Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Saint Steven]

But I can still call you a heretic, right?

I thought it was a badge of honor. (honor among thieves and all that - lol)

 

[ozso]

All,

In the light of the above discussion on civil debate, I wonder what you guys think. This is quite a long thread which may not be helping things so would it be best to close it? I'm not sure but I believe as the OP that I can request this.

For myself, while I'd like it to continue because I think it has been very informative and educational at times, I wouldn't want it to put Christian universalism in a bad light if that is what it is doing.

So, please let me know what you think and hopefully we'll see if there's a consensus on what we'd like to do.

It seems anytime an OP requests a thread lock it gets locked pretty quickly. Probably the most effective method would be to hit the report button on a post you made to ask for it.

As far as this thread goes, if it's locked another UR thread will probably take it's place. This thread hasn't been any different from other UR threads as far as discussing/ debating UR goes in my opinion. So I don't see any reason to close it. For a thread this long I think it has remarkably stayed on track for the most part.

 

[John Mullally]

Why not use our Lord's own nomenclature: 'Sons of hell'?

Can't put it any better than that, can we?

In Acts 2:36-41, Peter promises remission of sins & the gift of the Holy Spirit to those who repent and are baptized. They are not sons of hell. There is no need for this! Not cute! Exactly what we don't need going forward!

 

[Saint Steven]

All,

In the light of the above discussion on civil debate, I wonder what you guys think. This is quite a long thread which may not be helping things so would it be best to close it? I'm not sure but I believe as the OP that I can request this.

For myself, while I'd like it to continue because I think it has been very informative and educational at times, I wouldn't want it to put Christian universalism in a bad light if that is what it is doing.

So, please let me know what you think and hopefully we'll see if there's a consensus on what we'd like to do.

I vote to keep it going.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I thought it was a badge of honor. (honor among thieves and all that - lol)

To the 'others', universalists must seem like the 'happy heretics'.

There's this constant complaint that UR empties the work of the cross. This might be an obvious thing to say, but it shows me how closely eschatology and soteriology are bound up. Limited atonement equates to eternal bbq, I guess.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

In Acts 2:36-41, Peter promises remission of sins & the gift of the Holy Spirit to those who repent and are baptized. They are not sons of hell. There is no need for this! Not cute!

Jesus refers to Pharisees as sons of hell because they're laying burdens on others that they themselves can't carry, and locking ppl out of the kingdom that they themselves can't enter into.

So we can readily infer that they're condemning ppl to hell, and so Jesus turns it back on them, 'How will you escape the sentence of hell?'

I don't think our Lord would last too long if he were commenting on CF.

 

[Saint Steven]

There's this constant complaint that UR empties the work of the cross.

Exactly. And that is so counterintuitive.
Was the work of the atonement complete or incomplete? (in effectiveness)
If the assignment is to be "the savior of the world", a 5% return is a complete failure. That is what empties the cross of its power. We need a stronger formula. (like UR = 100% effective)

Bottom line: cognitive dissonance

 

[John Mullally]

Jesus refers to Pharisees as sons of hell because they're laying burdens on others that they themselves can't carry, and locking ppl out of the kingdom that they themselves can't enter into.

So we can readily infer that they're condemning ppl to hell, and so Jesus turns it back on them, 'How will you escape the sentence of hell?'

I don't think our Lord would last too long if he were commenting on CF.

So do you think I am a Pharisee locking people out of the kingdom of God and you fancy yourself as the Lord? You obviously don't know me. Is that what gives you the right to call me a "Son of Hell"? Get help or maybe start a website condemning everyone you disagree with.

 

[Saint Steven]

I don't think our Lord would last too long if he were commenting on CF.

Banned again. Not his first rodeo. - lol
They crucified him the first time, so he knows where this going.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Exactly. And that is so counterintuitive.
Was the work of the atonement complete or incomplete? (in effectiveness)
If the assignment is to be "the savior of the world", a 5% return is a complete failure. That is what empties the cross of its power. We need a stronger formula. (like UR = 100% effective)

Bottom line: cognitive dissonance

Like the way you put that, one could really state the gospel as a prospectus - invest in total salvation, here's your bottom line, chances of return on investment - 100%.

Compare the damnationist claim - invest in fire insurance, to cover a 100% personal chance of loss.

Hm, needs work.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

So do you think I am a Pharisee locking people out of the kingdom of God and you are the Lord? You obviously don't know me. Is that what gives you the right to call me a "Son of Hell"? Get help or maybe start a website condemning everyone you disagree with.

I have no idea what you believe, I was merely offering a scriptural alternative to 'infernalist'.

 

[Saint Steven]

Like the way you put that, one could really state the gospel as a prospectus - invest in total salvation, here's your bottom line, chances of return on investment - 100%.

Compare the damnationist claim - invest in fire insurance, to cover a 100% personal chance of loss.

Hm, needs work.

Yes.
Did Jesus succeed or fail at his mission to be the savior of the WORLD ?

1 John 4:14 NIV
And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

 

[Saint Steven]

I don't think our Lord would last too long if he were commenting on CF.

And his refusal to align with the required doctrinal statement might put him in the "Christian Seeker" category.

I wonder how long it would take him to find one? - lol

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Yes.
Did Jesus succeed or fail at his mission to be the savior of the WORLD ?

1 John 4:14 NIV
And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

And when the Apostles say, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved,' what else are they talking about?

Unfortunately, it's all now become so personalised and individualised. But the truth that frees mankind is the power and will of God to do it all.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

And his refusal to align with the required doctrinal statement might put him in the "Christian Seeker" category.

I wonder how long it would take him to find one? - lol

Haha, I hope we'd recognise him here in the Controversial Forum.

 

[John Mullally]

I have no idea what you believe, I was merely offering a scriptural alternative to 'infernalist'.

You have no idea what I believe and yet call me a "Son of Hell". That says a lot about you. Not Shrewd!

 

[Saint Steven]

Unfortunately, it's all now become so personalised and individualised. But the truth that frees mankind is the power and will of God to do it all.

Yes. Each in turn... (1 Corinthians 15:23)

 

[Saint Steven]

Haha, I hope we'd recognise him here in the Controversial Forum.

YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is probably where he would PREFER to hang out. - lol

 

[Saint Steven]

You have no idea what I believe and yet call me a "Son of Hell". That says a lot about you. Not Shrewd!

Hey!
For someone who is concerned about name-calling, you should probably lead by example.

 

[ozso]

As with verses being used to disprove UR being virtually the same as those used to disprove OSAS, I see what looks like the same argument against UR that's used against predestination. That being if God predestined people to be saved, if they were going to be saved and spared anyways, if they were made as vessels of honor ahead of time... Then that renders the cross null and void, Jesus died for nothing, there was no reason for Jesus to be crucified.

It seems ironic that the same type of argument used against the idea that God chose to save a few, is used regarding the idea that God chose to save all.

But to me the simple fact is that salvation was only made possible by and through the cross, regardless if one, a few, many, most or all are saved. NO ONE, regardless of their number could ever gain salvation without Jesus having been crucified. Regardless of the number saved, there's absolutely no such thing whatsoever as, "would have been saved anyways". In my opinion that seems to be the biggest strawman ever created.