I don't see much fur flying here. It is possible for Christians to calmly discuss various theological options. I personally do not hold to universalism, but I don't discern, in the case being given in its favor, a desire to justify or minimize sin.
I think we can give full weight to the evilness of sin without abandoning the use of the term "proportionate punishment." It is clear, from the law of the Old Testament, that God believed some sins deserve greater punishments than do others (e.g., steal a sheep, repay four sheep; steal an ox, repay five oxen; steal sex with another man's wife, die the death of a dog). Jesus Himself spoke of the violation of "weightier matters of the law" (Matt.23:23), without diminishing the sinfulness of violating less-weighty laws. That God would observe such a principle in the ultimate judgment would not seem out of character for Him to do.
As Christians, some of us may remain unconvinced of the doctrine of universal reconciliation, but I can't imagine any of us not wishing that it were true, since even God wishes it was true! (2 Peter 3:9). I don't know why anyone would get very emotional against it.
Universalism
The "fur flying" was in regards to non-Christians bringing up universal salvation. I think it's brought into many discussions by non-Christians in an effort to cause division and strife.
Prayerfully, Christians can and should be able to talk about spiritual topics without fur flying.
Prayerfully, Christians can and should be able to talk about spiritual topics without fur flying.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Aole Opala No
Let me clarify my sentence. After rereading it, I can see how it can and may be misread. I tried to edit, but I was unsuccessful.
Change this: "I think it's brought into many discussions by non-Christians in an effort to cause division and strife."
into:
Universalism is brought into conversations about salvation by non-Christians in an effort to cause division and strife among the believers in the conversation, imo.
Change this: "I think it's brought into many discussions by non-Christians in an effort to cause division and strife."
into:
Universalism is brought into conversations about salvation by non-Christians in an effort to cause division and strife among the believers in the conversation, imo.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Aole Opala No
Thanks for the clarification, Bro. If you want me to edit your post and put the new wording in place of the old, let me know. I don't know much about how the average participant can edit his own post, but as moderator, I do know how to do it for you. (I know very little about computers and the Internet)
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Truthseeker
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:24 pm
periwinkler
This is an old post from Feb of 05. I have only been on this site for a few days. So I dunno if you are still around or even if this will be read. I am leaning very much towards universal salvation. I do not understand it to be a salvation separate from the Savior. Some do see it as such. My background was agnostic growing up. As a man in my early twenties I became a believer and was involved in conditional salvation Pentecostalism. Over the years I have spent time among the Baptists, Evangelicals and a few years with the Calvinist Presbyterians. Although an avid reader and hopefully a logical thinker I can claim no formal theological training. As a Pentecostal I adhered to a rigid form of behavior and dress which I believed the lapsing of could cause me eternal punishment-the loss of my salvation earned by a Savior so I could be presented to the God who loved me. Later I read some real convincing once saved always saved material by some Baptist brethren that raised some real interesting points for me. Not the least was-if I had no ability to get saved how could I get unsaved? Maybe a little simplistic but it got me thinking. The strict position of many of the Presbyterians I knew was that God had predestined some for salvation and some (the same God don't you know) for eternal torment. I won't pretend to have it all sorted out but I honestly see more in the universal salvation that supports a loving and fair God than I do in anything I had previously adhered to. The love of God is more apparent to me and that is at the base of it.
This is an old post from Feb of 05. I have only been on this site for a few days. So I dunno if you are still around or even if this will be read. I am leaning very much towards universal salvation. I do not understand it to be a salvation separate from the Savior. Some do see it as such. My background was agnostic growing up. As a man in my early twenties I became a believer and was involved in conditional salvation Pentecostalism. Over the years I have spent time among the Baptists, Evangelicals and a few years with the Calvinist Presbyterians. Although an avid reader and hopefully a logical thinker I can claim no formal theological training. As a Pentecostal I adhered to a rigid form of behavior and dress which I believed the lapsing of could cause me eternal punishment-the loss of my salvation earned by a Savior so I could be presented to the God who loved me. Later I read some real convincing once saved always saved material by some Baptist brethren that raised some real interesting points for me. Not the least was-if I had no ability to get saved how could I get unsaved? Maybe a little simplistic but it got me thinking. The strict position of many of the Presbyterians I knew was that God had predestined some for salvation and some (the same God don't you know) for eternal torment. I won't pretend to have it all sorted out but I honestly see more in the universal salvation that supports a loving and fair God than I do in anything I had previously adhered to. The love of God is more apparent to me and that is at the base of it.
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
Last week the National Public Radio program "This American Life" devoted their entire one hour program to Carlton Pearson. Here's their introduction:
It's worth a listen. Go to http://www.thislife.org/ and then scroll down to the show entitled "Heretics".The story of Reverend Carlton Pearson, an evangelical pastor in Tulsa, Oklahoma. His church, Higher Dimensions, was once one of the biggest in the city, drawing crowds of 5,000 people every Sunday. But several years ago, scandal engulfed the Reverend, he was denounced by almost all his former supporters, and today his congregation is just a few hundred people. He didn't have an affair. He didn't embezzle lots of money. His sin was something that to a lot of people is far worse ... he stopped believing in hell.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Truthseeker
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:24 pm
Mort
Went to the site and listened to it in its entirety. I think Carlton is on the right page. Concerning an eternal hell that is. I do not believe it is forever. I believe there is an age-abiding correction. That seems to have a lot of scriptural support. (see Rotherham's Emphasized Version) His seeming total acceptance (and maybe it only seemed that way to me) of homosexuality I disagree with. I still believe sin is sin and am not willing to "throw in" totally with any group espousing the idea of infinite grace. I see little profit in endorsing sin because for one-it is wrong and two-it still carries a price of age-abiding correction. Pearson has given up a lot to stand on believing in universal salvation though, and I believe like he does that it is still won by the blood of the Savior. He went from being a megapreacher with all the trappings to being a guy who gave it all up to stand on what he believes. I know that is not a scriptural proof so much as a testimony of his strong conviction. I appreciate your sending me the NPR piece that covered him.
Went to the site and listened to it in its entirety. I think Carlton is on the right page. Concerning an eternal hell that is. I do not believe it is forever. I believe there is an age-abiding correction. That seems to have a lot of scriptural support. (see Rotherham's Emphasized Version) His seeming total acceptance (and maybe it only seemed that way to me) of homosexuality I disagree with. I still believe sin is sin and am not willing to "throw in" totally with any group espousing the idea of infinite grace. I see little profit in endorsing sin because for one-it is wrong and two-it still carries a price of age-abiding correction. Pearson has given up a lot to stand on believing in universal salvation though, and I believe like he does that it is still won by the blood of the Savior. He went from being a megapreacher with all the trappings to being a guy who gave it all up to stand on what he believes. I know that is not a scriptural proof so much as a testimony of his strong conviction. I appreciate your sending me the NPR piece that covered him.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
The mainline evangelical churches all believe in a literal hell...
Only the 7th day adventists teach otherwise...Though I have
been taught "hell" and burn forever, I dont believe that way
anymore and I pray I am correct!
Sad story!
Only the 7th day adventists teach otherwise...Though I have
been taught "hell" and burn forever, I dont believe that way
anymore and I pray I am correct!
Sad story!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Truthseeker
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:24 pm
MLH
The mainline churches (except for the 7th Day Adventists)may all officially believe in and teach hell but it is interesting to note that in many churches not everything official is believed by all the members. I have been in churches which teach eternal security where some of the members were holding fast to conditional security and vice-versa. When it comes to the second coming we find pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib, prewrath and no secret rapture. I think I missed a few in that last sentence but you get my drift. The more church history I read the more impressed I am with how much change there has been belief-wise throughout time. Doing a little research (actually a lot) on the changing of the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day of the week has just been the beginning for me. I have yet to find an answer I can find acceptable and for me old Constantine just doesn't count. As far as I can tell the idea of an eternal punishment for mankind was not necessarily something found in either the Old Testament or in the belief system of the early Christian Church. Like yourself-I just don't quite believe in an eternal forever torment anymore.
The mainline churches (except for the 7th Day Adventists)may all officially believe in and teach hell but it is interesting to note that in many churches not everything official is believed by all the members. I have been in churches which teach eternal security where some of the members were holding fast to conditional security and vice-versa. When it comes to the second coming we find pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib, prewrath and no secret rapture. I think I missed a few in that last sentence but you get my drift. The more church history I read the more impressed I am with how much change there has been belief-wise throughout time. Doing a little research (actually a lot) on the changing of the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day of the week has just been the beginning for me. I have yet to find an answer I can find acceptable and for me old Constantine just doesn't count. As far as I can tell the idea of an eternal punishment for mankind was not necessarily something found in either the Old Testament or in the belief system of the early Christian Church. Like yourself-I just don't quite believe in an eternal forever torment anymore.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Hi MLH,
I don't think I believe that way anymore either, but I pray if I'm not correct, that I'll learn the truth eventually. If I wait long enough I guess I will know the truth. Right now it's much more comforting to think that people I have known who weren't saved when they died won't be tormented forever.MLH wrote:The mainline evangelical churches all believe in a literal hell...
Only the 7th day adventists teach otherwise...Though I have
been taught "hell" and burn forever, I dont believe that way
anymore and I pray I am correct
Which story did you think was sad?Sad story!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: