Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Too bad that the very informative info of @Lazarus Short is refuted by the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud quoted in my post [#516] above.Very informative, thanks
Too bad that the very informative info of @Lazarus Short is refuted by the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud quoted in my post [#516] above.
Documented historical truth makes you unhappy?Whatever makes you happy
Some posters like to call their opinion "the Word of God".Again, you're identifing truth with your interpretation of it. Documents have to be interpreted.
Some posters like to call their opinion "the Word of God".
("Disagree with me and you can take it up with God")
Right. Having an opinion isn't the problem.Indeed. And saying that interpretation.is unavoidable is not saying that truth is relative in the sense that everyone's opinion is therefore equally valid. There is informed interpretation and misinformed or unguided interpretation. We can't and aren't meant to work it all out for ourselves because church is a community. So who do we listen to? For me, it's reputable scholars, and of course their findings are always changing and developing, and people IRL and in virtual life like this forum who reflect politeness, rationality and a loving regard for others. This excludes, on the ground of rationality, anyone who claims that they speak for God!
Christian Universalism. What's not to like?
It is not biblical and a false interpretation of the scripture that repeats the first lie told in the garden of Eden to Eve in Genesis 3:1-5 that you can break Gods' commandments and not surely die. This of course is not what the scriptures teach. For me therefore I do not like that it is a false teaching.
Take Care.
Your welcomeThanks, take care dude.
All the sources I quoted were written in English. If a country boy from Oklahoma can understand it you should be able to. I also provided links to my sources.Again, you're identifing truth with your interpretation of it. Documents have to be interpreted.
If a country boy from Oklahoma can understand it you should be able to.
What is it about universal redemption that annoys so many Christians? Shouldn’t we be happy that God’s love and mercy are wider, higher, deeper, and broader than we could ever imagine? We all sin at times so shouldn't we welcome the thought that God is not going to annihilate or eternally torment us if we don't “accept,” “trust,” “repent,” “believe,” well enough to appropriate the grace of God?
You would think so but it seems from the recent threads on Christian Universalism that this is not the case. Why is this?
Here are some of the reasons that have been expressed in the threads:
1. ”If everyone is or will be saved, what’s the point in following Jesus?”
To me, anyone who thinks this must see following Jesus as a heavy burden, one that needs the reward of heaven to make it worth the hassle. But shouldn't following Jesus and having a good relationship with him here and now be its own reward?
It's also a misunderstanding of Christian Universalism to think it says that we don't have to receive the saving grace of Christ in order to be reconciled to God and to each other. It just says that if we don't manage to do this in this life there will be boundless opportunities to do so in the next one and that eventually every one will accept forgiveness and repent of their sins... ”that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth" (Phil 2:10)
2. "All my hard work at being a Christian has been undermined".
This is very much like 1. Shouldn't any work we do be done out of love for God, not for any personal eternal rewards?
3. ”If there is an 'us,' there has to be a 'them'"
This may be true about some things such as football: I support Manchester United so I hate Manchester City (I'm from the UK, apologies) but it needn't apply to matters of faith. If we are going to heaven when we die there doesn't have to be a group who go to hell.
These three reasons seem to have something in common and that's judgementalism. They're all essentially saying "Look, I'm a good Christian and my hard work and sacrifices has earned me membership into the very exclusive club of heaven and, sad to say it, but most other people haven't done anywhere nearly as enough as me and so, unfortunately, missed out on the opportunity." This makes you think of the work vs. faith debate ironically but, moving swiftly on from that, isn't it true that being judgemental is wrong and if that's the main reason behind our objection to Christian Universalism, shouldn't we consider that we might be misunderstanding it?
There are biblical arguments that can be made for and against Christian Universalism but there are plenty of existing threads discussing that so, assuming anyone wants to respond!, I'd be more interested in hearing what your gut, visceral reaction is, whether for or against, when you hear the words "Christian Universalism". For me, it's basically relief that God is a loving God and not a monster after all.
You 'maybe', are taking a higher road than me, I admit. I do know that Jesus spoke pretty harshly against those religious leaders who 'thought more highly of themselves' and their false doctrine 'than they should have' in His day.However, I in no way mitigate, but rather extol, their faithfulness in preserving so much NT Christological doctrine through all that siege of false doctrine in centuries past, and they have the battle scars to prove it (i.e., transubstantiation, real presence). So we definitely "owe" them for the faith delivered to the 15th century.
I was told part of 'your position above', growing up in 'The Church'. But I think they/you take too much liberty with those scriptures to prove infant baptizing.Infant baptism was practiced in the NT church (Acts 16:15, 33), but not as regeneration.
It was seen in the light of circumcision, as entrance into the (new) covenant (Colossians 2:11-12), making them a part of God's people and partaking in their earthly benefits of protection and provision, personally receiving its spiritual promises only through faith.
If it is true then no problem. If it's false, people that could have been saved, may end up not be because of it.
What annoys me is it is not scriptural. There is not one verse of scripture which clearly states that all mankind will be saved, the righteous and unrighteous alike, even after death or words to that effect.What is it about universal redemption that annoys so many Christians? Shouldn’t we be happy that God’s love and mercy are wider, higher, deeper, and broader than we could ever imagine? We all sin at times so shouldn't we welcome the thought that God is not going to annihilate or eternally torment us if we don't “accept,” “trust,” “repent,” “believe,” well enough to appropriate the grace of God? * * *
But if our salvation depends on getting our theology right and our punishment if we don't is ECT, what does that say about God?
We don't need to get everything right theologically. But if some errors in theology is an obstacle to salvation, what does that say about God? That God is loving and just? I would say so.
ECT I won't go into here.
Too bad that the very informative info of @Lazarus Short is refuted by the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud quoted in my post [#516] above.
To me versions are irrelevant. I have Hebrew and Greek grammars and lexicons. I can look up the complete definition of any word anyone calls into question.Why? More to the point, why do you say it so readily. Further, which Bible? I have at least three versions in my library which do not mention "hell." So I can say that Hell and ECT are un-Biblical. Saying "not biblical" assumes that the Bible, the Church and theology are monolithic, but none of them are.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?