Does Universal Reconciliation teach a "false gospel"?

[HuntingMan]

I'm curious when I see someone very passionate about eternal torment.

What torment must they have suffered, that they wish it on others?

This is such a lame argument.

1. NO ONE HERE WISHES TORMENT ON ANYONE.
Is this in any way UNCLEAR to you Liz ? Is it unclear for any of you others?

2. WE BELIEVE GODS WORD ON THE MATTER WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT.
Again, is this in ANY way UNCLEAR for you Liz ?

Nuff said.

 

[Tavita]

This is such a lame argument.

1. NO ONE HERE WISHES TORMENT ON ANYONE.
Is this in any way UNCLEAR to you Liz ? Is it unclear for any of you others?

2. WE BELIEVE GODS WORD ON THE MATTER WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT.
Again, is this in ANY way UNCLEAR for you Liz ?

Nuff said.

HM, are you a Calvinist too?

Do you believe God created people FOR damnation?

 

[HuntingMan]

Yes gospel is doctrine , its the doctrine of christ 2 jn 1:

9Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

You have been decieved..



I am here to bear witness to the truth first and foremost..

Excellent passage !
Tho some like to distract with this "gospel" semantics game we can EASILY discern that CHRISTS teachings to His church ARE His 'good news', the foundation OBVIOUSLY being what He did for His church.
Seems that some would rather find some semantics game to play to be able to dismiss the DOCTRINE (ie 'teachings') that Christ taught us to keep from accepting the truth.

 

[HuntingMan]

HM, are you a Calvinist too?
Do you believe God created people FOR damnation?

Spidey sense tingling....loaded question....what to do...what to do...



no and no.

 

[Tavita]

Spidey sense tingling....loaded question....what to do...what to do...



no and no.

Then why are you siding with a Calvinist and not pointing out his so called heresy?

 

[HuntingMan]

Yes gospel is doctrine , its the doctrine of christ 2 jn 1:

9Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

You have been decieved..



I am here to bear witness to the truth first and foremost..

Just looked at that one again...pretty interesting overall

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
(2Jn 1:9-11 KJV)

 

[HuntingMan]

Then why are you siding with a Calvinist and not pointing out his so called heresy?

And I suppose you actually believed that I DIDNT know what your loaded question was up to ?
Im hardly going to let you distract me from the topic at hand.

Quite frankly, Im not a Calvinist, but the Calvinist argument is MUCH stronger and based on ENTIRE passages of scripture, not this hack and slash 'one versin it' thing that Universalism error uses.

 

[IchoozJC]

Yes gospel is doctrine , its the doctrine of christ 2 jn 1:

9Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

You have been decieved..

The gospel is doctrine, but doctrine is not always gospel. That is my point. Do you think you can add any teaching in the NT to the gospel, and accurse anyone who doesn't agree with you? That's what some do. If so, you must be of that select group who believes they have 0 error in any of their understanding. If that is you, then I'm sure it matters not anything that I say, your mind is already convinced.

No, I have not been decieved, beloved. Look at the context of the verse you quote:

2Jo 1:5
And now, dear lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another.
2Jo 1:6
And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.
2Jo 1:7
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.
2Jo 1:8
Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully.
2Jo 1:9
Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
2Jo 1:10
If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him.

John is warning about those who don't profess Jesus the Christ came in the flesh. And those who don't love their brother. That is the "this teaching" that John is referring to. Sorry, you can't use this scripture to burn anyone who would disagree with you doctrinly.


I am here to bear witness to the truth first and foremost..

I'm sure you believe you are, really. I'm here to have a discussion with people who don't see eye to eye, and some who do.

He was speaking about the elect, they were forgiven.. but not the seed of the serpent.. Jesus gave them no hope read here matt 23:


29Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

I see know hope in these words of christ to these men.

He was speaking to everyone who was around to see Him crucified. Pharisees, scribes, roman guards, teachers of the law, the jeering crowd. They were all there.

NO ONE knew what they were really doing. His plea for forgiveness falls on ALL of them.

 

[Tavita]

And I suppose you actually believed that I DIDNT know what your loaded question was up to ?
Im hardly going to let you distract me from the topic at hand.

Quite frankly, Im not a Calvinist, but the Calvinist argument is MUCH stronger and based on ENTIRE passages of scripture, not this hack and slash 'one versin it' thing that Universalism error uses.

LOL!... but surely you have realized by now that Universalism is more in line with Calvinism than Armenianism. Chaela did a great job of redoing the TULIP. To be a Calvinist you need to believe that it is ONLY God who saves, there is NO Freewill... yet you believe in the total Freewill of man.

Do you see Calvinism as a stronger argument than Armenianism?

Of course I knew you knew the question was loaded... you're not that dumb, HM.

 

[IchoozJC]

Excellent passage !
Tho some like to distract with this "gospel" semantics game we can EASILY discern that CHRISTS teachings to His church ARE His 'good news', the foundation OBVIOUSLY being what He did for His church.
Seems that some would rather find some semantics game to play to be able to dismiss the DOCTRINE (ie 'teachings') that Christ taught us to keep from accepting the truth.

Semantics game, semantics game, blah. Just your way of avoiding civil discussion.

I read some things on your website. It is very easy to see that you play the same "semantics games" as you accuse others of playing. But it's ok for HM, right? Your allowed to use any type of argument you want because you are so emotionally wrapped up in defending your ministry, while the same tactics you use are off limits to anyone who disagrees with you. Way to play fair, HM.

 

[IchoozJC]

Spidey sense tingling....loaded question....what to do...what to do...



no and no.

At least now I know that I'm not on ignore

It really flatters me that you find me too challenging to reply to.

 

[Crazy Liz]

This is such a lame argument.

1. NO ONE HERE WISHES TORMENT ON ANYONE.
Is this in any way UNCLEAR to you Liz ? Is it unclear for any of you others?

2. WE BELIEVE GODS WORD ON THE MATTER WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT.
Again, is this in ANY way UNCLEAR for you Liz ?

Nuff said.

I'm curious, then, why you are so passionate about it.

The passion in your posts on this topic match the passion in your posts about spousal abuse and divorce. People argue with you that these women are bound for life to cruel husbands. You read their stories and are moved with compassion, arguing that Christians who see only condemnation of divorce in scripture must be wrong because no ethical and moral person could wish that kind of cruel abuse on another. Yet when it comes to this topic, you are passionately on the side for a strict biblical interpretation, unmitigated by compassion for our fellow humans, because "we believe God's word on the matter whether we like it or not."

You use different logic for different doctrines. Usually, you are quite eager to share your basis for believing you have arrived at the only correct doctrine.

Can you explain your reasons for reasoning differently in these two cases? I'm not the only one here who is surprised to see these two ideas argued so passionately by one person - from someone who thinks these two doctrines are so important his signature advertises his website as the source for "the truth" about these two topics. As the publisher the truth, you must have some explanation.

 

[IchoozJC]

This is such a lame argument.

1. NO ONE HERE WISHES TORMENT ON ANYONE.
Is this in any way UNCLEAR to you Liz ? Is it unclear for any of you others?

2. WE BELIEVE GODS WORD ON THE MATTER WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT.
Again, is this in ANY way UNCLEAR for you Liz ?

Nuff said.

Yet when God says He hates divorce, and biblically only offers one way out, you will dance till the sun goes down to find a way out of it. Overtaken in emotion for abused women (which is commendable, BTW) but yet you stand FIRM that there is no way out of the LOF. Again, I think it's great that you want to help abused women, but see blatant contradiction in the way you handle the Word.

 

[Rajni]

It really boils down to this:

1. Calvinism teaches that God can save everyone, but won't.​

2. Arminianism teaches that God wants to save everyone, but can't.​

3. Universalism teaches that God both can and will save everyone.​

Now... which of the three soteriological views would be the most God-glorifying?



​

 

[IchoozJC]

It really boils down to this:

1. Calvinism teaches that God can save everyone, but won't.​

2. Arminianism teaches that God wants to save everyone, but can't.​

3. Universalism teaches that God both can and will save everyone.​

Now... which of the three soteriological views would be the most God-glorifying?



​

Sure makes it obvious, doesn't it?

 

[IchoozJC]

I'm curious, then, why you are so passionate about it.

The passion in your posts on this topic match the passion in your posts about spousal abuse and divorce. People argue with you that these women are bound for life to cruel husbands. You read their stories and are moved with compassion, arguing that Christians who see only condemnation of divorce in scripture must be wrong because no ethical and moral person could wish that kind of cruel abuse on another. Yet when it comes to this topic, you are passionately on the side for a strict biblical interpretation, unmitigated by compassion for our fellow humans, because "we believe God's word on the matter whether we like it or not."

You use different logic for different doctrines. Usually, you are quite eager to share your basis for believing you have arrived at the only correct doctrine.

Can you explain your reasons for reasoning differently in these two cases? I'm not the only one here who is surprised to see these two ideas argued so passionately by one person - from someone who thinks these two doctrines are so important his signature advertises his website as the source for "the truth" about these two topics. As the publisher the truth, you must have some explanation.

Wow! Are you me, or am I you?

Coincidence? I think not.

 

[Rafael]

It really boils down to this:​

1. Calvinism teaches that God can save everyone, but won't.

2. Arminianism teaches that God wants to save everyone, but can't.


3. Universalism teaches that God both can and will save everyone.


Now... which of the three soteriological views would be the most God-glorifying?​

Door number three!!! God is able to convince and draw ALL MEN unto Him, having lifted up the Son.

 

[HuntingMan]

I'm curious, then, why you are so passionate about it.

Because this vile error tells everyone that they really DONT need to worry about it, that eventually they WILL be saved.
They MUST know the truth that condemnation IS eternal so they dont make the game of our Lords sacrifice that some here do.

Can I assume that you are also a Universalist as well Liz?
I have to admit, that would be a complete surprise.
Or is it just one more topic youve taken a temporary stance on just so you and I have something to bicker about?

The passion in your posts on this topic match the passion in your posts about spousal abuse and divorce. People argue with you that these women are bound for life to cruel husbands. You read their stories and are moved with compassion, arguing that Christians who see only condemnation of divorce in scripture must be wrong because no ethical and moral person could wish that kind of cruel abuse on another. Yet when it comes to this topic, you are passionately on the side for a strict biblical interpretation, unmitigated by compassion for our fellow humans, because "we believe God's word on the matter whether we like it or not."

And compassion for those who might not take ETERNAL torment seriously enough to DO something about it is enough motivation to make sure that they have the WHOLE truth.

You use different logic for different doctrines. Usually, you are quite eager to share your basis for believing you have arrived at the only correct doctrine.

I think Ive presented the basis clearly enough.

Can you explain your reasons for reasoning differently in these two cases? I'm not the only one here who is surprised to see these two ideas argued so passionately by one person - from someone who thinks these two doctrines are so important his signature advertises his website as the source for "the truth" about these two topics. As the publisher the truth, you must have some explanation.

See above.

Gods words SHOWS that Eternal torment IS the case...meaning that anyone who falls for this error and doesnt know that they MUST come to salvation in THIS life may well go into their graves believing that they can just live life like they want and eventually they will be saved anyway.

it would be IRRESPONSIBLE....no it would be HEARTLESS....of those who KNOW the truth about eternal torment to allow this lie to cause even ONE poor soul to fall into hell because they didnt know that they MUST make that choice in THIS life.

 

[HuntingMan]

Let me ask some of you this...do you REALLY want to make this thread an MDR thread ?
Ill leave that up to you all, but if you keep asking me about it you will leave me NO choice but to offer much evidence showing that marriage is a CONDITIONAL covenant.

If you dont want this thread derailed with that then STOP asking me about it !

The CONDITIONAL covenant of marriage and a husbands RESPONSIBILITY to his wife as per GODS instruction has NOTHING to do with GODS sovereign RIGHTEOUS judgment !

 

[Crazy Liz]

Wow! Are you me, or am I you?

Coincidence? I think not.

Actually, we're not clones of each other. I'm not a universalist. I'm essentially agnostic on the question whether any humans actually will be tormented eternally. I see many scriptures talking about eternal condemnation. I also see themes throughout scripture indicating the possibility that God might save all, and that God wishes us to hope, work and pray for that. I also see the proof-texts are not unequivocal. Many ask thought-provoking questions. Other scriptures make definite and certain statements about some people being sved, but are silent about the others. Others are pregnant with the question whether ultimately anyone actually will be in the condemned class, or whether we ourselves might be.

Throughout both the OT and NT we see God acting in mercy and compassion. Not always, but often enough to know that it is in God's character to relent on a promised punishment. In Jonah, God makes his own prophet a false prophet by not fulfilling the condemnation God sent Jonah to announce. Jonah was bitter about this, but God gives him a lesson in compassion.

So I see universal reconciliation as a possibility (therefore, not false) but not as a certainty (therefore I don't call myself a universalist).