Does God operate at a lower standard of morality/ethics than he requires of us?

[Ceallaigh]

I don't know what a 'UR' is

UR is used interchangeably for universal reconciliation, universal redemption and universal restoration.

 

[Fervent]

IDK. You'll have to hash it out with Steve and whoever else. I'm not going to keep probing to try and figure out what's under your skin.

Perhaps you could illuminate for me what improper use of the text Stephen's comments were meant to reveal?

 

[Saint Steven]

There is no such thing as ' universalism in the bible.

You are welcome to your opinion. Have you seen these? (more where these came from)

Titus 2:11 ESV
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,

1 Timothy 4:10
That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.

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.

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

 

[Saint Steven]

Some commonplace guesses/ideas some have such as ECT are among things I address to explain why those guesses/ideas are incorrect, and thus the answer is 'no'.

What is it that makes your "guesses/ideas" superiour to other "guesses/ideas"?

 

[Ceallaigh]

Perhaps you could illuminate for me what improper use of the text Stephen's comments were meant to reveal?

I doubt it since I don't really understand what you're objecting to, despite having gone over it enough with you that I should.

 

[Fervent]

I doubt it since I don't really understand what you're objecting to, despite having gone over it enough with you that I should

How does my objection play into understanding what error Stephen saw from the poster he was responding to made with the text?

 

[Ceallaigh]

How does my objection play into understanding what error Stephen saw from the poster he was responding to made with the text?

I have no idea. That sentence doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Fervent]

I have no idea. That sentence doesn't make any sense to me.

If you don't know what error in handling the text Stephen believes the poster made, how are you so confident his objection was about how it was used rather than an attack on the text?

 

[Ceallaigh]

If you don't know what error in handling the text Stephen believes the poster made, how are you so confident his objection was about how it was used rather than an attack on the text?

Someone posted from Genesis 6:3-8, and then Steve asked a series of questions about it. Typical questions I've heard asked many times before. He concluded saying there were theological problems with it. I agreed and pointed them out to you. And you agreed that it's problematic for many. With everything I've tried to figure out that's bothering you, you keep saying you don't have a problem with it. And then just keep repeating that he's attacking the text. I'm not inside your head and seeing what you're seeing. So unless you can explain it in a way that's understandable to me (not understandable to you, but rather understandable to me) I'm not gong to be able to continue with this.

 

[Fervent]

Someone posted from Genesis 6:3-8, and then Steve asked a series of questions about it. Typical questions I've heard asked many times before. He concluded saying there were theological problems with it. I agreed and pointed them out to you. And you agreed that it's problematic for many. With everything I've tried to figure out that's bothering you, you keep saying you don't have a problem with it. And then just keep repeating that he's attacking the text. I'm not inside your head and seeing what you're seeing. So unless you can explain it in a way that's understandable to me (not understandable to you, but rather understandable to me) I'm not gong to be able to continue with this.

Right, and Steve's questions supposedly have to do with the usage of the text...so what was wrong with how the text was used? What were Steve's questions illuminating?

 

[Ceallaigh]

Right, and Steve's questions supposedly have to do with the usage of the text...so what was wrong with how the text was used? What were Steve's questions illuminating?

I'm done with this.

 

[Hmm]

There is no such thing as ' universalism in the bible.

So? You've put yourself down as 'Non-Denom'. Where's that in the bible?

Universalism isn't a denomination anyway. It's a traditional way of looking at scripture that goes back to the early church and to Paul, and there are universalists, some 'closet' no doubt, within all denominations. There are even Non-Denom universalists.

 

[Tolworth John]

Non-Denom'. Where's that in the bible?

I means indepent church, which is atcually what the churches in the NT were.

 

[Saint Steven]

So? You've put yourself down as 'Non-Denom'. Where's that in the bible?

Universalism isn't a denomination anyway. It's a traditional way of looking at scripture that goes back to the early church and to Paul, and there are universalists, some 'closet' no doubt, within all denominations. There are even Non-Denom universalists.

Agreed. There is no UR denomination that I am aware of. There is some historical tolerance within the orthodox (EO) denomination. But that's all I am aware of. This is a pioneering gospel work, to reestablish an acceptable theological position from the early church. (as you noted)

Readers may be interested in this below. Which I know you have seen. (ad nauseum - LOL)

"The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge" by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96 German theologian- Philip Schaff, Editor: "In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."

 

[Hmm]

I means indepent church, which is atcually what the churches in the NT were.

That's debatable but my point was you were saying that the word 'universalism' does not appear in scripture as though that meant something.

 

[Saint Steven]

I means indepent church, which is atcually what the churches in the NT were.

That's a cheap shot. Denominations appeared as the church grew.
What are you inferring about denominational churches?

Do you sit in chairs or pews, or stand like the early church? (1 Corinthians 14:30) See below.
Time to embrace INTERdenominationalism, perhaps?

1 Corinthians 14:29-32 NIV
Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets.

 

[Hmm]

Agreed. There is no UR denomination that I am aware of. There is some historical tolerance within the orthodox (EO) denomination. But that's all I am aware of. This is a pioneering gospel work, to reestablish an acceptable theological position from the early church. (as you noted)

Readers may be interested in this below. Which I know you have seen. (ad nauseum - LOL)

"The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge" by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96 German theologian- Philip Schaff, Editor: "In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."

Yes, it's a common strawman argument to say that universalism is a modern invention. The fact that many Early Church Fathers were universalists and weren't considered heretics by internalists is proof that it's a valid belief to hold today, though that's not to say that our beliefs today must all be decided by a majority vote among the ECFs. The idea that it was declared a heresy at the 5th Ecumenical Council is just another strawman. The truth will set you free!

 

[Tolworth John]

That's a cheap shot. Denominations appeared as the church grew.

Really, evidence for how the churches were organised durring the early years is limited, certainly the churches in the NT were independant, but looked for leadership from the apostles.

As far as denominations go, It depends how the local church both preaches and practises what it preaches.

 

[Ceallaigh]

So? You've put yourself down as 'Non-Denom'. Where's that in the bible?

Universalism isn't a denomination anyway. It's a traditional way of looking at scripture that goes back to the early church and to Paul, and there are universalists, some 'closet' no doubt, within all denominations. There are even Non-Denom universalists.

One might be sitting next to a universalist at church and not even know it?

 

[Fervent]

I'm done with this.

I'm not asking to be contentious, it seems if the problem was how the text was used rather than that the text was used at all the faulty hermeneutic would be idenifiable and the questions would point to it.