The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Should we form universalist congregations?


And I ask this sincerely, “what difference does that make?” :confused:


No, he’s not. He’s a P-Zombie positional person. See


However, I have incorporated his position and that of the** Left Behind **series, and extended it to Universalism. I showed how - during the tribulation - we would have a world like AMC’s Walking Dead, both on earth and in Hades. Then Christ will come to reconcile the remaining humans and P-Zombies. :laughing:

I think I should dedicate a Zombie love song - to this theory. :exclamation: :laughing:


Here’s also a link to how P-Zombies, fit into Universalism at P-Zombies and Universalism. It’s every bit as sound, as someone presenting a position of hard theological determinism and universalism - for example.


Certainly they weren’t “legalists”. The statements regarding “repentance” needs to be seen in their setting of ‘covenant renewal’ i.e., Israel’s covenant renewal… and then in terms of “men everywhere” (Acts 17:30) who Israel as ‘the people of God’ were to represent.

The “works of repentance” were NOT something required in terms of passing through or meeting a requirement to enter true life beyond the grave, but were what was required of those CALLED into divine service ON BEHALF OF those from among whom they were called or “saved” –– thus from a pantelist perspective saved to serve; NOT saved to finally get into heaven as usually taught. This is why Jesus said… “many are called but few are chosen”.

The typical Calvinist-type understanding sees the few (the elect) as called or saved to Heaven with the bulk of humanity sent to hell. The biblical pattern however is that the few minister deliverance (salvation) ON BEHALF OF the whole. In OT days this was best demonstrated in the whittling down of Gideon’s elect men… warriors who were select of God to bring deliverance (salvation) to or ON BEHALF OF the greater whole. In Jesus’ day this was the work of the firstfruit saints following Jesus’ lead… ON BEHALF OF the greater whole, Israel. These then were they with the imprimatur to demonstrate works worthy of their calling.


The current conversation in this thread began with qaz disapproving of a church that taught that homosexual sex is a good thing.

Is anyone here saying that churches should indeed teach that homosexual sex is a good thing? God forbid.


But Zombie or P-Zombie, heterosexual sex - is a good thing. I think. :exclamation: :laughing:

Now I’m off to ponder a deep, philosophical question. Would zombies bother Frankenstein’s monster, or just leave him be :question: :laughing:


As long as the man and woman are married, yes. :slight_smile:

Heterosexual sex outside of marriage is as destructive as homosexual sex.

The single best book about sex I’ve ever read isn’t really about sex, though it is. (“Huh?”) It’s C. S. Lewis’s Perelandra. I agree with Lewis in thinking it his best book. (Well, to be precise, he held it and Till We Have Faces to be his two best books.)


Well, here is qaz’s original statement

So my questions are:

#1 If we love our neighbor as our self and our neighbor is involved in this lifestyle, wouldn’t we want them to come to church and hear the gospel?
#2 From our knowledge do we know that this church is teaching that homosexual sex is good, or that, being pro-LGBT, they merely allow those folks to come and worship without having to worry about their safety?

The church I attend is known in our community as the church where anyone can attend. Our focus is those with addiction problems. We have folks come to worship and bible study that are, to be honest, quite messed up. They are always welcome to stay as long as they don’t become too belligerent.

A couple years ago a man showed up at our church, started coming every week. Turns out he was a pedophile. He met with the pastor, told him his whole story. The church welcomed him. The pastors daughter, who had small children, was incensed, and left the church. This guy had been run out of nearly every other church in the area he had attended. On the day that he had to go to finally do his time in prison, we gathered around him and he cried and said that he was a changed man thanks to the church and wanted us to know we were the only ones that believed that he could change.

Having that man there, our church became fodder for the gossip crowd. The pastor even took his car to get it fixed once and some men sitting around the auto repair shop called him the ‘pedophile preacher.’

No we did not advertise that we are pro pedophile, but we did what we thought we had to do in love.

My point is that everyone needs a place to safely hear the gospel. :smiley:


Granted, I’ve never attended a pro-LGBT church, I highly doubt that churches that advertise as being pro-LGBT are going to condemn sexual immorality. I think advertising as pro-LGBT is their way of saying sinful lifestyles aren’t sinful. There was nothing on their websites saying homosexuality is wrong.

There’s a difference between (a) recognizing one’s sinfulness and repenting and (b) acting like there’s no need to repent at all. It sounds like your friend repented.


#1: Yes.

#2: I’ve come across many “churches” that teach that homosexual sex is good. I’ve never come across a church in which members or visitors had to worry about their safety.


Hi qaz and Geoffrey,

Geoffrey said

Maybe you can get off your high orthodox horse and understand there are people who need help. Christ came for the sick and lame and lost of Israel, he was firm but compassionate. This is love. So those of us who 2000 years later, are confronted with the same things, we might well look to the Christ for how we are to deal with these issues.

Do neither of you possibly understand what emotional abuse is. They (your idea of sinner) are not SAFE when they don’t feel safe!! You don’t have to touch a person to intimidate them. Your body language, your looking away, your not being willing to extend your hand to them no matter what… :astonished: The spiritual effect of such abuse is not only brutal, but leaves, in some cases, everlasting scars. Scars that are hard to get past.

Unfortunately, In my opinion, much of Christianity is OH SO willing to inflict such wounds.

If any one needs to repent my friends, it is us Christians :exclamation:


Davo said:

So David, what in your estimation does that mean for 21st century Christians?


Hey Chad… :mrgreen:

I think it would be useful/healthy for “21st century Christians” to try and NOT reinvent the wheel in terms of God’s redemptive measures and simply live-out the reality of fulfillment in terms of… ‘witness’ (God has done it: WE don’t have to TRY and make it happen), ‘worship’ (thankful hearts: acknowledging His grace to all), ‘works’ (practice the golden rule: “love thy neighbour”).

Or let me put it like this as per… Witness – Worship – Works

From a fulfilled perspective… does God still call and move men’s hearts post Parousia? I believe He does, but NOT in terms of redemption from the sin as THAT has already been fulfilled on God’s level in Christ (Jn 1:29; Heb 9:26; 2Cor 5:19 et al). But if in terms of witness, worship and works then by all means YES, God can and does move peoples’ hearts in service of Him and to others.

Israel’s age of covenant fulfilment (AD30-70) did not negate the other or further workings of God. Such workings are clearly demonstrated in the bible through those who were NEVER under the likes of the Abrahamic covenants, old OR new. For example: 1) the Gentile king and priest Melchizedek (worship). 2) the Gentile messianic king Cyrus (witness). 3) the generous gentile Cornelius (works).

NONE of these are recorded as being part of “the covenant people of God” yet ALL performed the will and works of God in a more than affirmative ways under His hand of blessing.


Thanks for the input! :smiley:


I do not believe that safety is defined by feelings. I think of my wife’s Italian parents who as children lived for years in the war zone that was World War II. They had all the problems we have, plus invading Nazis, yet they are not shrinking violets afraid of their own feelings. I think the last thing contemporary Americans (or Europeans, or Australians, etc.) need is encouragement to be self-absorbed and touchy. Quite the contrary.

I do not believe that the Church is largely to blame for the sins of those outside the Church. The Church has been saying for ages to live lives of chastity. Those who do not live chastely suffer the ills of promiscuity. This is unavoidably true, even if God did not exist. One who plunges a knife into his arm will bleed, regardless of Calvary. What is the fruit of our society that insists upon sexual degeneracy, and that insists that calls for purity are unloving and wicked? Physical death (especially abortion), divorce, re-marriage, de facto polygamy, broken homes, ubiquitous pornography, heart-broken children, poverty, parents abandoning their calling, abandoned children, sexual abuse, venereal disease, etc. THAT is what breaks my heart. What we call “love and tolerance” is moral laxity, laziness, lack of love, and even contempt. Promiscuity hurts all it touches. It hurts the sinner. It hurts the sinner’s loved ones. It hurts society as a whole. It makes it more likely that children in our society will grow-up to be promiscuous, thus spreading and expanding the cycle of hate. Sex outside of marriage is hatred of both God and man.

Churches that do not stand against the tide of annihilating perversity have simply become “the Church of What’s Happening Now”, aping the secular culture, and they even stand guilty of self-righteousness. (“What wonderful Christians we are to approve of Mike having a live-in girlfriend! Unlike those awful, judgmental Christians over there who say that Mike shouldn’t be doing that.”)

One of the Orthodox Church’s most beloved saints is Saint Mary of Egypt. She lived a life of 17 years of unimaginable sexual perversity before repenting at age 29. She is venerated and glorified because of turning away from sin to holiness. She was never treated with kid gloves, nor did she ever bemoan the fact that somebody hurt her feelings, etc. Nor did she pretend that her life of sin wasn’t thoroughly repugnant and evil. Nor did she ever blame the Church for her prior sinfulness. She placed the blame squarely on herself, and nowhere else. I am guided by her example.


Was your first clause (“Maybe you can get off your high orthodox horse”) written with compassion and love? I have not observed any arrogance whatever in Geoffrey’s statements. Indeed, he demonstrated his humility by not answering you in kind.


I ask everyone’s forgiveness for such and outburst. You are so right.


Thank you for your response, Maintenance Man. I forgive you with all my heart (though you did nothing against me).


Today was my first communion at the Methodist church. I was very disappointed they use grape juice, not wine. Paidion, what do they use at your church?


Well, I obviously have to say sorry to Geoffrey, though you brought it up but it was him that I cut. :smiley:

My apologies Geoffrey.!!


Groveling sucks.

But I am willing to put up with it if for no reason to somehow ignite you (I want to use the word Neanderthal’s but I won’t) to the idea that love is necessary to all. If you can learn to love without condition, you will really know what Christ’s love is.
Paidion, you need to grow up and realize that your idea of repentance is quite different than the Christ’s.

Geoffrey, you need to understand that there are people who need our help… They are in sin and need someone to talk to and worship with, even if we don’t agree with or condone their actions.

Enough said.

I have done my part, and spoken my piece,

Peace :smiley:

Chad :laughing: Love Wins!!!