Universal reconciliation

[DrBubbaLove]

Another waffling 'duck and dive', rather than deal with the truths presented to refute your last post filled with 'twisted' error. Honestly Bubba you guys are like trying to nail snot to a fence post IMO. Unlike ETers, we sought reasons TO BELIEVE in a real good gospel and not just defend the false traditions and teachings of men. You'll never receive any revelatory truth from God as long as you cling so tightly to the lies of the pharisees. Not even Jesus could change the religious minds of most of them. The political spirit and religious spirit are two of the toughest, and most prevalent spirits in the church today IMO.

Nailed what?
Quoting scripture out of context and claiming it supports one view is not supporting a position. I do not consider God a liar and He said we could rely on the teachings of the Apostles. Find proof in the writings of the early Church that they understood these scripture/snips talking points as you do and maybe we can have an honest dialogue.

Again, go ahead and twist the Lazarus story our God told to make the UR case. Nothing in that story indicates the rich man had any hope of redemption. If that were the case, and it seems an important point for your cause. why would Jesus leave that out of the story?

Am interested to see the spin one can put on it.

 

[James Is Back]

Nothing in that story indicates the rich man had any hope of redemption. If that were the case, and it seems an important point for your cause. why would Jesus leave that out of the story?

Good question. I'd like to hear the UR's answer that.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Hillsage

Another waffling 'duck and dive', rather than deal with the truths presented to refute your last post filled with 'twisted' error. Honestly Bubba you guys are like trying to nail snot to a fence post IMO. Unlike ETers, we sought reasons TO BELIEVE in a real good gospel and not just defend the false traditions and teachings of men. You'll never receive any revelatory truth from God as long as you cling so tightly to the lies of the pharisees. Not even Jesus could change the religious minds of most of them. The political spirit and religious spirit are two of the toughest, and most prevalent spirits in the church today IMO.

Why would I trifle with someone that needs to do scripture talking points from quotes out of context to make their case?

IMO it would be embarrassing to point out that someone indicated "many" must means "all" and then by association "ALL" are "eagerly awaiting Him" - to me that makes Saint Paul sound like a nut job as clearly not everyone on earth or in the next life are "eagerly awaiting Him". But that is exactly what happens when someone resorts to chopping up scripture to throw out as snippets to make one's case rather than looking at the whole.

And as we both use some of the same verses to make a case, it is rather fruitless unless one can present some evidence that one's understanding matches what the people who wrote/taught these things said about the same verses.
Our view has reams of such support. The UR has a only a sparse few quotes, often from people speculating, offering opinion and held varying views in their lifetime. Anybody can take verses out of context and create a case for almost any view they want to hold. It doesn't mean their view holds any water than someone else making a contradicting claim.

Second Clement: "If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment" (Second Clement 5:5 [A.D. 150]).

Which goes along perfectly with our Lord God omitted any hint of anything in the story of Lazarus and rich man indicating the rich man had an out. In fact the rich man asks for temporary relief not redemption or rescue. Rather odd that God would not at least indicate that the rich man need only wait until all the bad stuff about "clinging" to him is purged away - why wouldn't his request then be please speed up the process for me so I can move on?

 

[Hillsage]

Nailed what?

Quoting scripture out of context

and claiming it supports one view is not supporting a position.

Which is exactly what I did refuting every one of your views which was 'out of context' in the post I addressed.

I do not consider God a liar and He said we could rely on the teachings of the Apostles. Find proof in the writings of the early Church that they understood these scripture/snips talking points as you do and maybe we can have an honest dialogue.

You're right GOD is not the liar. And the apostles have been dead for a couple thousand years. And it is your church which came up with the ET doctrine to exact indulgences out of the poor people to pay for their religious mausoleum in Rome IMO. And they killed anyone who disagreed with ET as heretics...about 400 AD I think.. So it became a church not based right but might. And to blindly follow them today is...well just spiritual blindness IMO.

Am interested to see the spin one can put on it.

And I'm not interested in wasting another nail. You haven't refuted my #575 dissection which you apparently are still spinning so badly from you won't even address it.

 

[Hillsage]

Hillsage

Why would I trifle with someone that needs to do scripture talking points from quotes out of context to make their case?

Good question, and one which I already answered, but you must have missed that too.

IMO it would be embarrassing to point out

It certainly would...if you could but you can't.

Our view has reams of such support. The UR has a only a sparse few quotes,

Proof you have not studied IMO. Because your church destroyed reams and also murdered many saints by claiming' heresy'.

"In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."

"The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge"
by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96

Second Clement: "If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment" (Second Clement 5:5 [A.D. 150]).

Theophilus, 160-181 A.S. "Bishop of Antioch(3)"
And God showed great kindness to man in this, that He did not suffer him to continue being in sin forever; but, as it were by a kind of banishment, cast him out of Paradise, in order that, having by punishment expiated within an appointed time the sin, and having been disciplined, he should afterward be recalled. Theophilus. To Autolycus, Book 2, Chap.26

Lines up with SCRIPTURE BTW;
JOB 14:13 Oh that thou wouldest hide me in Sheol/HELL, that thou wouldest conceal me until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me! 14 If a man die, shall he live again? All the days of my service I would wait, till my release should come.

 

[jerry kelso]

We are not the ones who "changing a word" to fit our theology YOU ARE. But first let's look at the word "especially/malista" to see what its Greek definition is.

STRONG'S 3122 malista: (adv.) most (in the greatest degree) or particularly.

As you can see this is not a word of 'exclusion', but one of 'inclusion'..to a degree, as it is also used in the verse below.

GAL 6:10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto ALL men, especially/MALISTA unto them who are of the household of faith.

And, as far as us being "Out of context" as you say we are? Lets just look at 'your context'. in the verse you quoted below.

Same verse IN CONTEXT HEB 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for ALL at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. ...28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

Sometimes "many" means ALL if you really are 'in context' as WE are IMO.

ROM 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous.

Correctly quoted but not correctly applied to the salvation process. You are a spirit/soul/body. Accepting Jesus doesn't save your soul. Not one verse in the bible says so. Jesus saves spirits, the Holy Spirit saves souls, and the Father saves/glorifies bodies. Those who are saved "especially/to the greatest degree" are those who believed in this age (spirit saved) and then began to 'work out your salvation (of their soul) with fear and trembling.' Some will work to a greater degree/malista than others receiving a greater reward IN HEAVEN. Jesus didn't go preach to souls and bodies in 1Peter, he preached to SPIRITS of men dead in both body and soul...in hell/gehenna.

Geee, see how this lines up with what I just said. SOUL salvation and not spirit, not body.


Gee, see how that lines up too? It's talking entering heaven because your SPRIT is JUSTIFIED (1Tim3:16). We are not talking about a SOUL that's SANCTIFIED or a body that's GLORIFIED.

Which is how we USED to believe also. But with the enlightenment of the Spirit to one who seeks 'the truth' ,comes a change of theology.

hillsage,

1. Hebrews 9:26 does not say "Once and for all" and thus does not mean all is substituted for "many".
It says; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared top put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. "Once in the end of the world says nothing about "Once and for all".

2. Hebrews 9:28: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many. We know Christ died for all men; John 3:16; but it would not be wrong to say he bore the sins of many. Would it?

3. Romans 5:19; one man's disobedience many were made sinners. We know all are born into sin so we know by one act of Adam's disobedience all were made sinners. The second half uses many will be made righteous by the act of Jesus obedience. This is because not everyone will accept Christ. This is why the word "Many" is used in this way for both the 1st half and the 2nd half of these verses.

4. There is no other name whereby one can be saved than Jesus. The Holy Spirit does not save souls directly for he is the agent in the act of salvation that puts Christ into the body. 1 Corinthians 12:13 for we are baptized by one spirit. John said we are not christians if we don't have the Spirit of God in us but John also called Jesus the Word of life and in 1 John 2:24-25 we are to remain in Christ who the apostles had heard from the beginning which refers back to 1 John 1:1-2 as the Word of life which means he is eternal life. This means that he saves to the uttermost which would include the Spirit and the Soul of man.

5. 1 Corinthians 5:5 Paul said he was going to deliver the incestuous man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the "Spirit" may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. It says the "Spirit" and not the soul. It is not true that the soul alone is saved. The Spirit is the spiritual part of man and the soul is the seat of the emotions,passions and will etc. Some say the Spirit is saved in one act and that would be justification. They also say that the soul is saved as ongoing in the act of sanctification and the body will be saved when it is resurrected. The truth is that Paul prayed that the Thessalonians would be wholly sanctified in spirit and soul and body and that they would be preserved blameless unto the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.

6. The truth is that the Spirit is changed as the new creation. The soul is saved from death according to James 5:20 in reference to sin which agrees with Ezekiel that says the soul that sinneth shall die. So both the Spirit and the soul are saved in the act of salvation.

7. 1 Timothy 3:16 is talking about the mystery of Godliness and specifically to Christ who was God manifested in the flesh. He was justified in the Spirit and he did not have to be saved. So it is not really talking about justification for lost souls in the act of salvation.

8. Justified means that God declares us not guilty and that we are saved. Sanctified means set apart which happens when man gets saved. Both the spirit of man and the soul of man are saved and sanctified in the act of salvation spiritually.

9. You alluded to Jesus preached to spirits who were dead in soul and body. Spirits were alive in hell and this is the spiritual part of a man. Lazarus and the rich man were both alive; Lazarus in Abraham's bosom and the rich man in hell. Their spirits weren't dead and the Psalmist prophesied that Jesus soul would not be left in hell. Their bodies were dead but not their souls and spirits. Their spirits were dead spiritually but not physically. The body goes to the grave and is dead and knows nothing.

10. What was the point or purpose for the spirits in hell in the days of Noah to be preached to since the soul was what was saved or not and it was dead? You said that you believe the soul is saved and of course a sinner their soul is dead and the body is dead. This shows that you believe in soul sleep which is not scriptural and that the soul and the body will be resurrected one day and that they will be reconciled to God forever as in Universal Reconciliation which is not scriptural; that is, if that is what you believe to be true.

Both justification and sanctification of the Spirit and the Soul are in the act of salvation as well as ongoing will be after death if the requirements of obedience to God are rendered. Jerry Kelso

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Which is exactly what I did refuting every one of your views which was 'out of context' in the post I addressed.

Since I had Saint Paul speaking coherently with one consistent "view" am unclear which "views" one thinks were " addressed" as it was a singular consistent view of that letter - unlike others offered here.
My reply (to another poster) was showing a consistent rendering of that letter in regards to this topic, whereas they had presented a single quote - which if we took that position and applied it to the rest of the letter - it makes Saint Paul sound nuts.

You're right GOD is not the liar.

So you say you agree with me. Could not get that from your posts or rendering of His Words. And still don't. According to you His story of Lazarus would be deceptive at best if not an outright lie. Just saying. I can understand not wanting to address that BTW.

And the apostles have been dead for a couple thousand years.

Ok, so God lied again when He told them whatever they bound on earth would be bound in Heaven. Seeing a pattern here. That claim about the Apostles has good company in the past 300 or 400 years, but not sure I would feel good counting myself in that company. We have people making similar claims to justify dancing with snakes not far from where I lived once. And even the Mormons understand the importance of having a connection to Apostolic teachings, which makes sense given scripture said those unwritten were very important to the Church.

And I'm not interested in wasting another nail. You haven't refuted my #575 dissection which you apparently are still spinning so badly from you won't even address it.

I beg to differ that anything was "refuted" if that was the post where you claimed Saint Paul is to be understood as saying EVERYONE on earth and in Hell is anxiously awaiting His return. Again, a claim is not a refute - especially when it consists entirely of making out of context quotes and renderings of words that if applied universally to the same letter makes it gibberish.

Which is exactly what I did refuting every one of your views which was 'out of context' in the post I addressed.

Again, making a claim that a verse has to mean "this" and not "that" in order to support a position is hardly a refute. If it were then we would all be refuted by those dancing with serpents in the south right now because they make similar claims to support that practice. That type of "refute" might work on some folks, but not going to fly here.

You're right GOD is not the liar. And the apostles have been dead for a couple thousand years.

As the guys dancing with snakes in Alabama right now would point out as well. I do not believe they have "refuted" anyone by making the claim about dead apostles, and disrespecting them I might add in doing so. Even the Mormons realize the importance of a teaching connection to Apostles. I can respect that.

And I'm not interested in wasting another nail. You haven't refuted my #575 dissection which you apparently are still spinning so badly from you won't even address it.

Is this a reference to where you would have everyone believe Saint Paul is to be understood as saying EVERYONE on earth and in Hell are anxiously awaiting His return. In Christian forum I hardly think that requires a rebuttal, much less represent a logical presentation of congruent points to be taken from a single letter in the Bible. BTW I would not bother with the quotes from the snake charmers either, so you are not alone in that company.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Good question, and one which I already answered, but you must have missed that too.

And again, making a claim that a single visit must be understood to support one's position is not an answer in a rebuttal, though I know the snake charmers and circus show revivalist also know it works on some folks.

It certainly would...if you could but you can't.

Ok, I can accept you are not embarrassed or ashamed in making Saint Paul spout gibberish. But you need to understand that doing so is not a rebuttal.

"In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."

Some might be tempted to accept these assertions on the face, however as much liberty has been taken in quoting folks and not having read much of Schaff-Herzog am going with "if you say so".

I do know the teachings [of UR seen in Church during the 3rd-4th centuries] are founded in and heavily influenced by Plato's schools, so naturally the influence of Plato's teachings extended to the Church in that area. I know that Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Saint Gregory of Nyssa would be the early writers one would have to nearly exclusively rely on to attempt to claim support for Universalism and that only seen in the early third century I think. And even in that group of writers there are inconsistencies in support from their own writings as well as misgivings about the authenticity of some of it. That aside, obviously even Saints are allowed to err.

What you will not find is a 1st century or 2nd century writer supporting this view - the influence of Plato had not time to work on thinkers yet. So if one wants to speak of relying on the works/imaginations of men we can talk about Plato's influence on Christian theology if you like.

Theophilus, 160-181 A.S. "Bishop of Antioch(3)"
And God showed great kindness to man in this, that He did not suffer him to continue being in sin forever; but, as it were by a kind of banishment, cast him out of Paradise, in order that, having by punishment expiated within an appointed time the sin, and having been disciplined, he should afterward be recalled. Theophilus. To Autolycus, Book 2, Chap.26

I guess we should expect nothing less than a claim/slander of a Church Father by quoting him as Saint Paul originally was quoted in the post that started this discourse - out of context. The snake charmers would be proud.

If we actually read Theophilus in context (I know the circus folk don't bother with context, so no doubt this tactic works with some), he is correctly expounding on the wisdom of God in His banishing Adam (man) from the Garden (Paradise) so that Adam will no longer be capable of living forever (in this life) in his fallen state (sin). IOW Theophilus is speaking about creation, the first man and the Goodness of God in expelling Adam (and thru Adam's expulsion the human race-"man") from the Garden - and certainly not saying God sent Adam to Hell/sheol as one would apparently have us believe. And if one reads Book 1, 2 and 3 together clearly this early Father would not support UR.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0204.htm

Lines up with SCRIPTURE BTW;
JOB 14:13 Oh that thou wouldest hide me in Sheol/HELL, that thou wouldest conceal me until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me! 14 If a man die, shall he live again? All the days of my service I would wait, till my release should come.

LOL, I agree a snake charmer could probably get single out-of context quote of a Church Father to "line up" with a single out-of-context quote out from the Bible. Definitely predictable too.

BTW, Job was said to be a righteous man (perfect, upright, feared God). Job's lament here is not a teaching about UR or even the nature of Hell for that matter. Not at all. He is actually saying no matter what happens to him, he will trust God and knows (unlike his friends who have just condemned him and told him to confess) he knows he will be rewarded in the end (resurrection). And some pretty bad stuff had happened to him. NO. In context he is saying let me die, let me go to my comfortable rest (remember the abode of the dead had two places - one of comfort), let me die so this misery ends and let me just wait (kjv "until my change comes" - ok release) which occurs for righteous men like Job on the Friday of Our Lord God's death. Amen

 

[Hillsage]

hillsage,

1. Hebrews 9:26 does not say "Once and for all"

If you are really serious, you need to have your eyes checked.

Hebrews 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared ONCE FOR ALL at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

2. Hebrews 9:28: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many. We know Christ died for all men; John 3:16; but it would not be wrong to say he bore the sins of many. Would it?

If you realize "many" means all I suppose not.

3. Romans 5:19; one man's disobedience many were made sinners. We know all are born into sin so we know by one act of Adam's disobedience all were made sinners.

The second half uses many will be made righteous by the act of Jesus obedience. This is because not everyone will accept Christ. This is why the word "Many" is used in this way for both the 1st half and the 2nd half of these verses.

Your circular reasoning is....circular. Kind of like a dog chasing its tail. MANY means ALL first and second time. No way around your inconsistency and consistency is a jewel to be sought for.

4. There is no other name whereby one can be saved than Jesus.

PHI 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Romans 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Now please don't tell me that EVERY in both these verses which agree with your quote really means SOME who agree doctrinally with you.

The Holy Spirit does not save souls directly

Your 'opinion'...my scripture.
1PE 1:2 chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ

John said we are not christians if we don't have the Spirit of God in us

Where?

but John also called Jesus the Word of life and in 1 John 2:24-25 we are to remain in Christ who the apostles had heard from the beginning which refers back to 1 John 1:1-2 as the Word of life which means he is eternal life. This means that he saves to the uttermost which would include the Spirit and the Soul of man.

I'm afraid you don't know the difference between "us in Christ" and "Christ in us"...do you? If you think you do then explain your theology above on that basis, because what you're saying just doesn't fly for me.

5. 1 Corinthians 5:5 Paul said he was going to deliver the incestuous man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the "Spirit" may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. It says the "Spirit" and not the soul. It is not true that the soul alone is saved.

I never said it was.

The Spirit is the spiritual part of man and the soul is the seat of the emotions,passions and will etc. Some say the Spirit is saved in one act and that would be justification.

They also say that the soul is saved as ongoing in the act of sanctification and the body will be saved when it is resurrected.

The truth is that Paul prayed that the Thessalonians would be wholly sanctified in spirit and soul and body

and that they would be preserved blameless unto the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.

So close, but wrong again.
1 Thessalonians 5:23 May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; AND may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
He isn't saying spirit/soul/body as you claim, he is merely saying may the sanctification process be completed. If that is talking about your spirit or your soul or your body is not specified, that is for the reader to discern "(let the reader understand)",

6. The truth is that the Spirit is changed as the new creation.

No "the Spirit" isn't changed your spirit is changed

The soul is saved from death according to James 5:20 in reference to sin which agrees with Ezekiel that says the soul that sinneth shall die. So both the Spirit and the soul are saved in the act of salvation.

I wish you'd back with more scripture and less opinion.
JAM 5:19 My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back,20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
So IN CONTEXT these TWO verses are talking to "brethren" who fall back into "sin" and other "brethren save their souls by turning them away from sin".

So your "act of salvation" is wrong. Your spirit got saved totally when you believed (OSAS). But you had the very same stinking thinking soul then that you had the day before and you must work out the salvation of your soul by the engrafted word.
JAM 1:19 Know this, my beloved brethren.:21 Therefore put away all filthiness and rank growth of wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

If Paul believed your theology these "beloved brethren" would already have saved souls.

7. 1 Timothy 3:16 is talking about the mystery of Godliness and specifically to Christ who was God manifested in the flesh. He was justified in the Spirit and he did not have to be saved.

YOu simply don't understand the difference between imputed righteousness and imparted righteousness then. Jesus was "made like unto his brethren in every respect." Now 'every respect' means what it says and says what it means. So you have to deal with that. I do so by referring you to the baptism of Jesus where He may have had 'imputed righteousness' but without the baptism of John he never accomplished "fulfilled" or imparted righteousness. After He and John did so, THEN he received the Holy Spirit for the first time. And it was NEVER IN HIM it was always in scripture said to be ON/UPON Him....just like US.

So it is not really talking about justification for lost souls in the act of salvation.

Never said it was. Justification isn't for souls it is for spirits. That's the whole reason I quoted that scripture.

8. Justified means that God declares us not guilty and that we are saved. Sanctified means set apart which happens when man gets saved. Both the spirit of man and the soul of man are saved and sanctified in the act of salvation spiritually.

Your opinion, my rebuttal, WRONG IMO.

9. You alluded to Jesus preached to spirits who were dead in soul and body. Spirits were alive in hell and this is the spiritual part of a man.

No allusion, that's exactly right. What you miss as a non UR-er is Jesus went there and saved these spirits "leading captivity captive". EG. He saved their spirits which are the only part of man 'made in the image' of God because "GOD IS SPIRIT". You are a spirit you have a soul and you live in a body.

Lazarus and the rich man were both alive; Lazarus in Abraham's bosom and the rich man in hell.

And the rich man was there because WHY? He was rich and dressed good. And Lazarus was in Abe's bosom because why? He was poor and full of sores. Must be a big spot in your ETERNAL HELL for AMERICA THEN based on those standards for salvation.

Their spirits weren't dead and the Psalmist prophesied that Jesus soul would not be left in hell. Their bodies were dead but not their souls and spirits.

Uhh spirits CAN'T die. That would be like shooting Casper the ghost....not happening.

Their spirits were dead spiritually but not physically.

That doesn't even make sense.
"the body without the spirit is dead" and a dead spirit couldn't give life to a dead body.

10. What was the point or purpose for the spirits in hell in the days of Noah to be preached to since the soul was what was saved or not and it was dead?

No, spirits were in prison because JESUS SAVES spirits and they had to have Jesus come do that.

This shows that you believe in soul sleep which is not scriptural

Your opinion which means you just don't know scripture as well as you think IMO.

and that the soul and the body will be resurrected one day and that they will be reconciled to God forever as in Universal Reconciliation which is not scriptural; that is, if that is what you believe to be true.

No, we were ALL reconciled to God by the cross of Jesus. And the truth of 'that reconciliation' is 'the gospel message' we are to be preaching to people according to scripture.

Now you, hopefully, know why I don't want to go back and forth with you. Because I saw this coming too. So, hopefully now you can see why your opinion filled posts are too long and my scripturally backed responses make answering you so stinking long that nobody will read them or get squat if they do IMO. And I don't blame them. Please go study all the things I've pointed out that I don't think you have a clue about. Any one of them would be more than enough for you to learn. But know that all of those 'things' play into my theology and God's plan to save all His beloved creation.

PS Jerry, I spent so long on this last night that I never proofed it. Made some changes this AM, but admit I come off too hard on you and apologize for that. But I really do not want any more dialogue. I spend too much time here and I'm tired of all the 'debate' to no end.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

How "inclusive" was God at the flood or Sodom?

How inclusive was God on the first day of creation when night and day were separated and only day was called good?

How inclusive was God on the second day of creation when the identical waters were separated one above heaven and one below the heaven?

How inclusive was God on the third day when the earth was made separate from the waters?

What you are asking illustrates my point. Separation is something God does. but in the end the harmony is all very good including the evening.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

How inclusive was God on the first day of creation when night and day were separated and only day was called good?

How inclusive was God on the second day of creation when the identical waters were separated one above heaven and one below the heaven?

How inclusive was God on the third day when the earth was made separate from the waters?

What you are asking illustrates my point. Separation is something God does. but in the end the harmony is all very good including the evening.

But if "inclusion" in these examples are to be extended to the idea of "first fruits" and that idea confounded with talk of firstborn (not firstfruits) then we should note several things. First off Christ alone is the firstborn of the Church. Those that followed joining the Church could rightly be and are called a "kind of" firstfruits, with those that followed them (up to today) are fruits as well. The "harmony" spoken of after the creation was temporary - and BTW only VERY GOOD after He created man. Sin corrupted that "harmony". The rest of the Bible explains how God intends to restore that "harmony". Had He done nothing towards restoring it, then mankind would be forever unable to return to that "harmony".

Part of that history includes depictions of God's judgment on people. A judgment that is shown rather than the suggested "giving room" for people expressing "uniqueness" and "genuine expression" to be very exclusive in the types of "uniqueness" and "expression" allowed with rather harsh consequences. That same recorded history depicts that when He came here and spoke Himself about the next life, He indicated a rather stark division of only two fates with only one of those representing a return to the "harmony" exhibited in the original Paradise/Garden. He DID NOT depict a single destination for everybody that "makes room" for whatever "uniqueness" and "genuine expression" arises from the will of people in this life.

Want to add that our ability for uniqueness and genuine expression are not evil in themselves unless directed by our will at something which goes against our nature - which is a definition of sin - is what Adam and Eve did - and is what destroys the harmony that should exist both within ourselves and in all creation.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

But if "inclusion" in these examples are to be extended to the idea of "first fruits" and that idea confounded with talk of firstborn (not firstfruits) then we should note several things. First off Christ alone is the firstborn of the Church. Those that followed joining the Church could rightly be and are called a "kind of" firstfruits, with those that followed them (up to today) are fruits as well. The "harmony" spoken of after the creation was temporary - and BTW only VERY GOOD after He created man. Sin corrupted that "harmony". The rest of the Bible explains how God intends to restore that "harmony". Had He done nothing towards restoring it, then mankind would be forever unable to return to that "harmony".

Part of that history includes depictions of God's judgment on people. A judgment that is shown rather than the suggested "giving room" for people expressing "uniqueness" and "genuine expression" to be very exclusive in the types of "uniqueness" and "expression" allowed with rather harsh consequences. That same recorded history depicts that when He came here and spoke Himself about the next life, He indicated a rather stark division of only two fates with only one of those representing a return to the "harmony" exhibited in the original Paradise/Garden. He DID NOT depict a single destination for everybody that "makes room" for whatever "uniqueness" and "genuine expression" arises from the will of people in this life.

Want to add that our ability for uniqueness and genuine expression are not evil in themselves unless directed by our will at something which goes against our nature - which is a definition of sin - is what Adam and Eve did - and is what destroys the harmony that should exist both within ourselves and in all creation.

First born rights is related to being joint-heirs with christ. In general, one of the tests of the subject of judgment is how you will judge God as a person, and if you will judge with mercy or without. May we all be given mercy.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

First born rights is related to being joint-heirs with christ. In general, one of the tests of the subject of judgment is how you will judge God as a person, and if you will judge with mercy or without. May we all be given mercy.

Again, in any inheritance or joint-heir situation there is only one first born, and in this case when we speak of the Church that One firstborn is Christ. We can still be heirs with Him, but being a joint-heir does not mean everyone becomes a first born. The idea of being "kind of first fruits" (not firstborn) expresses our inheritance.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Again, in any inheritance or joint-heir situation there is only one first born, and in this case when we speak of the Church that One firstborn is Christ. We can still be heirs with Him, but being a joint-heir does not mean everyone becomes a first born. The idea of being "kind of first fruits" (not firstborn) expresses our inheritance.

this is a elder son, prodigal son divide in perception . but as the parable illustrates "the father" always ends up being more generous than they both would have estimated.

 

[jerry kelso]

If you are really serious, you need to have your eyes checked.

Hebrews 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared ONCE FOR ALL at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

If you realize "many" means all I suppose not.



Your circular reasoning is....circular. Kind of like a dog chasing its tail. MANY means ALL first and second time. No way around your inconsistency and consistency is a jewel to be sought for.



PHI 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Romans 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Now please don't tell me that EVERY in both these verses which agree with your quote really means SOME who agree doctrinally with you.


Your 'opinion'...my scripture.
1PE 1:2 chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ


Where?

I'm afraid you don't know the difference between "us in Christ" and "Christ in us"...do you? If you think you do then explain your theology above on that basis, because what you're saying just doesn't fly for me.


I never said it was.



So close, but wrong again.
1 Thessalonians 5:23 May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; AND may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
He isn't saying spirit/soul/body as you claim, he is merely saying may the sanctification process be completed. If that is talking about your spirit or your soul or your body is not specified, that is for the reader to discern "(let the reader understand)",


No "the Spirit" isn't changed your spirit is changed

I wish you'd back with more scripture and less opinion.
JAM 5:19 My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back,20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
So IN CONTEXT these TWO verses are talking to "brethren" who fall back into "sin" and other "brethren save their souls by turning them away from sin".

So your "act of salvation" is wrong. Your spirit got saved totally when you believed (OSAS). But you had the very same stinking thinking soul then that you had the day before and you must work out the salvation of your soul by the engrafted word.
JAM 1:19 Know this, my beloved brethren.:21 Therefore put away all filthiness and rank growth of wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

If Paul believed your theology these "beloved brethren" would already have saved souls.

YOu simply don't understand the difference between imputed righteousness and imparted righteousness then. Jesus was "made like unto his brethren in every respect." Now 'every respect' means what it says and says what it means. So you have to deal with that. I do so by referring you to the baptism of Jesus where He may have had 'imputed righteousness' but without the baptism of John he never accomplished "fulfilled" or imparted righteousness. After He and John did so, THEN he received the Holy Spirit for the first time. And it was NEVER IN HIM it was always in scripture said to be ON/UPON Him....just like US.


Never said it was. Justification isn't for souls it is for spirits. That's the whole reason I quoted that scripture.

Your opinion, my rebuttal, WRONG IMO.

No allusion, that's exactly right. What you miss as a non UR-er is Jesus went there and saved these spirits "leading captivity captive". EG. He saved their spirits which are the only part of man 'made in the image' of God because "GOD IS SPIRIT". You are a spirit you have a soul and you live in a body.

And the rich man was there because WHY? He was rich and dressed good. And Lazarus was in Abe's bosom because why? He was poor and full of sores. Must be a big spot in your ETERNAL HELL for AMERICA THEN based on those standards for salvation.

Uhh spirits CAN'T die. That would be like shooting Casper the ghost....not happening.

That doesn't even make sense.
"the body without the spirit is dead" and a dead spirit couldn't give life to a dead body.

No, spirits were in prison because JESUS SAVES spirits and they had to have Jesus come do that.


Your opinion which means you just don't know scripture as well as you think IMO.

No, we were ALL reconciled to God by the cross of Jesus. And the truth of 'that reconciliation' is 'the gospel message' we are to be preaching to people according to scripture.

Now you, hopefully, know why I don't want to go back and forth with you. Because I saw this coming too. So, hopefully now you can see why your opinion filled posts are too long and my scripturally backed responses make answering you so stinking long that nobody will read them or get squat if they do IMO. And I don't blame them. Please go study all the things I've pointed out that I don't think you have a clue about. Any one of them would be more than enough for you to learn. But know that all of those 'things' play into my theology and God's plan to save all His beloved creation.

PS Jerry, I spent so long on this last night that I never proofed it. Made some changes this AM, but admit I come off too hard on you and apologize for that. But I really do not want any more dialogue. I spend too much time here and I'm tired of all the 'debate' to no end.

hillsage,

You are not hurting my feelings at all so don't worry about being too hard. Your theology is quite off and I can see why you are tired of debate. This is not about arguing to hear the band beat or debating to prove who is right or wrong and not about making someone believe their view. It is about contending for the faith and understanding how to rightly divide the word by proper biblical hermeneutics of the word and reconciling all the scriptures on a given subject.

1. Hebrews 9:26; Once and for all is final by one time. Christ died for the sins of the whole world one time which means for all sinners. The word many does not appear in that scripture.
2. Hebrews 9:28; Bear the sins of many can carry the thought of all sinners. It could carry the thought of just believers for those that look for him when he appears the second time without sin unto salvation. This is because they believed and are just a part of the world of sinners. This is the only reason I mentioned the reason the writer may have said, "bear the sins of many" instead of the word "all". If you want to be a die-hard and believe it means just all sinner I have no problem with that. So there is no circular reasoning.
3. The spirit got saved and the soul got saved and I gave the scriptures to that directly said that. I Corinthians 5:5 says that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. James 5:20 says, shall save a soul from death and this is a spiritual death that it is saved from which comes only through salvation.
4. OSAS unconditionally is not true and they try to prove that through the Spirit being saved is final. James 5:20 is talking to believers who erred from the truth and were sinners and had to come back to God and be saved. This scripture would be false if OSAS unconditionally was true.
5. Philippians 2:9; Romans 14:11, Did I quote those scriptures? Luke 24:46-47; And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. The jews had to believe in Messiah and repent of sins to be saved. We must repent today and believe in Jesus and his death, burial, and resurrection. Every knee shall bow before Christ and proclaim that he is Lord saints and sinner alike.
6. 1 Peter 1:2: Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. The Spirit sanctifies and the blood saves for there is no remission of sins without the blood; Hebrews 9:22.
7. Us in Christ; Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into his death? V4; Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life, V5, For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.
8. Christ in us is the hope of glory and John 1:1, John said they (the disciples) had looked upon and handled, of the Word of Life? Peter said Jesus had the words of eternal life in John 6:68. John 1:2; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the father, and was manifested unto us). Life manifested is connected to eternal life and Christ life and sacrifice on the cross and his eternal life was manifested unto them.
9. 1 Thessalonians 5:23: And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly: and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. If Christ is sanctifying wholly then what is he sanctifying if not the whole spirit and soul and body of which we are made of. The colon shows that what is said about the whole spirit and soul and body is the object of what God is sanctifying.
10. The spirit I was talking about is our Spirit being changed for God quickens our spirits as far as becoming the new creation. Ephesians 5:2
11. Imputed righteousness Christ imputes when a person gets saved and that is why we are the righteousness of Christ. Romans 3:26: To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Jesus made like his brethren had nothing to do with imparting or imputing righteousness for man cannot impart or impute righteousness.
The Holy Spirit was the anointing that Christ had without measure and he said he could do nothing without the Father. Christ was the God-man but he laid aside his deity to feel like a man who has to have dependance on God. God imputed righteousness in his earthly ministry. He told those religious leaders about the palsied man of whether or not it was easier to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say Arise and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bedc, and go unto thine house. Matthew 9:6-7. This was before his death and resurrection. Christ needed no imputed righteousness for he had no sin and John's baptism was about fulfilling the righteousness of the law which is not the same as the righteousness of faith for those that live in the law shall do them. Romans 10:5. Romans 10:6-11 shows the righteousness by faith.
12. Justification is for souls for it can be converted according to James 5:20. The soul makes up our whole self and might be considered the seat of emotions, wills and desires and the body. The soul being the seat of emotions, wills and desires is the reason for the sanctification daily process of growing from grace to grace.
13. The rich man was in hell because of sin and Lazarus was in Abraham's bosom because he was saved. This was paradise before Christ took them to heaven. Ephesians 4:8.
14. Christ was quickened by the Spirit to preach to those sinful spirits in heaven. It was most likely a proclamation to tell them of what had been done at Calvary and of his coming resurrection not so they could get saved. Those spirits were the sons of God that mixed with the daughters of men. They were angels who were sons of God and they have no repentance for their sin.
15. Spirits can't physically die but they can spiritually.
16. James 2:26; For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. The spirit gives life to the body. The spirit physically lives on and the body dies physically and must be resurrected 1 Corinthians 15. As the body cannot work without the spirit, faith without the works as fruit is dead also.
17. Romans 5:10; For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 2 Corinthians 5:18; And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. This doesn't mean that man was automatically changed for they must be saved by Christ and his life otherwise there would be no reason to preach remission of sins and for people to repent like in the early church. This is what the gospel is all about.
Reconciling the world to himself and not charging sins to them is that he was the sacrifice for the penalty for sins and bore our sins upon the cross. The penalty for past, present and future sins and its penalty were satisfied by the death of the cross. It doesn't mean that everyone is automatically saved or eternally secure or that everyone will eventually be saved now or after death.
Your theology does not reconcile with all the scriptures on the given subject. You need might need to take a break and study out more about the context instead of taking a few scriptures and not paying attention to the other scriptures on the subject. If you want to reconcile something, reconcile the scriptures together in harmony with each other instead of humanist views. Good luck. Jerry kelso

 

[jugghead]

People doubted Columbus .... people doubted Galileo .... people doubted the Wright Brothers

The word doubt (when given life/power) will always turn the word possible into impossible .... it will always turn the word can into cannot .... when all doubt is removed and finally put in the grave where it belongs, where it no longer has any power .... all things not only "become" possible ... ALL THINGS "ARE" POSSIBLE ....

doubt can bury the light (for a time) but it cannot and will not destroy it

doubt is the power of darkness that keeps a person in darkness

 

[Gregory Thompson]

One thought that came to me was, if one cannot be saved after death, then that kind of denies the resurrection implicity .. doesn't it? It's kind of like saying .. I believe this chair is sturdy but you won't sit in it .. and that Jesus conquered the grave .. but at the same time will not conquer the grave .

 

[jugghead]

Again I will repeat these:

the viewpoint of ET is: you see us as going astray from what is true (or truth), whereas we see the ET understanding as what we have been delivered from (I once believed as you do ... every word), you see me as going astray, I see myself as being delivered ....... if you have never entered into the UR understanding , how can you see yourself as being delivered from it if you never entered into it?

You have respect for the authority of God (just as we do), just as a child learns to respect the authority of their earthly father through discipline as they are growing up, but when that child got older he learned that everything his father did "TO" him was "FOR" him out of love, and that is how we now see our own heavenly Father, He does everything "FOR" us (mankind), not "TO" us (mankind).

This common sense respect for authority you learned towards your earthly father, why throw it out the window when it comes to your heavenly Father?

I can't blame you for not believing or even thinking about the possibility of all being saved, and that is because if you openly admitted the possibility .... you would be branded a traitor to the faith .... and look like a fool in the eyes of friends and family ............. just as we are

 

[Gregory Thompson]

and this is why we labour and strive .. because God is the savior of all people .. especially those who believe .

not exclusively those who believe.

it is written. Ergo, God works in mysterious ways.

 

[Rajni]

I can't blame you for not believing or even thinking about the possibility of all being saved, and that is because if you openly admitted the possibility .... you would be branded a traitor to the faith .... and look like a fool in the eyes of friends and family ............. just as we are

This is actually something good to remember when
discussing UR with others. For some, to accept UR
could involve some serious backlash from friends,
family, and congregation.

I remember when, as a Catholic, I went all born-again
on everyone and the grief I got from folks as a result.
Rocking the proverbial boat is not for the faint of heart.

Going from assurance of one's own salvation to
assurance of *everyone's* salvation carries with it the
same potential for backlash—involving, ironically
enough, arguments similar to those used against
being saved-by-faith-alone/assurance of one's own
salvation.

But you know what? UR wasn't argued into me. All it
took was seeing 1 Corinthians 15:22—a verse I had
seen many, many times before—in a spontaneously
different light, pretty much out of the blue, and
researching further the particular line of soteriology
suggested by it, and strengthened by other verses
echoing that same soteriology.

I think UR will also probably be easier to digest if one
*genuinely* likes the idea of the ultimate well-being
of *every single soul*. If there's even a little bit of
the prodigal son's "righteous" brother in one's
mentality on the subject, then the idea of UR is more
likely going to be just plain annoying.


-