The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Should we form universalist congregations?


I think i would much prefer the Traditional service.

Jason, any books you’d recommend for getting a better understanding of the Trinity? I’m already Trinitarian but would like to become more knowledgeable.


Went to my first Methodist worship service this morning. It was very enjoyable.


I’ve considered a couple Evangelical Lutheran churches in my area, but some of them advertise as being pro-LGBT. God’s people afraid to condemn sexual immorality. Sickening.


They leave it up to individual churches, in the Evangelical Lutheran group - to make that call. The pro-LGBT is what caused me to leave the local Quaker group (that met in silence) and later, the Episcopal church - for a more conservative, Anglican alternative.

Reminds me of a song I know. :exclamation: :laughing:



It is indeed sickening.

It’s really easy: Do we follow the sexual purity taught by the Apostles, or do we follow the sexual excesses of Nero and his court?

It helps that the fallen world is so often not even tempting because it’s so nauseating.


I just want to very cautiously ask if there is not some legalism being bantered around here? :open_mouth:


Not being a moral nihilist doesn’t make one a legalist.


Then qaz said:

You did not go to a church because of them being pro-LGBT, so you basically said I will not got to that place and love with anyone who believes that. Hell :open_mouth: you might have changed or persuaded someone there if you would not have pre judged… aye?


Did Paul think unrepentant sinners who trample God underfoot should participate at the churches?


I think Paul dealt with folks who trampled morality all the time in his epistles, :confused: what Paul was keen on is when those who came in would try to distort the Gospel message of Christ, in other words those that would tell folks they had to do something or not do something so that they could attain what Christ did. :open_mouth:


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:


God wants people to repent and be reconciled to him. Acting like there’s nothing wrong with sexual immorality does nothing towards that goal.

Great post Geoffrey.


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.




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.


Chad :smiley:


I’m pretty sure NT Wright is not a universalist.