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

[CaDan]

Does there need to be an alternative?

I mean an alternative proposition to debate. I just tossed one out that I thought fit with the OP back in thread one.

 

[Floatingaxe]

From #931


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.

The loving parent of one family of children isn't responsible for the children of the families down the street or those of the entire neighbourhood.

God's promise of eternal reward is to His own children, the Church. Those of another god are completely outside His provision of reward!

In other words: People who deny the Father and serve self and Satan (literally and by default) are not children of the Family of God, and are strangers to Him. He owes them NOTHING but His wrath.

 

[SpiritDriven]

Hello Nadine....I was out shopping with my lovely lady yesterday....and for some reason, I was thinking of how much God shuts up people in disobedience.

We where in a book store and I noticed a book that was written for Adults trying to cope with adolecent females in their family.

The Title was...Coping with Princess [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] Face...

I just laughed out loud when I saw that title......

 

[Floatingaxe]

Hello Nadine....I was out shopping with my lovely lady yesterday....and for some reason, I was thinking of how much God shuts up people in disobedience.

We where in a book store and I noticed a book that was written for Adults trying to cope with adolecent females in their family.

The Title was...Coping with Princess [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] Face...

I just laughed out loud when I saw that title......

Why is that funny and why is that pertinent here?

 

[Joykins]

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.

I'll bite if no one else does.

 

[Nadiine]

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.

I mean an alternative proposition to debate. I just tossed one out that I thought fit with the OP back in thread one.

I'm just not into set boundaries & time frames -- it's not my bag.

This is what I meant earlier, I'm not into formal debate. I looked into it when I first got interested in apologetics in 1997 and I honestly didn't want to bother with it all.
It's interesting to some degree -- but it's just beyond how far I care to go.

A note in general- I also think the parameters should always be something that most people/laypersons have or can get their hands on easily.

 

[Nadiine]

Why is that funny and why is that pertinent here?

I was going to ignore that
I truly don't know

 

[Nadiine]

I'll bite if no one else does.

K, makes note:
so far that's 2 for the same side....

lol

 

[CaDan]

I'm just not into set boundaries & time frames -- it's not my bag.

This is what I meant earlier, I'm not into formal debate. I looked into it when I first got interested in apologetics in 1997 and I honestly didn't want to bother with it all.
It's interesting to some degree -- but it's just beyond how far I care to go.

OK, that's cool.

A note in general- I also think the parameters should always be something that most people/laypersons have or can get their hands on easily.

I used the formal terms for the KJV, the Greek text upon which its translation of the NT was based, and the most readily available Hebrew version of the OT. By using these parameters, I wanted to avoid text variation issues--especially in the NT.

 

[IamRedeemed]

Formal debate?

Apparently you did not see this. (underlined for you below) And I really do not see how
a "Formal Debate" would change anything. If they couldn't prove that Universalism
isn't ANOTHER GOSPEL here, how would they prove it there? Are they going to
suddenly provide the Scripture we've been asking for there? Not only do I doubt it,
I know that they cannot, as it DOES NOT EXIST.

There is no way to bypass Christ's atonement, pay it yourself and live to be
reconciled to the Father. There is NO Resurrection or ESCAPE AFTER having
been condemned to the Lake of Fire which is the SECOND DEATH. It is not
going to happen.

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.

 

[CaDan]

K, makes note:
so far that's 2 for the same side....

lol

We could flip for sides.

 

[IamRedeemed]

ROFL

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

 

[CaDan]

Apparently you did not see this. (underlined for you below) And I really do not see how
a "Formal Debate" would change anything.

I am not proposing to judge it. I am proposing to participate in it.

If they couldn't prove that Universalism
isn't ANOTHER GOSPEL here, how would they prove it there? Are they going to
suddenly provide the Scripture we've been asking for there? Not only do I doubt it,
I know that they cannot, as it DOES NOT EXIST.

The signal to noise ratio in these threads has been pretty high. I am proposing a limited proposition with limited participants in order to focus the issues and the debate.

And, as I said, I am willing to negotiate the proposal.

 

[Nadiine]

We could flip for sides.

ya, I forgot the whole devil's advocate approach



heh

 

[IamRedeemed]

ya, I forgot the whole devil's advocate approach



heh

 

[SpiritDriven]

The King James Version is known to have 40,000 errors in it...

The Literal Translations are best...The Most accurately translated Bible in the World is the Concordant Literal New Testament...however many have accussed it of being a Universalist Bible because it shows they have believed in a lie all of their lives, and they can not handle the Truth of correct translation.

Youngs Literal Translation is a good translation, but does not reflect the accuracy of the Concordant, thus innacuracy in Youngs Literal also leads to deception being continued.

The Best way to Go is allow all bibles as a reference source, because even in the most botched versions of the Bibles, the greater body of evidence...still points in the same direction.

Even a free Online Version at this Link http://www.concordant.org/version/html.html

 

[IamRedeemed]

Not interested really. As I said in looking at all of this, if they had anything, they
could have provided it in the past nearly 2000 posts. They don't because they can't.

Universalism IS, as we have shown by the Word of God Another Gospel, preaching
Another Jesus, one that can even be bypassed if they don't like His judgment as well
as can be bypassed through atoning of themselves and by some miracle of themselves
they can be resurrected from the Second Death and give Jesus a snarky look as they
march past Him into Heaven through some "other" door.

Give me a break.

My prayer is that the Universalists here have heard enough that they will seek the
Lord and read His Word day and night and see that their doctrine is false, so
that they do not teach others this proven heresy and to blaspheme the Cross of Christ.

I am not proposing to judge it. I am proposing to participate in it.



The signal to noise ratio in these threads has been pretty high. I am proposing a limited proposition with limited participants in order to focus the issues and the debate.

And, as I said, I am willing to negotiate the proposal.

 

[CaDan]

ya, I forgot the whole devil's advocate approach



heh

*shnort*

Just switch-sides debate. Makes you strong.

 

[Floatingaxe]

The King James Version is known to have 40,000 errors in it...

And the KJV is inferior? Almost all of us in this generation have had the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ made available to us from that very version, and have our salvation in hand because of it!

The Spirit of Truth transcends man's incompetence!

Who in his right mind would actually count minor errors in the text of Scripture? For what purpose? To distract from the knowledge of God? To discount the Truth of any matter? Hmmm...

 

[CaDan]

Not interested really. As I said in looking at all of this, if they had anything, they
could have provided it in the past nearly 2000 posts. They don't because they can't.

Universalism IS, as we have shown by the Word of God Another Gospel, preaching
Another Jesus, one that can even be bypassed if they don't like His judgment as well
as can be bypassed through atoning of themselves and by some miracle of themselves
they can be resurrected from the Second Death and give Jesus a snarky look as they
march past Him into Heaven through some "other" door.

Give me a break.

My prayer is that the Universalists here have heard enough that they will seek the
Lord and read His Word day and night and see that their doctrine is false, so
that they do not teach others this proven heresy and to blaspheme the Cross of Christ.

OK, I already know you hold your opponents in contempt. No reason to keep on with it.

I take it you are declining the proposal.

Any other takers?