Would you prefer it if “Christian universalism” were true?

[Cormack]

Maybe I’m missing the answer Maybe the answer was “no.” So no your faith wouldn’t break down if the flood story is an allegory. I could appreciate that.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Maybe I’m missing the answer Maybe the answer was “no.” So no your faith wouldn’t break down if the flood story is an allegory. I could appreciate that.

Why do you think there is a denial of the flood by some that believe in Universalism? It is denied because it denies the justice and judgement of God for sin *Genesis 6:5-7 which are scriptures against Universalism. Simple as that. Yet Jesus refers to the flood as a literal event in Matthew 24:38-39 and elsewhere. Are you also agreeing with @Saint Steven that Jesus got it wrong that the world was destroyed at that time because of sin and applying it to the second coming? Your putting yourself and those who believe in the false teachings of Universalism in a bit of a pickle here.

 

[Cormack]

You’re assuming more onto my question than I’ve explicitly shared, @LoveGodsWord.

The question isn’t difficult and trying to presume on or guess at where the line of questioning will end just winds people up confused and feeling accusatory.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You’re assuming more onto my question than I’ve explicitly shared, @LoveGodsWord.

The question isn’t difficult and trying to presume on or guess at where the line of questioning will end just winds people up confused and feeling accusatory.

Way to go not addressing what was asked you in the post that was written to you. Anyhow it is there for all to read and see and I can understand why you do not respond to it. I pray it will give you something to think about. You do not have to answer it if you do not want to. I will leave it between you and God. All the best.

 

[Cormack]

All the best to you too sir.

 

[Saint Steven]

What I am speaking to is maintaining the authority of the Bible by treating every word as important because God chose each word carefully. That God is ultimately the author of the book, even if He used human stories to weave together His points.

This claim has no basis in fact. The history of where the Bible came from does not support such a notion.

I do believe in inspiration, but I don't believe in inerrancy. Especially in the English translations, which do not all agree. (Were those words carefully chosen by God?)

 

[Saint Steven]

How can we have a debate about who God is if we do not maintain that there is a standard to which we may both appeal for our understanding? What authority is Steven speaking from, except to elevate himself to God's seat?

What's the point of having such a conversation if you want to confine the narrative to your chosen parameters? A debate about who God is should be open-ended. Otherwise we are just talking in an echo chamber and glad-handing each other. Tribal confirmation. I'm pretty sure we don't agree.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Where did you get the misguided idea that the Bible is the final word?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

What's the point of having such a conversation if you want to confine the narrative to your chosen parameters? A debate about who God is should be open-ended. Otherwise we are just talking in an echo chamber and glad-handing each other. Tribal confirmation. I'm pretty sure we don't agree.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Where did you get the misguided idea that the Bible is the final word?

Translation of the above post... Let's share our opinions but let's not talk about the scriptures which are the very standard and definition of what truth is *John 17:17.

 

[Hmm]

Why do you think there is a denial of the flood by some that believe in Universalism?

I think Christians of all flavours deny that the flood occured because science tells us it didn't. A devastating flood like that would have left an overwhelming amount of evidence behind that we just don't see. And it raises questions that have no sensible answers such as Where did all the water go when the flood receded?

It didn't happen and I would say that it is misreading the Bible to say that it did just as much as you would no doubt say that I am misreading it. I agree with you that the story of the flood has a spiritual meaning, I just think it's an allegory perhaps based on a smaller real life flood that did happen. There's evidence that the Mediterranean has flooded several times in history because of continental drift and the memory of this may have inspired the story of the flood.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I think Christians of all flavours deny that the flood occured because science tells us it didn't. A devastating flood like that would have left an overwhelming amount of evidence behind that we just don't see. And it raises questions that have no sensible answers such as Where did all the water go when the flood receded?

It didn't happen and I would say that it is misreading the Bible to say that it did just as much as you would no doubt say that I am misreading it. I agree with you that the story of the flood has a spiritual meaning, I just think it's an allegory perhaps based on a smaller real life flood that did happen. There's evidence that the Mediterranean has flooded several times in history because of continental drift and the memory of this may have inspired the story of the flood.

All I hear here is your words denying God's Word (unbelief in the flood believing the words of men over the Words of God) and the very words of Jesus. Unbelief in God's Word seems to be a common symptom of many that believe in Universalism (see post # 1402 linked). For me only Gods Word is true and we should believe and follow them (Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29). Whatsoever is not of faith according to the scriptures is sin *Romans 14:23 and according to Hebrews 10:26-31 and Romans 6:23 the wages of sin is death to all those who reject the gift of God's dear son and count the blood of the covenant an unholy thing. Something to pray about I guess.

 

[RickReads]

I think Christians of all flavours deny that the flood occured because science tells us it didn't. A devastating flood like that would have left an overwhelming amount of evidence behind that we just don't see. And it raises questions that have no sensible answers such as Where did all the water go when the flood receded?

It didn't happen and I would say that it is misreading the Bible to say that it did just as much as you would no doubt say that I am misreading it. I agree with you that the story of the flood has a spiritual meaning, I just think it's an allegory perhaps based on a smaller real life flood that did happen. There's evidence that the Mediterranean has flooded several times in history because of continental drift and the memory of this may have inspired the story of the flood.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that it did occur, waste of your time to go there.

The Institute for Creation Research

 

[Hmm]

All I hear here is your words denying God's Word

But you hear that because you believe you have an absolutely correct understanding of the Bible. I don't hear you denying God's word, I just think that you think it has to be literalistically as well as spiritually true.

It's pretty arrogant btw to accuse anyone who disagrees with you as speaking the words of satan. It also detracts from the case you are trying
to make.

 

[Hmm]

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that it did occur, waste of your time to go there.

But not from peer reviewed scientific papers which it would need to be. But I agree it's off topic so let's not dive into It.

 

[RickReads]

Not in peer reviewed scientific.papers. But I agree it's off topic so let's not dive into It.

I added a link to the above post.

 

[Hmm]

[


I added a link to the above post.

Thanks but that's not a peer-reviewed scientific paper so it cannot comment on what would have been a real geological event.

 

[RickReads]

Thanks but that's not a peer-reviewed scientific paper so it cannot comment on what would have been a real geological event.

It is a scientific think tank that is run by scientists and has been doing professional creation research for 50 years. They have assembled a lot of evidence for the flood. All of that is fact that cannot be changed.

 

[Hmm]

It is a scientific think tank that is run by scientists and has been doing professional creation research for 50 years. They have assembled a lot of evidence for the flood.

Their work is not reviewed by the wider scientific community and therefore they are not part of that community even though they may be scientists.
This is OT as we both agreed so let's leave it for a rainy day.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

But you hear that because you believe you have an absolutely correct understanding of the Bible. I don't hear you denying God's word, I just think that you think it has to be literalistically as well as spiritually true.

Do you believe the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:38-39? If you do what do you think he is saying there?

It's pretty arrogant btw to accuse anyone who disagrees with you as speaking the words of satan. It also detracts from the case you are trying to make.

I only quoted Genesis 3:4-5 as the same lies spoken to Eve which are the same teaching of Universalism. They are Gods' Words not mine. What is it that has been said in sharing these scriptures that is not true and if I have only told you the truth by sharing the scriptures why do you not believe them? They are Gods' Words not my words.

 

[Hmm]

Do you believe the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:38-39?

Yes. Do you?

If you what do you think he is saying there?

He is speaking poetically.or allegorically. As such, I can't give a definitive account of its meaning. I can only say what it means to me, and I would listen to other people's views before coming to any conclusions. I can't possibly do all that now.

They are Gods' Words not mine.

Of course. We all read God's words when we read scripture.

What is it that has been said in sharing these scriptures that is not true?

As I say, I'm not going to give you an off the cuff exposition of any of God's word. I'll have to do research first and then see if I can formulate an answer that makes sense to me. I may not always be able to. Some things I may not understand until much later in life, if then. But I'm comfortable with that.

 

[RickReads]

Their work is not reviewed by the wider scientific community and therefore they are not part of that community even though they may be scientists.
This is OT as we both agreed so let's leave it for a rainy day.

It`s an issue you put on the table. Kinda like the Bible contradictions. I addressed the ones put forward and suddenly they are dismissed. Answers not simple enough. LOL! Off-topic.