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.
I deliberately avoided what I had in mind, which was not hell, it comes before hell.But some, like you, accuse people of going against the Word of God, when in reality they just don't agree with your interpretation of it.
It sounded like you were implying the destination was hell.
Paul is fighting with himself in all of this. There is 'no fight' one wins, when one FIGHTS God.Paul is revealing that 'in him' he does not have "the fullness of the stature of the image of Christ" in him. And that 'fight' isn't for going to heaven, it is a fight to get heaven into your soul here on earth. Your OSAS spirit is your ticket INTO heaven in the hereafter. Not your works here on earth AFTER you've been born again.
Depends on what is being interpreted. Some things in the gospel are non-negotiable.Accusing someone of "going against the Word of God" or "calling God a liar" etc because they don't agree with your interpretation,
is wrong no matter who does it.
I deliberately avoided what I had in mind, which was not hell, it comes before hell.
The very fact that the word for "DETERMINED" is also revealed as showing the 'active' difference, with thelo, when compared in the 'passive' definition of another word boulomai, should give one a clue something is a bit fishy at worst, but revelatory also....IMO. I'm taking the last POV.
Depends on what is being interpreted. Some things in the gospel are non-negotiable.
The driving force of the Universalist argument here has been "Universal Salvation would be wonderful if it were true, so I'm making it my belief."
You know what? You're right, and I apologize for that.It just feels like those who work so hard to justify such a fate for God's creation, just make us feel like it should apply. Again, bad assumption for me to write. I can only ask for forgiveness from you.
You've obviously misunderstood the argument made then. You have been saying that people believe in universal redemption because they think it would be nice and cuddly if it was true but no-one who does believe in it has been saying that. It's almost like you're arguing with yourself...
Who made that rule?If you want to truthfully explain what you were getting at, you should come right out and say it, instead of being
cryptic, which makes you look untruthful.
Wouldn't this be a great day for Satan and his demons!!!
Sorry. . .talk is cheap. . .not the way it works.All the same your opinion is not the Word of God, so I wish you would stop saying it is.
In his defense I have seen many threads hinting to that notion, saying things like how could an all loving God punish people in the lake of fire for all eternity. Arguments like that are deriving from a human perspective on love and logic rather than scriptural evidence. So I think there is some weight to @Albion ‘s claim there.
Sorry. . .talk is cheap. . .not the way it works.
Biblical assertion without Biblical demonstration is without Biblical merit.
If you assert that it is not the word of God, you must demonstrate such for your assertion to have merit.
Who made that rule?
That may/may not be so but he claimed that the "driving force" of the pro-universalist argument made in this discussion is that "it would be wonderful it it were true" which is clearly false and mildly patronising. The driving force has been Scripture, just a different interpretation of it than his.
What's not to like?
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?