We knew you defend universalism. Now, you've told us you aren't really concerned about "how many" will people become, as you believe, saved after they die. I don't need to contest "how many" other than to say what I've always said: Salvation, according to the Bible, is for now; no one can become a Christian after they die.
I'm concerned that people who want to know God are'nt prevented by the myriad of vastly different circumstances that occur in this life for different people.
I agree salvation is for now and the sooner the better for the unbeliever, that's not even an issue.
The issue is that since God can read our hearts and Christ is the only way , will God provide an opportunity for folks who simply never had a fair chance?
You think He won't , i think he will and that's it, we just have to agree to disagree.
Universalism and the Character of God
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Steve,
You're employing a logical fallacy named Argumentum ad Nauseum, "argument to the point of disgust, i.e., by repitition".
This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place.
So, till you and the other universalists make real replies to the issues....
Have a Good Day, Steve!
You're employing a logical fallacy named Argumentum ad Nauseum, "argument to the point of disgust, i.e., by repitition".
This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place.
So, till you and the other universalists make real replies to the issues....
Have a Good Day, Steve!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
-
_Mort_Coyle
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:28 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
Hello Haas,
I am both a Christian Universalist (heretic!) and a Preterist (double-heretic!). As such, I understand Jesus' discourse in Matthew 24-25 as pertaining primarily to the events that occured in 70 A.D. Jesus is speaking as a prophet to Jerusalem. Like the prophets that preceded Him, He is warning the leaders of Israel of impending judgement if they do not repent from their course of action, particularly as it relates to justice and mercy.
In Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus is directly evoking Ezekiel 34 (read the entire chapter if you have a minute). Jesus is the one shepherd of Ezekiel 34:23. The leaders (bad shepherds) of Israel have not "... strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured...", have not "... brought back the strays or searched for the lost...", but instead have "... ruled them harshly and brutally.", causing them to be "...scattered because there was not a shepherd..." (Ezek 34:4-6). Therefore Jesus is going to remove the shepherds. They are demoted to the status of sheep (and rams and goats) and are destroyed (34:16). But the weak sheep (and rams and goats) who had been bullied by the strong are gathered, healed, fed, restored (34:17-24).
As a Preterist, I understand the Son of Man coming in His glory (Matthew 25:31) as Jesus entering into the Heavenly throne-room (ala Daniel 7:13-14) at His ascension (Acts 1:9). The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D. were a sign of Jesus' vindication. In the years leading up to 70 A.D., there was a separation going on, between those who would become followers of Jesus and those who wouldn't. The climactic separation and judgement occured at the fall of Jerusalem (btw, if you've never read Josephus' account of this, I strongly recommend it).
To be a follower of Jesus was, and still is, to care for the poor and marginalized.
If one views the separation of the sheep and the goats as a description of the final judgement, then one has to explain the criteria for entry into the Kingdom: Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, showing hospitality to the stranger, caring for the sick, visiting the prisoner. No mention of salvation by grace through faith. Jesus, doesn't say to the sheep on His right, "For you prayed the sinner's prayer and accepted Me into your heart." And to the goats on His left He doesn't say, "You did not receive Me as your Lord and Savior."
The "eternal" spoken of in Matthew 25:46 is aeonian, the definition of which has been discussed at length. Again, I would refer you to http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html for an in-depth look at aeon and aeonian. To reiterate, aeonian refers (from a time perspective) to a period of time with no definite duration. The word is used repeatedly in the New Testament and the Septuagint to describe things that have an end. There was a different word, aidion, which denoted endlessness. Additionally, aeonian can refer to the source. In other words, eternal (aeonian) can mean from eternity, which has more to do with it's source (God) than it's duration.
The "punishment" spoken of in Matthew 25:46 has also been discussed at length. To reiterate, the Greek word, kolasis, literally means "pruning", which is something that is done temporarily to make a plant fruitful. Kolasis is punishment or chastisement or correction for the implied purpose of remediation and restoration. Ancient Greek writings on ethics (Aristotle, for example) used the word kolasis to refer to punishment given to a criminal with the goal of reforming him. There is another word, timoria, which refers to punishment that is purely vengeful.
I just realized that in the midst of all the sturm und drang, you never got an answer.I will add some verses that I wouldn't mind hearing someone from the universalist camp discuss. If it has been talked about, then I missed it.
Jesus said:
Matthew 25:31-46
I am both a Christian Universalist (heretic!) and a Preterist (double-heretic!). As such, I understand Jesus' discourse in Matthew 24-25 as pertaining primarily to the events that occured in 70 A.D. Jesus is speaking as a prophet to Jerusalem. Like the prophets that preceded Him, He is warning the leaders of Israel of impending judgement if they do not repent from their course of action, particularly as it relates to justice and mercy.
In Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus is directly evoking Ezekiel 34 (read the entire chapter if you have a minute). Jesus is the one shepherd of Ezekiel 34:23. The leaders (bad shepherds) of Israel have not "... strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured...", have not "... brought back the strays or searched for the lost...", but instead have "... ruled them harshly and brutally.", causing them to be "...scattered because there was not a shepherd..." (Ezek 34:4-6). Therefore Jesus is going to remove the shepherds. They are demoted to the status of sheep (and rams and goats) and are destroyed (34:16). But the weak sheep (and rams and goats) who had been bullied by the strong are gathered, healed, fed, restored (34:17-24).
As a Preterist, I understand the Son of Man coming in His glory (Matthew 25:31) as Jesus entering into the Heavenly throne-room (ala Daniel 7:13-14) at His ascension (Acts 1:9). The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D. were a sign of Jesus' vindication. In the years leading up to 70 A.D., there was a separation going on, between those who would become followers of Jesus and those who wouldn't. The climactic separation and judgement occured at the fall of Jerusalem (btw, if you've never read Josephus' account of this, I strongly recommend it).
To be a follower of Jesus was, and still is, to care for the poor and marginalized.
If one views the separation of the sheep and the goats as a description of the final judgement, then one has to explain the criteria for entry into the Kingdom: Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, showing hospitality to the stranger, caring for the sick, visiting the prisoner. No mention of salvation by grace through faith. Jesus, doesn't say to the sheep on His right, "For you prayed the sinner's prayer and accepted Me into your heart." And to the goats on His left He doesn't say, "You did not receive Me as your Lord and Savior."
The "eternal" spoken of in Matthew 25:46 is aeonian, the definition of which has been discussed at length. Again, I would refer you to http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html for an in-depth look at aeon and aeonian. To reiterate, aeonian refers (from a time perspective) to a period of time with no definite duration. The word is used repeatedly in the New Testament and the Septuagint to describe things that have an end. There was a different word, aidion, which denoted endlessness. Additionally, aeonian can refer to the source. In other words, eternal (aeonian) can mean from eternity, which has more to do with it's source (God) than it's duration.
The "punishment" spoken of in Matthew 25:46 has also been discussed at length. To reiterate, the Greek word, kolasis, literally means "pruning", which is something that is done temporarily to make a plant fruitful. Kolasis is punishment or chastisement or correction for the implied purpose of remediation and restoration. Ancient Greek writings on ethics (Aristotle, for example) used the word kolasis to refer to punishment given to a criminal with the goal of reforming him. There is another word, timoria, which refers to punishment that is purely vengeful.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Greetings,
"I will seek the lost, bring back the scattered, bind up the broken and strengthen the sick; but the fat and the strong I will destroy I will feed them with judgment.
First, how do you get 'shephards being demoted by being changed into sheep' from this verse? Other than this, your 'interpretation' of Ezekiel 34 is off kilter and how you 'apply' it to Mat. 25 follows in kind...it doesn't make any sense.
In the NT kolasis does not mean "restore" as implied with the English word "correction".
B. The specific NT Greek word for "pruning" as a vinedresser would prune a vine is kathairo which means:
2. literally, "to cleanse"
3. "to cleanse [of filth or impurity]"
4. "to prune [trees and vines from useless shoots]"
d. metaphaphorically, "to cleanse from guilt, to expiate guilt, to expiate"
This word is used in John 15 (NASB)
1"I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes so that it may bear more fruit.
Christians who bear fruit get "pruned" by God so they can grow to bear more spiritual fruit. A plant needs care and direction---branches of plants sometimes have to be supported to grow in the right direction---or they can get too much fruit or leaves, etc., that they will fall off if not pruned back. "Pruning" or attending to the health of a plant is Jesus' meaning in John 15:2b.
John 15:2a is something else. The branch [Christian] is completely severed. Here, a Christian who does not bear any fruit is now no longer attached to the vine [Jesus] and will eventually eventually be destroyed.
John 15:6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. Here and elsewhere this is a metaphor of "being severed from Christ" [the vine], and being sent to Hell [in the Day of judgment].
B. Kolasis is NEVER used in the NT as a 'process of punishment' or 'corrective rehabilitation' to make Christians out of non-Christians. I think Matthew 25:46 proves it.
Mat 25 (NASB)
31"But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.
32"All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats;
33and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.
34"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
41"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;
44"Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'
45"Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'
46"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Mat 7, (NASB)
21 Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?"
23 And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."
The 'goats' will not inherit eternal life due to: a. they never knew Jesus though they call him "Lord, Lord", b. though they did 'religious things' in his name, they weren't among his flock, his sheep, to begin with, c. not being in his flock they disobeyed God in two ways: 1. for what they didn't do (chapter 25) and, 2. what they did do (chapter 7, practicing lawlessnes).
Oh, I know. The always repeated universalist argument of "no mention of"....this, that, or the other universalist doctrine. The Bible teaches that no one will be saved without grace through faith in God. But you advocate a salvation where shepherds are 'demoted to becoming sheep,' die without believing in disobedience to God, get sent to Hell and, then, become transformed into Christians after they die.
As always (yours truly), the Bible says no such things!
Danny, do you have an example where kolasis is used in the NT which says Christians [currently] receive "[temporary] corrective punishment"? Or where kolasis is used to "restore" a former Christian? If kolasis really means "corrective punishment that is rehabilitative in nature" or "being temporarily chastised" surely we would have at least one instance. Good luck in finding it! coz I've never seen it!
I'll be looking though. If I'm wrong I want to find out.....
I gtg,
Rick
Ez 34:16 (NASB)Danny wrote:In Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus is directly evoking Ezekiel 34 (read the entire chapter if you have a minute). Jesus is the one shepherd of Ezekiel 34:23. The leaders (bad shepherds) of Israel have not "... strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured...", have not "... brought back the strays or searched for the lost...", but instead have "... ruled them harshly and brutally.", causing them to be "...scattered because there was not a shepherd..." (Ezek 34:4-6). Therefore Jesus is going to remove the shepherds. They are demoted to the status of sheep (and rams and goats) and are destroyed (34:16). But the weak sheep (and rams and goats) who had been bullied by the strong are gathered, healed, fed, restored (34:17-24).
"I will seek the lost, bring back the scattered, bind up the broken and strengthen the sick; but the fat and the strong I will destroy I will feed them with judgment.
First, how do you get 'shephards being demoted by being changed into sheep' from this verse? Other than this, your 'interpretation' of Ezekiel 34 is off kilter and how you 'apply' it to Mat. 25 follows in kind...it doesn't make any sense.
Plato, who many think invented the word aion and its derivatives such as aionion, used the word to indicate eternity past and future. In the NT aionion zoe "eternal life" ALWAYS points to that life as never [ever] ending in the future.Danny wrote:To reiterate, aeonian refers (from a time perspective) to a period of time with no definite duration. The word is used repeatedly in the New Testament and the Septuagint to describe things that have an end. There was a different word, aidion, which denoted endlessness. Additionally, aeonian can refer to the source. In other words, eternal (aeonian) can mean from eternity, which has more to do with it's source (God) than it's duration.
A. In Classical Greek, kolasis sometimes meant, "to prune." But even during the Classic it also meant "to punish." This meaning increased in usage as we approach NT Koine' Greek. In the NT kolasis means "to cut [off, from God and/or eternal life]" and thus, it is the punishment of those who don't know and/or rebel against God.Danny also wrote:The "punishment" spoken of in Matthew 25:46 has also been discussed at length. To reiterate, the Greek word, kolasis, literally means "pruning", which is something that is done temporarily to make a plant fruitful.
In the NT kolasis does not mean "restore" as implied with the English word "correction".
B. The specific NT Greek word for "pruning" as a vinedresser would prune a vine is kathairo which means:
2. literally, "to cleanse"
3. "to cleanse [of filth or impurity]"
4. "to prune [trees and vines from useless shoots]"
d. metaphaphorically, "to cleanse from guilt, to expiate guilt, to expiate"
This word is used in John 15 (NASB)
1"I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes so that it may bear more fruit.
Christians who bear fruit get "pruned" by God so they can grow to bear more spiritual fruit. A plant needs care and direction---branches of plants sometimes have to be supported to grow in the right direction---or they can get too much fruit or leaves, etc., that they will fall off if not pruned back. "Pruning" or attending to the health of a plant is Jesus' meaning in John 15:2b.
John 15:2a is something else. The branch [Christian] is completely severed. Here, a Christian who does not bear any fruit is now no longer attached to the vine [Jesus] and will eventually eventually be destroyed.
John 15:6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. Here and elsewhere this is a metaphor of "being severed from Christ" [the vine], and being sent to Hell [in the Day of judgment].
B. Kolasis is NEVER used in the NT as a 'process of punishment' or 'corrective rehabilitation' to make Christians out of non-Christians. I think Matthew 25:46 proves it.
Mat 25 (NASB)
31"But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.
32"All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats;
33and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.
34"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
41"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;
44"Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'
45"Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'
46"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Mat 7, (NASB)
21 Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?"
23 And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."
The 'goats' will not inherit eternal life due to: a. they never knew Jesus though they call him "Lord, Lord", b. though they did 'religious things' in his name, they weren't among his flock, his sheep, to begin with, c. not being in his flock they disobeyed God in two ways: 1. for what they didn't do (chapter 25) and, 2. what they did do (chapter 7, practicing lawlessnes).
What are you talking about?Danny also wrote:If one views the separation of the sheep and the goats as a description of the final judgement, then one has to explain the criteria for entry into the Kingdom: Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, showing hospitality to the stranger, caring for the sick, visiting the prisoner. No mention of salvation by grace through faith. Jesus, doesn't say to the sheep on His right, "For you prayed the sinner's prayer and accepted Me into your heart." And to the goats on His left He doesn't say, "You did not receive Me as your Lord and Savior."
Oh, I know. The always repeated universalist argument of "no mention of"....this, that, or the other universalist doctrine. The Bible teaches that no one will be saved without grace through faith in God. But you advocate a salvation where shepherds are 'demoted to becoming sheep,' die without believing in disobedience to God, get sent to Hell and, then, become transformed into Christians after they die.
As always (yours truly), the Bible says no such things!
Danny, do you have an example where kolasis is used in the NT which says Christians [currently] receive "[temporary] corrective punishment"? Or where kolasis is used to "restore" a former Christian? If kolasis really means "corrective punishment that is rehabilitative in nature" or "being temporarily chastised" surely we would have at least one instance. Good luck in finding it! coz I've never seen it!
I'll be looking though. If I'm wrong I want to find out.....
I gtg,
Rick
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
-
_Mort_Coyle
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:28 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
Rick,
I simply have no desire to interact with you in the combative format that you've chosen. I used to engage in that type of debate but have long since gotten the need to beat down an opponent out of my system. A few months ago I attempted to engage CatholicSteve in dialog but he insisted on battle and I allowed myself to get dragged into it. It was tedious and unfruitful. I'm just not interested in going there again.
Haas,
I don't know if you're still around, but I would be interested in hearing what you have to say about my take on Matthew 24-25.
I simply have no desire to interact with you in the combative format that you've chosen. I used to engage in that type of debate but have long since gotten the need to beat down an opponent out of my system. A few months ago I attempted to engage CatholicSteve in dialog but he insisted on battle and I allowed myself to get dragged into it. It was tedious and unfruitful. I'm just not interested in going there again.
Haas,
I don't know if you're still around, but I would be interested in hearing what you have to say about my take on Matthew 24-25.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Danny,
Quote: " I simply have no desire to interact with you in the combative format that you've chosen".
I think it is reasonable to say, those of us here on this forum who hold a more "Traditional View", do so because we believe it best represents the Gospel of Jesus. In that vain, "we contend for the faith once delivered to the saints". We believe the warnings of Jesus and the instruction of the Apostles, that many "false teachers" who come in the Name of Jesus will decieve many, even the elect if that were possible". We believe it a mandate to "test the spirits", to believe not in "every wind of doctrine"
that competes in the market place of ideas within the Christian community. A classic precedent of such a defense of the faith is Jesus against Phariseeism, Apostle Paul against the Judaizers, and John against
the rising influence of Gnosticism. We are in good company here.
If your doctrine cannot take biblical scurtiny and survive, then my friend, it is not worthy of our consideration or belief. If your views cannot take the "heat", then you "must get them out of the kitchen"!
You say you come here to "learn", and presently you mentioned CI. Thats fine. But that is not entirely what you are up to Danny, IMO. You know you can "find" whatever information you want about any "Christian" or non-Christian view, traditional, liberal or otherwise, on the internet. IMO, you are trying to persuede people towards your view or at least cast a long shadow of doubt over the more Biblical traditional view. That does not mean I think some things within the "traditional view" are beyond scrutiny. We all "see dimly"! And I do grant that. But, please don't "pretend" you are here simply to learn.
Quote: " I simply have no desire to interact with you in the combative format that you've chosen".
I think it is reasonable to say, those of us here on this forum who hold a more "Traditional View", do so because we believe it best represents the Gospel of Jesus. In that vain, "we contend for the faith once delivered to the saints". We believe the warnings of Jesus and the instruction of the Apostles, that many "false teachers" who come in the Name of Jesus will decieve many, even the elect if that were possible". We believe it a mandate to "test the spirits", to believe not in "every wind of doctrine"
that competes in the market place of ideas within the Christian community. A classic precedent of such a defense of the faith is Jesus against Phariseeism, Apostle Paul against the Judaizers, and John against
the rising influence of Gnosticism. We are in good company here.
If your doctrine cannot take biblical scurtiny and survive, then my friend, it is not worthy of our consideration or belief. If your views cannot take the "heat", then you "must get them out of the kitchen"!
You say you come here to "learn", and presently you mentioned CI. Thats fine. But that is not entirely what you are up to Danny, IMO. You know you can "find" whatever information you want about any "Christian" or non-Christian view, traditional, liberal or otherwise, on the internet. IMO, you are trying to persuede people towards your view or at least cast a long shadow of doubt over the more Biblical traditional view. That does not mean I think some things within the "traditional view" are beyond scrutiny. We all "see dimly"! And I do grant that. But, please don't "pretend" you are here simply to learn.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Mort_Coyle
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:28 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
Hi Bob,
If I understand you correctly, you believe that adherents to Christian Universalism are false teachers. You have made that accusation pretty clear in your last post and others (especially those containing references to hissing snakes). I can see where the disconnect is then: If I'm interested in collegial dialog (which is an effective way of learning in addition to "finding" information on the Internet) but you're interested in defending the faith against (presumed) false teachers then we are coming at each other with completely different sets of agendas. If one is seeking honest dialog, which implies a modicum of vulnerability, while the other is armed for battle, neither is going to get what they want (a good conversation or a good fight).
Dave (Schoel) was probably right in suggesting a selah.
If I understand you correctly, you believe that adherents to Christian Universalism are false teachers. You have made that accusation pretty clear in your last post and others (especially those containing references to hissing snakes). I can see where the disconnect is then: If I'm interested in collegial dialog (which is an effective way of learning in addition to "finding" information on the Internet) but you're interested in defending the faith against (presumed) false teachers then we are coming at each other with completely different sets of agendas. If one is seeking honest dialog, which implies a modicum of vulnerability, while the other is armed for battle, neither is going to get what they want (a good conversation or a good fight).
Dave (Schoel) was probably right in suggesting a selah.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Danny,
Quote: "If I understand you correctly, you believe that adherents to Christian Universalism are false teachers".
Yes I do, without apology! Or at least, they have been decieved. And yes, I am interested in defending the "defensable" when it is vital to do so. IMO, Christian Universalisim poses the same kind of opposition to the Truth and purity of the Gospel as
Phariseeism, Judaizers, and Gnostic influences did in the days of the Apostles. CU is "another Gospel" and should be exposed as such. CU represents a radical departure from the Gospel's vital tenets , with respect to the Justice of God, The Atonement, Salvation and the Judgement of the Wicked to name just a few. I consider these major central issues, and worth "dividing" over.
Quote: "If I understand you correctly, you believe that adherents to Christian Universalism are false teachers".
Yes I do, without apology! Or at least, they have been decieved. And yes, I am interested in defending the "defensable" when it is vital to do so. IMO, Christian Universalisim poses the same kind of opposition to the Truth and purity of the Gospel as
Phariseeism, Judaizers, and Gnostic influences did in the days of the Apostles. CU is "another Gospel" and should be exposed as such. CU represents a radical departure from the Gospel's vital tenets , with respect to the Justice of God, The Atonement, Salvation and the Judgement of the Wicked to name just a few. I consider these major central issues, and worth "dividing" over.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
with respect to the Justice of God, The Atonement, Salvation and the Judgement of the Wicked to name just a few. I consider these major central issues, and worth "dividing" over.
Bob, If you choose to divide over this that's entirely your choice and again i say you never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity to see the mercy of God.
In your eyes it's judgment mixed with a strong dash of vengence end of story ,and you'll fight to the death to defend this view of God.
But once again i look to Jesus to know God because it is Jesus who explicitly tells us to do this.
Jesus hung out with sinners, he knew them inside and out and knew they had to be broken to see their need for Him. The people he threatened the most were the Pharisees, the MOST JUDGMENTAL of all the people Bob.
They just knew they were right, they were the defenders of the faith, others were heretics,preaching a false Torah.
So it's true Jesus preached judgment but Jesus preached mercy, and love of neighbors and enemies, and he preached forgiveness.
And what did John say God IS? God is "VENGENCE" or "LOVE."
Can you refresh my memory?
Bob, If you choose to divide over this that's entirely your choice and again i say you never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity to see the mercy of God.
In your eyes it's judgment mixed with a strong dash of vengence end of story ,and you'll fight to the death to defend this view of God.
But once again i look to Jesus to know God because it is Jesus who explicitly tells us to do this.
Jesus hung out with sinners, he knew them inside and out and knew they had to be broken to see their need for Him. The people he threatened the most were the Pharisees, the MOST JUDGMENTAL of all the people Bob.
They just knew they were right, they were the defenders of the faith, others were heretics,preaching a false Torah.
So it's true Jesus preached judgment but Jesus preached mercy, and love of neighbors and enemies, and he preached forgiveness.
And what did John say God IS? God is "VENGENCE" or "LOVE."
Can you refresh my memory?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Steve7150,
Quote: "And what did John say God IS? God is "VENGENCE" or "LOVE."
Indeed, God is love. But He is also Holy. The "vengence of God" is a Holy Vengence. The "wrath of God is a Holy Wrath". The justice of God is a Holy Justice. The love of God is a Holy Love. When God excersises any of these character qualities Steve, one does not overide or over rule the other. Otherwise, you make God out to be a contradiction and confusing.
The conflict you seem to struggle with is in reconciling God's Love with His Wrath, or the positive outgoing of His Justice.
Let me posit something. The most brutal and one of the most violent acts in the entire Word of God is not found in the Old Covenant Writings. It is in the New. It is found in the Cross of Christ. "The chastisement due us fell upon Him. By His stripes we are healed. God was pleased to bruise Him for our iniquities". Isaiah 53. If you "stagger" at the Wrath of God in the way I have presented it, stagger at the Cross!
Amazing Love, how can it be? That my Lord should die for me!
Quote: "And what did John say God IS? God is "VENGENCE" or "LOVE."
Indeed, God is love. But He is also Holy. The "vengence of God" is a Holy Vengence. The "wrath of God is a Holy Wrath". The justice of God is a Holy Justice. The love of God is a Holy Love. When God excersises any of these character qualities Steve, one does not overide or over rule the other. Otherwise, you make God out to be a contradiction and confusing.
The conflict you seem to struggle with is in reconciling God's Love with His Wrath, or the positive outgoing of His Justice.
Let me posit something. The most brutal and one of the most violent acts in the entire Word of God is not found in the Old Covenant Writings. It is in the New. It is found in the Cross of Christ. "The chastisement due us fell upon Him. By His stripes we are healed. God was pleased to bruise Him for our iniquities". Isaiah 53. If you "stagger" at the Wrath of God in the way I have presented it, stagger at the Cross!
Amazing Love, how can it be? That my Lord should die for me!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: