of repentant belief,” or “tapping into” that reality (which some may call ‘receiving’ it). I’d resonate with that 
When you repeat that Jn 1:29 declares that “God unilaterally forgave the condition of humanity’s sin,” I’m not seeing that language there.
But my real difficulty is that you’ve seemed before to assume that Paul’s many other assertions of conditions on people’s end lest they face God’s judgment and wrath, are texts that should not be equally emphasized, or even perhaps are contradicted by these texts that you persuasively here emphasize.
E.g. even Colossians 1’s amplification of its’ established reconciliation, that we ‘will be presented blameless in God’s sight, free from accusation provided you continue steadfast,’ etc can well sound like another condition of enjoying the reconciliation God provides.
I may misunderstand, but I sense that your conclusion that implies AD70 was the "CULMINATING event of God’s “new creation” is adding assumptions that go far beyond your exegesis here of certain texts on the cross, and may help explain my confusion and impression that this guides you selection of some NT texts as more applicable to our world than others.
I myself am not seeing the promised new creation as already fully established or culminated. My hope is to encounter much more of its’ triumph in the future than is already completed or manifest here.
This is how it works…
Jn 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
As I understand it… humanity has been (past established event) reconciled TO God BY God with regards to “the forgiveness of sin” i.e., the offense or sin CONDITION that lay against man, which in Christ has been cancelled.
The phrase <τὴν ἁμαρτίαν> tēn hamartian = ‘the sin’ which is SINGULAR — speaking of… offense—guilt—condition [noun]; as opposed to “the sins” which is PLURAL — speaking of… transgressions—wrongdoings—actions [verb].
This does not say Jesus came to take away our ability for wrongdoing… wrongdoing is an action, i.e., a verb; Paul’s epistles deal with that a lot. This above however, that is, ‘the sin’ is a NOUN identifying the condition of guilt that Jesus himself efficaciously took to himself in humanity’s stead to abolish it. This is NOT YET something still to occur. Let me quote this on the same…
Carton Pearson wrote:
There is nothing you can do to make God love or stop loving you
John 1:29 says; “The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “look, the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world.”’ This passage of scripture is often erroneously quoted as “sins of the world.” Jesus did not take away our individual transgressions and failings, our tendency to “miss the mark,” as we discussed earlier. Rather, He took away the offense those acts would cause without His Divine expiation. (highlights mine)
Charlton Pearson — ‘The Gospel of Inclusion’ pg. 86
It bears repeating…
This condition of alienation from God (the death) that the sin wrought no longer exists. The death of relationship that had man alienated and exiled (relational /spiritual death) from the presence of God has been abolished through the reconciliation in Christ. The gospel has been about making this reality (of reconciliation) known to those sitting in darkness, i.e., sitting in ignorance as to this reality secured in Christ.
Thus the offense, guilt and condition of sin that stood over and against humanity in terms of alienation from God no longer exists, as per…
Jn 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
Heb 9:26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away the sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
So the condition or offense of “the sin” (noun not verb) was annulled. Yes we can have sinful actions (verb) to which James advocates… “confess your trespasses one to another” Jas 5:16. This horizontal confession reflects the healing established in Christ’s vertical confession “it is finished!” — whereby the horizontal (man) met the vertical (God) in the Cross of Jesus Christ.
I also have some further thoughts in an old thread HERE.
Thanks, you nicely confirm how I assumed that you read this text, in arguing that taking away sin (singular and you argue past tense) merely means that sin’s “guilt” (or offense) was removed. Yet I am not seeing where taking away ‘sin’ is defined as only the guilt of it, as opposed to including the widely held definition of dealing with the power of our sinful nature’s fundamental rebellious nature as the root of our transgression.
More vital, again, my response’s whole emphasis was that your interpretation is contradicted by many apostolic texts which do not address those in rebellion with declarations that “Jesus’ sacrifice of himself” means they now should hear that there is no guilt or offense attached to their sins. Do you deny that there’s a consistent pattern of warnings about facing God’s judgment and wrath, apart from meeting the conditions the apostles exhort?
Unlike Pearson, those the church is built on don’t proclaim that the cross has already removed all offense on your end, or that forgiveness of sins is unconditional. Rather, that it’s vital that you “repent, and be baptized into Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins…” Or as Paul puts it in 2Thes, “those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord will be punished with everlasting destruction from his presence,” or to Athens, “God now commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice…” (Acts 17:30f)
I find it unpersuasive to press an unconventional interpretation of selected cross texts that limit what was already done there, while seeming to discount the pattern of texts that plainly set conditions of repentant human response for being freed from guilt and judgment, and enjoying the benefits of the victory assured at the cross. As the hymns suggest, I think texts on Jesus’ crucified defeat of “sin” are assuring a more complete victory over both its’ penalty and power. But that this promise does not unilaterally remove the need for our response, or the process that is only consumated over time.
1 Like
I’m surprised this is confirmation for you given I’ve stated the same numerous time on this site; but that is what it is. However, as for your “merely”… that’s fairly caviller IMO given the removal of the condition and condemnation of Adam’s offense, i.e., the sin COST Jesus absolutely EVERYTHING — there was NO merely about it — it was a comprehensive act of God’s grace to all. I’m not surprised however at your appeals to the tradition of hymns etc, that’s normal evangelical practice… been there done that. I’m concerned more with the text, i.e., “what saith the Scripture?”
IF Jesus and the writer of Hebrews had meant “sins” plural, i.e., one’s errant actions (verb) THEN they would have said as much — they didn’t, AT LEAST NOT in those two texts (Jn 1:29 / Heb 9:26) — you can and DO get that elsewhere where the imputation of condemnation / guilt on transgressions IS likewise summarily done away, i.e., unilaterally forgiven, as per the likes of…
2Cor 5:19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
Thus your objection is met and quashed!
This is just more poor form on your part Bob with regards to your own “interpretation” as you CANNOT provide a single quote of mine (I challenge you to) to where I attach no onus on any committing sins (verb) to deal with via repentance / reparations etc… invariably THESE injunctions ARE made, given and implored of THOSE IN COVENANT, i.e., God’s people. And where it is not, the immediate CONTEXT generally makes that reason clear.
Given you know I take a ‘fulfilled’ position with regards to various NT warnings… either by Jesus or his apostles, then your question is odd. And BTW… the answer is of course NO.
Well CLEARLY Bob you read neither Pearson nor myself with any clarity… Pearson, with whom I agree on this point, POINTS TO ‘the SIN condition’ i.e., that which man was left under in Adam. Let me put it this way… those ascribed as being “in Adam” did NOTHING to be so placed in him, i.e., they didn’t need to acknowledge, confess 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 — humanity was the sole beneficiary. (I can’t believe I’m needing to make this case to a universalist, go figure??)
You keep trumpeting faulty ACTIONS (sins plural) that need dealing with — there is NO ARGUMENT from either Pearson or myself on THAT point — which is not the point being made. You have a fundamental mental blockage on this… I truly can identify though as I too was once there.
Finally some texts… something I alluded to earlier in terms of CONTEXT. To WHOM was Peter’s appeal? (Acts 2:36ff) — God’s covenant people Israel. Like their leaders before them they were challenged to turn from their DISOBEDIENCE and return to covenant faithfulness and show the works thereof (Mt 3:7-8; Lk 3:7-8).
Again, the warning of Thessalonica was in the CONTEXT of the Day of the Lord, i.e., AD70 where in terms of the beloved city Jerusalem there was an absolute catastrophic Judgment Coming. Those who… “had their part in lake of fire” i.e., Jerusalem’s conflagration of those days, having survived, were carried away captive by Titus… “away from the presence of the Lord”, i.e., the Temple, forever — never to see it again; their OC world lay in ruins.
As for Acts 17:30f… again the TEXT is most telling. This is how the Greek reads…
Acts 17:30-31 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He is about to judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”
Two things here… 1) the CONTEXT shows unequivocally Paul’s the “all men” was pertinent to the Athenians, who being extremely religious even to the point of having an alter dedicated… “TO THE UNKNOWN GOD” of whom Paul then duly testifies to; that’s the CONTEXT. 2) Then you have the FACT that Paul uses the word <μέλλω> mellō = “about to”. And Paul specifically uses <μέλλει > being the Present / Active / Indicative — such was on THEIR immediate horizon.
And I likewise find it unpersuasive that this is the best objection you can raise and by default appeal to convention, i.e., orthodoxy, and this in evangelical circles coming from a “universalist” — lol.
I liked the way in that book he presented ideas beyond the religious strictures of the evangelicalism he has been familiar with.
Davo, I’d been lost about how we can constructively compare notes on our perceptions of Scripture. I am glad you affirmed “that there is a consistent pattern of apostolic warnings about facing God’s judgment and wrath, apart from meeting the conditions the apostles exhort.” And I suspect that our pivotal difference is your implication that NT readers were meant to see that such a theme was already fulfilled in a way that such “offense and guilt of sin” and its’ alienation “no longer exists” today. That’s why I tried to explain why that would take a lot of persuasion for me.
You won’t be satisfied by this response any more than the rest. But I’ve concluded that we both seem unable to feel that the other has engaged our actual views, and we’re left feeling misunderstood. Here e.g after extensive discussion about the tensions I find between texts, you imply that I reject 2 Cor. 5:19 when I affirmed it and other texts about God’s reconciled posture toward us, and you assert, "You keep trumpeting faulty ACTIONS (sins plural)… when I saw my emphasis on taking away “sin” as being on rescue from the power of the sinful nature. I find our pattern like this of speaking past each other seems endless.
After I had complained of ad hominem responses and frustration that felt like resentment, you kindly sketched a positive view of your exegesis. And I thought I had tried to graciously re-engage, applauding most of your exegetical arguments, agreeing with some of your affirmations, and trying to explain now why some of my conclusions diverge.
But you respond with numerous statements I find belittling: that you are “surprised” that I’d already grasped what you’d stated numerous times, that I am ‘caviller,’ you belittle my references to an evangelical view and to “orthodoxy,” you complain of “more poor form on your part Bob,” voice that I “CLEARLY” don’t read well, that I have a “mental blockage,” and say you can’t believe you need to explain to me as a universalist that our status with God is his “sole work”, “go figure??”
I know you don’t intend such asides to produce offense, but I don’t see what they add to the substance of understanding one another. And I regret that you didn’t see that the amount of time I’ve spent seeking to understand your view and pose my difficulty with it represented a high respect for your ability to engage the text (MM is quite right that you possess a strength in arguing your position unfamiliar to some of us). But about half way through such remarks, I realized I lack ability to avoid returning my own frustration, and have lost belief that we are able to progress more in appreciating one another’s vantage point. And recognizing that I and many former participants here have felt such frustrations in the forum for a good while, I’m going to let you engage others, and give my participation here a rest.
It’s all difficult for me to keep up with. And I do thank you for the diligent and thoughtful effort you have put for a novice like me, into seeking to clarify views that you feel you’ve presented with clarity many times before.
1 Like
Yes you’re probably right Bob… but in the bigger inclusive picture no doubt have way more in common. 
Yes sorry Bob… I will take that on board. I think I’d be as guilty as any of reading some stuff with my own blinkers on AND I’d assumed all too readily others ought to be able to tap into what I’m trying to say… maybe not so. 
Anyway it doesn’t hurt to thrash some things around… just gotta try and not thrash each other — well at least I need to own that. 
1 Like
I always keep an open mind, even if I’m embracing traditional theological views. If Pantelism grows like Esoteric Christianity did with Theosophists, via the Liberal Catholic Church…or Christian Science did, via its teachers and practitioners…I’ll be happy to read more later. I look at Pantelism as a view on grace. We just have different perspectives, on how grace unfolds - or had unfolded.
Now I side with the visions, of contemporary Old Catholic church mystic - Tiffany Snow. And I know her husband, who is an Old Catholic church priest. It’s a vision of Amillennialism, Inclusivism, Conditionalism/ Hopeful Universalism (see Conditionalism With Hope and Conditionalism With Hope 2), and a Christian variation of the Secret. Actually, it’s NOT too much different, from watching TV evangelist Joel Osteen (which I do each Sunday).
I also incorporate much from C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright, in the Anglican spheres. And theologians from the Eastern Orthodox church. I’m also one for incorporating science. Which means I’m also a proponent of intelligent design, with old earth, big bang and possibly evolution.
It all works for me, under the umbrella of Anglo-Orthodoxy and Theosis. And the Franciscan contemplation adaptations of Mindfulness, Fox Golden Key, Yoga, Zen; Red Road.
Let me leave everyone, with an interesting puzzle.
And an interesting article on spiritual healing
“And now that you don’t have to be perfect, you can be good.”-- John Steinbeck
And when you add the Zombie Apocalypse to the mix…as the most probable, end-times tribulation model…I’m probably as strange theologically and philosophically - as they come.
And here’s the results, of my Holy Fool job interview.
I offer:
If you two work out your differences let us know, but I have to, as an outside observer, say that there is no mention hell in acts. Gehenna is not mentioned in acts or as far as I can see in any of Paul’s letters.
So does that mean post mortem punishment is still believed by some of us here?
Fulfilled grace is at least a possibility, but I await your comments.
I don’t know how to do the reply correctly… Sorry
Thanks Davo, I’m grateful for your spirit. And I’m sure in my confusion about what some of your language actually meant, the blinkers of my own reading have prompted misconstruals of your understanding, and my aggressive challenges to what I perceived have left you too feeling like I belittled you and your convictions. And I am sorry for that. Grace be with you.
1 Like
No, Origen in not the first to deny it—there are thousands of others who deny it, including myself. There are also even more non-universalists who deny it, including all early anabaptists and many of them even in our day—in spite of the influence of fundamentalism and evangelicalism on modern Mennonites. And of course, those who have been so influenced AFFIRM it, just as fundamentalists and other evangelicals do.
Nowhere is it written that Jesus came and died to save humanity from the GUILT of sin. Rather it is written that He came to deliver us from SIN. He wants people to cease sinning, since the essence of sinning is doing that which harms others or oneself, and God and His Son do not want to see us harming each other.
But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:20,21 ESV bolding mine)
Peter, Paul, and the writer to the Hebrews all give the same reason for Christ’s death—that we might be saved from SIN ITSELF and not merely from the guilt of sin:
I Peter 2:24 He himself endured our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.
Titus 2:14… who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.
Heb 9:26 …he has appeared once for all at the end of the age for the abolition of sin by the sacrifice of himself.
2 Likes
There you go… “not the first” my words prove correct.
An honest reading of all that I’ve said will show I have not advocated that salvation was as you say… “merely from the guilt of sin.” Sin’s condition—offense—guilt were all aspects of THE SIN that effected all that in Christ HAVE been done away… again read Jn 1:29; 1Jn 3:5; Heb 9:26.
I affirm Jesus succeeded and saved His people from their sins, as per *Mt 1:21; Lk 19:10 and not only they but all and sundry…
1Tim 1:15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.
Jesus did not fail, being faithful to the end, fulfilling completely his mandate and mission… “not imputing their trespasses to them” — I can’t help but believe fully in God’s comprehensive grace.
Yet the evidence of sin remaining alive & well is evident to all. So in what sense do you say the condition of sin has been done away?
7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness
1 Like
I agree, and that again is the sticking point as far as I’m concerned. I cannot find a way around the facts of 1)obvious sin in the world even after the resurrection and session of Christ and 2) scriptures such as the one you quoted from 1 John.
Those are my thoughts, not coming from an orthodox or evangelical stance in any way.
This is not a criticism of davo’s position, which I find stimulating, but it is a problem. For me.
1 Like
This is the one and only time I will address you in this forum.
There is no evidence that the (evangelical) current ‘idea of sin’ has not been dealt with. Your sin is your sin. I will say that again. Your sin is YOUR SIN. What Christ did was to, much to your chagrin, take the rebellion of humanity and through love pronounce that sin as a affront to GOD is no longer existent.
Simple as I can put it and I will not get into a diatribe with you. Good luck in your endeavors.
1 Like
Shirley we are talking past one another? (Don’t call me surely haha)
I have only two words for you - actually, a number and a word - 1 John.
Peace
1 John ?? God is love?
And I’ll never call you Shirley!
Heaven forbid brother 