Univeralist Icons for CF

Tonks · Oct 28, 2008

Heber said:
The doctrine of Universal Salvation is not the same as Universalism.

Your bone to pick is with Albion as he confused to the two. My first remark in the thread was related to the OP. Albion began speaking of universalism in the early church which has spun us off in this direction.

Universalism is contrary to Christianity. Universal salvation on its face is heresy, the possibility of such due to the mercy of God is heterodox.

Heber · Oct 28, 2008

There is little use in trying to determine what 'your version' of somebody else's views consist of prior to you engaging in the facts of the other version(s), which would probably best be left to another thread.

A simple understanding of the two lines of thought make it very obvious that they are not one and the same. It is a bit like saying evangelical and evangelism are the same - another common mistake by people - they are not the same and bear no relationship to each other apart from how each word is spelt and pronounced.

Heber · Oct 28, 2008

Tonks - our posts crossed - thanks for clarification.

LittleLambofJesus · Oct 28, 2008

Tonks said:
Your bone to pick is with Albion as he confused to the two. My first remark in the thread was related to the OP. Albion began speaking of universalism in the early church which has spun us off in this direction.

Universalism is contrary to Christianity. Universal salvation on its face is heresy, the possibility of such due to the mercy of God is heterodox.

Doesn't the RCC consider the future "rapture" doctrine a heresy?

http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/amill1.html

........The amillennial doctrine came into the Catholic Church by St. Augustine. He in turn got it from being associated with Manichaeanism. He may also have gotten it from Origen who got it from Clement of Alexandria..................

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6813701&page=40
Question time. Jesus returns before or after 1000yrs

Heber · Oct 28, 2008

LLOJ - not another can of worms! How will we keep the lid on this one?

Tonks · Oct 28, 2008

LittleLambofJesus said:
Doesn't the RCC consider the future "rapture" doctrine a heresy?

http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/amill1.html

........The amillennial doctrine came into the Catholic Church by St. Augustine. He in turn got it from being associated with Manichaeanism. He may also have gotten it from Origen who got it from Clement of Alexandria..................

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6813701&page=40
Question time. Jesus returns before or after 1000yrs

Yes. What a bizarre website.

LittleLambofJesus · Oct 28, 2008

Tonks said:
Yes. What a bizarre website.

What is bizarre about it?

Tonks · Oct 28, 2008

LittleLambofJesus said:
What is bizarre about it?

1) It has lame embedded music; I hate that

2) It condemns, incorrectly, amillennialism

3) It contains this bizarre, troubling phrase: Alexandria, Egypt is also where the trinity doctrine was brought by Athanasius to Nicaea. The question here is: did any good doctrine come out of Egypt?

4) It states that Catholicism does not think that Rev should be part of the Biblical Canon

5) It ignores Orthodoxy which also holds to amillennialism

I could go on but the music was annoying.

HighwayMan · Oct 28, 2008

lol.

This is not the point of this topic at all. I know I posted it in GT, but it really was only so that like-minded people can see it. This is only supposed to be about posting suggestions, not a debate.

And the reason why I think we need one is that if you call yourself simply Christian, you are immediately lumped together with all the believers in hell and creationism and general fundamentalism, and having to restate over and over again in every thread that that is not what you believe is getting tiring.

It's just a suggestion that I thought would make things easier.

Albion · Oct 28, 2008

Tonks said:
Your bone to pick is with Albion as he confused to the two. My first remark in the thread was related to the OP. Albion began speaking of universalism in the early church which has spun us off in this direction.

Universalism is contrary to Christianity. Universal salvation on its face is heresy, the possibility of such due to the mercy of God is heterodox.

Naaa. I didn't start it. I merely corrected you.

HOWEVER, this thread is NOT about Universalism in any form. The OP didn't ask for a discussion of the author's beliefs. It's whether or not one who holds this view should have a particular icon to represent that.

Let's stop talking theology and just answer the OP's question.

Tonks · Oct 28, 2008

Albion said:
Naaa. I didn't start it. I merely corrected you.

My original post was discussing Universalist theology not universalism. look it up...'tis around post #10. To which you replied:

Contrary to what Tonks wrote, Universalism and Christianity are not incompatible with each other.

HOWEVER, this thread is NOT about Universalism in any form. The OP didn't ask for a discussion of the author's beliefs. It's whether or not one who holds this view should have a particular icon to represent that.

Let's stop talking theology and just answer the OP's question.

you know how these things go...

Albion · Oct 28, 2008

HighwayMan said:
lol.

This is not the point of this topic at all. I know I posted it in GT, but it really was only so that like-minded people can see it. This is only supposed to be about posting suggestions, not a debate.

And the reason why I think we need one is that if you call yourself simply Christian, you are immediately lumped together with all the believers in hell and creationism and general fundamentalism, and having to restate over and over again in every thread that that is not what you believe is getting tiring.

It's just a suggestion that I thought would make things easier.

I understand completely. But icons normally reflect one's church membership, not some particular slant on any particular subject. I, for instance, am an Anglican and it's well known that Anglicans vary a lot in doctrine and practice. But that's the icon: Anglican.

So do you belong to some church? If so, isn't there an icon for it?

If you don't, then "seeker" or "Christian" seems entirely appropriate. After all, we can't very well have a separate icon to reflect each and every doctrine a person holds, as opposed to every church or denomination. (And we don't even have a separate one for each church at present.)

Albion · Oct 28, 2008

Tonks said:
My original post was discussing Universalist theology not universalism. look it up...'tis around post #10.

That was exactly my point--I replied to a comment made about theology, and I do think it was #10. I obviously couldn't have done that if it hadn't already been introduced by someone else!

Anyway, back to our real subject...

LittleLambofJesus · Oct 28, 2008

If you don't, then "seeker" or "Christian" seems entirely appropriate. After all, we can't very well have a separate icon to reflect each and every doctrine a person holds, as opposed to every church or denomination. (And we don't even have a separate one for each church at present.)

There is only one doctrine......HE HAS RISEN!!!! :angel:

Acts 13:29 As yet they finish all-things the about Him having been Written, according-lifting from the wood/xulou <3586> they place into a tomb.

Revelation 22:2 In midst of broadplace of Her and of the river, hence and thence, a wood/xulon <3586> of Life doing Fruits, twelve according to a month, each rendering the fruit of it, and the leaves of the tree/wood/xulou <3586> are into a healing of the nations; [Genesis 2:8/Ezekiel 47:12]

Tonks · Oct 28, 2008

Albion said:
That was exactly my point--I replied to a comment made about theology, and I do think it was #10. I obviously couldn't have done that if it hadn't already been introduced by someone else!

Anyway, back to our real subject...

You need to get your eyes checked; I wasn't discussing Universalism.

Regarding the icon - as I've already said: no dice.

[eta] besides, my argument against a Universalist Christian icon has specifically to do with Universalist theology. I don't understand why this is so difficult.

LittleLambofJesus · Oct 28, 2008

Tonks said:
You need to get your eyes checked; I wasn't discussing Universalism.

Regarding the icon - as I've already said: no dice.

[eta] besides, my argument against a Universalist Christian icon has specifically to do with Universalist theology. I don't understand why this is so difficult.

Actually I have always been confused on that doctrine and I suppose it boils down to what is the meaning of "God will have all men be saved" especially in light of what Paul quotes in Romans 9:27? Thoughts?

Romans 9:27 Isaiah yet cries-out over the Israel "if-ever may be the number of the sons of Israel as the sand of the sea, the Remnant/kata-leimma <2640> shall be being Saved". [Daniel 12:1/Revelation 7:3]]

http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/savior/SOW3.htm
GOD WILL HAVE ALL MEN TO BE SAVED!

Crazy Liz · Oct 28, 2008

Tonks said:
Universalist theology belongs down in general apologetics or somewhere else for non-christian discussion.

Where ya been, Tonks?

GA is closed.

Permanently.

Tonks said:
Apokatastasis was condemned as heresy at the 5th Ecumenical Council irrespective of the fact that there were universalists in the early church, Origen et al among them.

At any rate, it violates the Nicene Creed and isn't up for debate in this section of the website.

Tonks, you are no longer on staff and are seriously out-of-date in your understanding of CF's rules.

Crazy Liz · Oct 28, 2008

Albion said:
I'm not a Universalist, but I have to point out that both of those conclusions are in error. By definition, a heretic is not a non-Christian; and the Nicene Creed is silent on the matter of who will ultimately be saved.

However, I agree with you that we are not here to discuss the merits of Universalism or even Christian Universalism. I mainly wanted to say that a new and separate icon does not, IMO, seem to be appropriate.

I very much agree with this post.

LittleLambofJesus · Oct 28, 2008

Where ya been, Tonks?

GA is closed.

Permanently.

Yepperz.....it is now on this board: :angel:

http://christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1037

Crazy Liz · Oct 28, 2008

Albion said:
I understand completely. But icons normally reflect one's church membership, not some particular slant on any particular subject. I, for instance, am an Anglican and it's well known that Anglicans vary a lot in doctrine and practice. But that's the icon: Anglican.

So do you belong to some church? If so, isn't there an icon for it?

If you don't, then "seeker" or "Christian" seems entirely appropriate. After all, we can't very well have a separate icon to reflect each and every doctrine a person holds, as opposed to every church or denomination. (And we don't even have a separate one for each church at present.)

Well, there is a Calvinist faith icon. Just sayin'

But I've always stuck with the black cross. I want to be known as just a Christian. If anybody makes wrong assumptions about my theology, well, this is a discussion forum. I guess that's something I come here prepared to discuss.

But that's just me.

Personally, I would like to caution the OP about asking for a universalist faith icon. Whoever adopts it could easily find themselves excluded from the Theology forums entirely, as we have been given to understand that a software restriction on posting here, based on icon, is in the works.

Univeralist Icons for CF

No longer here

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Senior Veteran

No longer here

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

No longer here

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

No longer here

Facilitator

Facilitator

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

No longer here

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Well-Known Member

Similar threads