The Doctrine of "Universalism" (Christian Universalism or Otherwise) True or False? (2)

[Tavita]

Oh put a sock in your "traditions of men" whining. You've posted links that take us to the teachings of men, not the word of God. So as much as you'd like to think you're solely relying on the word of God here, you're not.

Careful, your slip is showing...

 

[Floatingaxe]

Which brings us back to the Ninevah . . . .

It has nothing to do with Nineveh. Judgment occurs after this temporal realm is concluded. New rules. A new dispensation of God. Promises fulfilled.

 

[IamRedeemed]

Yes, no one has answered yet either unless I missed it, which I -don't -think -so....
where it is written that any one is resurrected from the Second Death and reconciled to God.

Truthfully it has been settled for a long time. The Universalists have FAILED to show that the "gospel" they are preaching is not ANOTHER GOSPEL, and that the "Jesus" they acknowledge is not ANOTHER JESUS because they fail to show Scripture that indicates anyone having the slightest hope of being resurrected from the SECOND DEATH (which is found in the Lake of Fire) and reconciled unto God. Not to mention, they refer to people going there in the first place to "pay the penalty" but claim they will be released after they pay with the SECOND DEATH which is the penalty, which is not only impossible, but it makes the atonement of Jesus Christ unnecessary because it teaches that men can pay it themselves and be reconciled to God afterward, which is CLEARLY NEVER INDICATED in Scripture whatsoever ANYWHERE from Genesis to Revelation. So again, they have failed to prove the allegations against their doctrine.

One even said that if Jesus said to them to 'depart from Him', that they would
attempt to circumvent Jesus Christ and go to the Father directly and beg for mercy.
(also impossible See John 10:1,John 14:6)

Please....how much further from the truth can you get?

So, therefore they MUST concede, and even if they do not by admission, any reader, reading these threads who is INDEED searching for the TRUTH will be able to see that the concession has already been made by them.

Yep, I've concluded that according to Universalism all will be saved, whether they want to be or not. According to the universalist, this is an act of love and mercy by God. Yet in any other situation this side of Heaven, replace God with any stranger off the street and it's considered kidnapping and being held against your will as a hostage. Now, are those the acts of a loving person or of a tyrant? I'm also going to unsubscribe from this thread. It's going to hit a third thread before nightfall and nothing will be settled.

 

[Nadiine]

A Formal Debate would be the best way to go here...it ties them to the word of God...and prevents personal opinion, and the traditions of men from covering the truth.....

ROFL

ok, I gotta do it:

POT - KETTLE - BLACK

 

[Nadiine]

I was reading about James Dobson not long ago.... he is one of these preachers that wants to save the world from everlasting burning in hell.

He was gonna change the world until they got their detailed research back....

Apparently in the 3rd world countries and other countries where the doctrine of Eternal Torment is not taught...they had the highest moral and family values.

It was in Western Society where the Doctrine of Eternal torment was most heavily taught, that is sinking into Moral decay...legislating to allow abortion, prostitution, homosexuality.

That is what happens to societies where Doctrines of Demons are taught...like Eternal Torment and Free Will.

A Formal Debate would be the best way to go here...it ties them to the word of God...and prevents personal opinion, and the traditions of men from covering the truth.....

(you mean posts like that one)?

:o

 

[CaDan]

Yes, no one has answered yet either unless I missed it, where it is written that any one is resurrection from the Second Death and reconciled to God.

Truthfully it has been settled for a long time. The Universalists have FAILED to show that the "gospel" they are preaching is not ANOTHER GOSPEL, and that the "Jesus" they acknowledge is not ANOTHER JESUS because they fail to show Scripture that indicates anyone having the slightest hope of being resurrected from the SECOND DEATH (which is found in the Lake of Fire) and reconciled unto God. Not to mention, they refer to people going there in the first place to "pay the penalty" but claim they will be released after they pay with the SECOND DEATH which is the penalty, which is not only impossible, but it makes the atonement of Jesus Christ unnecessary because it teaches that men can pay it themselves and be reconciled to God afterward, which is CLEARLY NEVER INDICATED in Scripture whatsoever ANYWHERE from Genesis to Revelation. So again, they have failed to prove the allegations against their doctrine.

So, therefore they MUST concede, and even if they do not by admission, any reader, reading these threads who is INDEED searching for the TRUTH will be able to see that the concession has already been made by them.

Been there, done that, met your framework. Even met your new framework of rejection of atonement via Colossians 1 and Ezekiel 37.

Formal debate? I'm up for it.

Proposition: "Resolved: The position of universal reconciliation can be supported by the Holy Scriptures."

Parameters: "The Holy Scriptures" is the 1769 Authorized Version for the English translation, the Textus Receptus for the Greek New Testament, and the Biblica Hebraica (Leningrad MS B19A) for the Hebrew Old Testament.

Format: Four rounds. Affirmative to post first. One week time between posts.

 

[Nadiine]

Which brings us back to the Ninevah . . . .

Don't forget the INFANTS in Ninevah!

 

[IamRedeemed]

failure and don't want to play anymore.

No sense in dragging this into a third thread.

Yes, no one has answered yet either unless I missed it, which I -don't -think -so....
where it is written that any one is resurrected from the Second Death and reconciled to God.

Truthfully it has been settled for a long time. The Universalists have FAILED to show that the "gospel" they are preaching is not ANOTHER GOSPEL, and that the "Jesus" they acknowledge is not ANOTHER JESUS because they fail to show Scripture that indicates anyone having the slightest hope of being resurrected from the SECOND DEATH (which is found in the Lake of Fire) and reconciled unto God. Not to mention, they refer to people going there in the first place to "pay the penalty" but claim they will be released after they pay with the SECOND DEATH which is the penalty, which is not only impossible, but it makes the atonement of Jesus Christ unnecessary because it teaches that men can pay it themselves and be reconciled to God afterward, which is CLEARLY NEVER INDICATED in Scripture whatsoever ANYWHERE from Genesis to Revelation. So again, they have failed to prove the allegations against their doctrine.

One even said that if Jesus said to them to 'depart from Him', that they would
attempt to circumvent Jesus Christ and go to the Father directly and beg for mercy.
(also impossible See John 10:1,John 14:6)

Please....how much further from the truth can you get?

So, therefore they MUST concede, and even if they do not by admission, any reader, reading these threads who is INDEED searching for the TRUTH will be able to see that the concession has already been made by them.

 

[CaDan]

Don't forget the INFANTS in Ninevah!

*shnort*

(we need a *shnort* smiley)

I gotta get the Ninevah expando from Crazy Liz.

 

[Rajni]

From #931

Yep, I've concluded that according to Universalism all will be saved, whether they want to be or not. According to the universalist, this is an act of love and mercy by God.

God is often compared to a loving parent. A loving parent would snatch their child off the street before a car hits 'em. The child might not be too thrilled with having to be yanked off his intended route, but we would not hesitate to say that it is a loving parent -- not an unloving one -- who would do that if it they could.

Yet in any other situation this side of Heaven, replace God with any stranger off the street and it's considered kidnapping and being held against your will as a hostage.

That would be a more appropriate analogy for the "turn or burn" approach to evangelism. "Love me or else".

 

[IamRedeemed]

Have not been there done that. Your Scriptures were not even close to answering for
anyone atoning for themselves in the Lake of Fire and being resurrected and reconciled
to God after that bypassing Jesus Christ. Which isn't going to happen as God's Word is
not going to preach the opposite of the Gospel.
What did Jesus say in John 10:1 and John 14:6?

Formal debate would be fine, but not if you are the judge.
You will have to recuse yourself because of your obvious bias
and lack of knowledge of the Word of God.

Lack of knowledge is secondary to your apparent bias and
wouldn't be a problem without the bias, if you cared to know the truth,
but you stated yourself that you are content in your uncertain state.

But the bias is what makes you unacceptable as judge for a formal
debate on this topic.

Been there, done that, met your framework. Even met your new framework of rejection of atonement via Colossians 1 and Ezekiel 37.

Formal debate? I'm up for it.

Proposition: "Resolved: The position of universal reconciliation can be supported by the Holy Scriptures."

Parameters: "The Holy Scriptures" is the 1769 Authorized Version for the English translation, the Textus Receptus for the Greek New Testament, and the Biblica Hebraica (Leningrad MS B19A) for the Hebrew Old Testament.

Format: Four rounds. Affirmative to post first. One week time between posts.

 

[CaDan]

failure and don't want to play anymore.

No sense in dragging this into a third thread.

Formal debate?

 

[CaDan]

Have not been there done that. Your Scriptures were not even close to answering for anyone atoning for themselves in the Lake of Fire and being resurrected and reconciled to God after that bypassing Jesus Christ. Which isn't going to happen as God's Word is not going to preach the opposite of the Gospel. What did Jesus say in John 10:1 and John 14:6?

Reconciling all unto Himself in Colossians 1 points to actions after the whole Lake of Fire scenario.

Formal debate? Yes or no?

 

[Floatingaxe]

Been there, done that, met your framework. Even met your new framework of rejection of atonement via Colossians 1 and Ezekiel 37.

Formal debate? I'm up for it.

Proposition: "Resolved: The position of universal reconciliation can be supported by the Holy Scriptures."

Parameters: "The Holy Scriptures" is the 1769 Authorized Version for the English translation, the Textus Receptus for the Greek New Testament, and the Biblica Hebraica (Leningrad MS B19A) for the Hebrew Old Testament.

Format: Four rounds. Affirmative to post first. One week time between posts.

Leave it to you to manipulate to change the proposition. FORGET IT. Here's a thumb for ya:

 

[Rajni]

[FONT=&quot]From Post #934 [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

I'd like to offer a statement, why aren't angels offered salvation? They don't need FAITH - they SEE GOD & they are in His domain.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]However, if seeing is believing, Satan and his minions are being stubborn as all get out, lol! So there must be more to it than just "Oh look. It's God!" Some are saying "Oh look. It's God! Oh, Halleluyah!" and others (like Satan) are saying "Oh look. It's God. Aw, heck!" [/FONT]

 

[CaDan]

Leave it to you to manipulate to change the proposition. FORGET IT. Here's a thumb for ya:

Do you have an alternative?

 

[Nadiine]

Been there, done that, met your framework. Even met your new framework of rejection of atonement via Colossians 1 and Ezekiel 37.

Formal debate? I'm up for it.

Proposition: "Resolved: The position of universal reconciliation can be supported by the Holy Scriptures."

Parameters: "The Holy Scriptures" is the 1769 Authorized Version for the English translation, the Textus Receptus for the Greek New Testament, and the Biblica Hebraica (Leningrad MS B19A) for the Hebrew Old Testament.

Format: Four rounds. Affirmative to post first. One week time between posts.

One: I dislike formal debate, and do not DO formal debate. If I was interested in formal debate, I'd of taken proper classes & applied myself to other study.

Plus, I've already seen what THIS one produced with scriptures on both sides. (the bible only contains so many references to one issue).
And it still lacks what is needed which we've asked for in the first thread.

Two: Your [admitted] mock attempt of tossing out 1 verse (which 1. is from the OT which precedes grace. 2. she didn't ask for ONE verse, she asked specific verses) as if you met any common sense/sincere application of her request fails. A technicality like that is imho showing questionable integrity.

And I don't like the parameters.

I've seen all I need to see here.
I've seen the leading websites on the issue on both sides - and in my books & frankly I don't see many other verses that we haven't gone over.
& if you had anything to say you should of & could of argued it here in your 'formal' way I'd think?

The discussion of it here at least broadened my horizons a little bit into seeing different issues I hadn't thought of prior.

 

[Nadiine]

Do you have an alternative?

Does there need to be an alternative?

 

[Nadiine]

[FONT=&quot]From Post #934 [/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]However, if seeing is believing, Satan and his minions are being stubborn as all get out, lol! So there must be more to it than just "Oh look. It's God!" Some are saying "Oh look. It's God! Oh, Halleluyah!" and others (like Satan) are saying "Oh look. It's God. Aw, heck!" [/FONT]

That kinda goes against your support tho... becuz it shows they can continue to HATE GOD after they see Him... which goes along with our use of scripture of these lost souls "gnashing their teeth".

They're furious and unrepentant and stay that way!

It still isn't FAITH and we're told salvation is by FAITH in Christ.

 

[CaDan]

One: I dislike formal debate, and do not DO formal debate. If I was interested in formal debate, I'd of taken proper classes & applied myself to other study.

Plus, I've already seen what THIS one produced with scriptures on both sides. (the bible only contains so many references to one issue).
And it still lacks what is needed which we've asked for in the first thread.

Two: Your [admitted] mock attempt of tossing out 1 verse (which 1. is from the OT which precedes grace. 2. she didn't ask for ONE verse, she asked specific verses) as if you met any common sense/sincere application of her request fails. A technicality like that is imho showing questionable integrity.

And I don't like the parameters.

I've seen all I need to see here.
I've seen the leading websites on the issue on both sides - and in my books & frankly I don't see many other verses that we haven't gone over.
& if you had anything to say you should of & could of argued it here in your 'formal' way I'd think?

The discussion of it here at least broadened my horizons a little bit into seeing different issues I hadn't thought of prior.

OK.

Although you don't want to engage in a formal debate (and I'm not trying to goad you here), could you tell me what you think is wrong with the parameters?

Anyone else up for it? I am willing to negotiate the specifics of the proposal.