tulipbee
Worker of the Hive
...If you don't, then you're not a member of the elect, but are one of those whom we are commanded to not even wish "God speed" to, because you do not abide in the doctrine of Christ: ...
While I have taken an extra step to prove to myself that the Bible is scientifically proven to be written by God through automatic trance of the apostle's hand, Your inaccurate accusations that I don't hold the Bible being that Word of God is getting really, really, really boring. There must been 5,000 members on Christianforums posting 5 million post loaded with with Bible quotes to prove each other wrong. If we have this many denominations on this world's largest Christian forum each proving the other wrong while they themselves think they're right, then theres the repetitive endless debates God inspires creativity and you're not creative, possibly, lacking a kind of human love. I'm interested in how man interprets the Bible so lets move on, but you're still welcome to your posts. Nobody is stopping you.
I had a friend who sounded really slickly good but later found him to be sneaky in interpreting the Bible. "Soul Sleep" is an idea but I believe Jesus is still first-born meaning He is the only one in Heaven in humans time on planet Earth and that meaning judgement day hasn't arrived yet. In God's time (man's past, present and future happening all at once), the Elects have/has/will already been chosen whether I have any say so about myself being Elect. Let's cut the Hyper-Calvinist fables while we're talking.
I would like Hedrick to guide this post and explain the difference between "creeping universalism and inclusivism. He did an excellent describing the difference between inclusivism and universalism.
Let's come back, as well, to your claim that the Catholics might believe Bin Laden (was that him?) is in/or going to Heaven. I posted Hitler might/will be saved but I got that from, probably a universalistic,:
-------------------------------------------
Quotes by Neale Donald Walsch in his "conversations with God":
Walsch: But those who have taught me all about the rights and wrongs, the dos and don'ts, the shoulds and shouldn'ts, told me all those rules were laid down by You—by God.
God: Then those who taught you were wrong. I have never set down a "right" or "wrong," a "do" or a "don't." To do so would be to strip you completely of your greatest gift—the opportunity to do as you please, and experience the results of that.... To say something—a thought, a word, an action—is "wrong" would be as much as to tell you not to do it.... To prohibit you would be to restrict you. To restrict you would be to deny the reality of Who You Really Are.
God: Evil is that which you call evil. Yet even that I love, for it is only through that which you call evil that you can know good; only through that which you call the work of the devil that you can know and do the work of God. I do not love hot more than I do cold, high more than low, left more than right. It is all relative. It is all part of what is.
I do not love "good" more than I love "bad." Hitler went to heaven. When you understand this, you will understand God.
---------------------------------------------------
Maybe we should, now, discuss the thresholds or "fine line" between universualism and inclusivism. As Hendrik explains: some are saved and some are not. Perhaps the Catholics and Billy Graham belives that a person who believes in higher power could/might be saved. Perhaps the atheists are the ones not saved.
So far in this topic, we're discussing the thresholds of creeping universalism. If creeping universalism is an idea floating among the some PCUSA'ers, how does that compare mixing inclusivism with creeping universalism. I supposed creeping universalism is the same as universalism, --------- Am I right?
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
Last edited:
Upvote
0