I understand the general biblical notion about "church discipline" and I can understand a degree of your reasoning here, and in a certain way, I agree that people should be held accountable. In fact, I think they should at times be taken to task.
And you have decided you are the one ripe for the job, and I am the one in need of being taken to task?
lol
Okay.
The difference, though, between you and me is that while your apparent locus of concern is with upholding the concept of the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, my locus is on Epistemology and Hermeneutics.
I'm not realing seeing an interest in Epistemology and Hermeneutics.
I'm seeing, in this post, a more direct personal attack.
But that's okay because I am used to that.
I understand: why bother with the Epistles and Hermeneutics when you can simply attack my person.
That's pretty much anyone trying to support universal salvation is usually left with.
I addressed your post in detail, and looked at every Scripture you posted, and presented the Scripture I felt was relevant. I agreed with what I agreed with, and was very clear about what I disagreed with and why I disagreed with it, and you respond without so much a single quotation of the relevant doctrine?
It's pretty obvious what you are concerned about, lol.
Christians differ in their interpretations and I think that as an ongoing aspect of our communications in the "Christian world," and because of this limited insight we all have into the world of the Bible, we'd do better to offer each other some about of conceptual latitude since there are aspects of the Bible that are --and have remained-- unclear.
I like to discuss the gray areas as well, so feel free to present what you think God gave us in His Word that He didn't mean for us to understand.
Then tell me why it is that what you feel He did mean for us to understand is open to private interpretation and does not belong in a "gray area."
Secondly, your approach here in this forum is kind of vague.
Really?
So I was vague in my responses to you?
You felt I left things out yet you admit to reading a limited amount of my posts?
And I am being vague? lol
I'm not identifying it just yet.
I don't know why.
You should understand my position on Regeneration at this point.
You should understand my position on Justification.
You should understand my position on Eternal Redemption.
You should understand my position on Progressive Sanctification.
If you feel I was vague on these issues then perhaps you might reread the posts. Being vague is not a conclusion many would draw with a straight face.
You do know that where doctrine is concerned, the litmus test for this forum is merely to not contradict the Nicene Creed, right?
Not sure why you would think that is relevant.
So as long as the forum rule of not contradicting the Nicene Creed is met it's okay to teach unorthodox doctrine?
Perhaps you could tell me...
We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.
....how exactly universal salvation can justify a baptism for the remission of sins for those that go into perdition?
A baptism of fire? God is going to refine unbelievers with a baptism of fire that is clearly stated to be separation from God?
Perhaps you would care to present the Scripture that shows universal salvation is not contradicting that there is One Baptism?
That's a pretty basic violation, if you ask me.
It's not to uphold some other specific denominational perspective on Christianity.
I do not endorse any specific denomination, and have not been vague as to my own views towards all denominations. I do say that one is better off in a Southern Baptist or even a Fundamental Baptist Church but have been equally clear that I see error in their teachings as well.
Again, your statement is definitely irrelevant to what I believe and teach, and is irrlevant to what I have communicated directly to you.
Thirdly, you present yourself as being a bit of an authority on The Bible, and somehow, I don't see that you are an authority on The Bible.
I present Scripture as the Authority.
Always have, always will.
The fact that I happen to be able to show why universal salvation proof texts are out of context is just a bonus.
And I am sorry if I have made you feel I think I am an authority. I would suggest to you that it is the Authority of Scripture that keeps you from dealing with the Scriptural presentations given as support for my views.
In other words, your beef isn't with me, it's with the Word of God.
Also, even though I'm not the world's brightest person nor the sharpest tool in the shed, I have a sinking suspicion that you aren't either, let alone your being some prophet to 'guide us' into the truth.
lol
I'm just not seeing Epistemology of Hermeneutics here.
That's not contempt for me to say so. That's just me expressing the obvious.
Actually, that is contempt, lol.
You can't really say "You aren't that bright and you aren't a prophet to guide us" and think it isn't contempt.
As for the concept of Hell, if you want to think it's ECT, that's fine by me.
Because your opinion matters?
Do I really seem to be someone that is overly concerned about what people think about me based on my Theology?
I don't think Everlasting Punishment is a Basic Bible Doctrine, I know it is a Basic Bible Doctrine.
That is why I can debate the topic and present supporting Scripture, as well as show why the proof texts of universal salvation are taken out of context.
I hope I have been clear enough in this response, and I am sorry you felt the need to make it personal. Nevertheless, should you decide to discuss this on a doctrinal level I will be glad to have a discussion. If you decide to simply talk at me again, well, we'll take it from there.
God bless.
).
was intended for humorous effect.
