For Whom did Christ die?

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Give the RC another 100 years and you will not be able to tell the difference between RC and any other protestant denomination.

Definitely an overstatement...

 

[Kristos]

The poll is flawed.

He died for the sins of the whole world.

 

[Rajni]

It has nothing to do with longevity as you would be correct.

No problem; I just mentioned the Buddhism thing because you had previously referred to how the gospel had been taught, believed, and practiced a particular way for the last 2000 years. It seemed to me that you were placing quite a bit of importance upon how long a particular Christian branch's understanding of Scripture has lasted, as if that alone were of a certain significance. My bad!

It has to do with the Gospel as it was given, practiced, believed in the beginning which has been consistantly constantly been held the same since the Apostles recieved it. It has been preserved as Christ promised it would be through the work of the Holy Spirit in time. Either it has been preserved as He states, or it has not been preserved. If it has not been preseved we should have no faith in His word. Whatever we are speaking about is but vanity. It has no import whatsoever.

Well, I wasn't around from the beginning so I can only go by what others say. Which can be tricky, considering the thousands of different perspectives within Christianity alone.

Ok, but you have produced none that anyone can see

In this thread, maybe not. Do you have solid evidence that I have produced absolutely, positively no evidence that anyone can see, either in this thread or in other similar discussions I have had over the past couple of years on this subject?

It would not surprise me at all if they did. They are moving much closer to the operendi of protestantism than they have ever had since they split from the Church almost 1000 years ago. Give the RC another 100 years and you will not be able to tell the difference between RC and any other protestant denomination.

Perhaps, who knows? I used to engage on tons of debates with Roman Catholics (I used to be one myself -- born and raised RC until I turned 22). The Roman Catholic Church would likely say that they haven't really changed at all, LOL! (To any Catholics reading this, please correct me if I'm wrong on that! I promise I won't argue it to death:o).





.

​

 

[Rightglory]

Chaela,

Well, I wasn't around from the beginning so I can only go by what others say. Which can be tricky, considering the thousands of different perspectives within Christianity alone.

If you follow history, it becomes quite easy. The same original Gospel can be followed right from the Apostles to today. It is believed and practiced the same way, the same understanding from the beginning. All other variations are new innovative developements that were taught by certain individuals over time. None of them ever became the Gospel. Many false teachings have started but all have been denied.
that is the sure way to tell the Gospel from false teachings. Has it always been believed and practiced from the beginning. It is the "rule of faith". It is the authentic historical witness of the work of the Holy Spirit in time.

In this thread, maybe not. Do you have solid evidence that I have produced absolutely, positively no evidence that anyone can see, either in this thread or in other similar discussions I have had over the past couple of years on this subject?

You are only an individual and in this discourse you have not shown that the doctrine of the Church regarding Universalism has been changed. A teaching that has never held sway in Christianity before or after the 6th Ecumenical Council.

Perhaps, who knows? I used to engage on tons of debates with Roman Catholics (I used to be one myself -- born and raised RC until I turned 22). The Roman Catholic Church would likely say that they haven't really changed at all, LOL! (To any Catholics reading this, please correct me if I'm wrong on that! I promise I won't argue it to death).

to say one thing, but have history clearly show that many things have changed in the doctrines of the RC since they split. The fact they split and have not come back in repentance is the biggest change.

 

[Rajni]

If you follow history, it becomes quite easy. The same original Gospel can be followed right from the Apostles to today. It is believed and practiced the same way, the same understanding from the beginning. All other variations are new innovative developements that were taught by certain individuals over time. None of them ever became the Gospel. Many false teachings have started but all have been denied. that is the sure way to tell the Gospel from false teachings. Has it always been believed and practiced from the beginning. It is the "rule of faith". It is the authentic historical witness of the work of the Holy Spirit in time.

Even historians are biased. Following history is therefore not as simple as it sounds. Being that I wasn't here from the very beginning of Christianity, I would have to put my faith in the reliability of fallible human historians in constructing my theology. Having dealt with Roman Catholics, as well as having been one myself, I'm quite familiar with what I call "We Were Here Firstism". Everyone wants to be The One True Church.

You are only an individual and in this discourse you have not shown that the doctrine of the Church regarding Universalism has been changed.

As only an individual yourself, the above is your perspective, yes. However, I was asking for objective evidence that I have not produced absolutely, positively no evidence of the truth of universal redemption.

A teaching that has never held sway in Christianity before or after the 6th Ecumenical Council.

According to some sources. Other sources say that the belief in universal reconciliation was the dominant belief initially. Even historians are biased. Again, I wasn't there from the beginning, so, like everyone else, I have only the shifting sands of biased historians' reporting from which to draw my conclusions.

to say one thing, but have history clearly show that many things have changed in the doctrines of the RC since they split. The fact they split and have not come back in repentance is the biggest change.

Well, that's all part of another debate, namely the ongoing one between the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox (the aforementioned "We Were Here Firstism" debate).

​

 

[Rightglory]

chaela,

Even historians are biased. Following history is therefore not as simple as it sounds. Being that I wasn't here from the very beginning of Christianity, I would have to put my faith in the reliability of fallible human historians in constructing my theology. Having dealt with Roman Catholics, as well as having been one myself, I'm quite familiar with what I call "We Were Here Firstism". Everyone wants to be The One True Church.

Historians have nothing to do with it. Historians do not construct theology. The Church Fathers and what has been consistantly, from any part of the world, from any century it has remained the same. It is putting your faith in the Holy Spirit, In Christ and the promise made to ensure that the Once Given Gospel remains, that the Body of Christ shall remain.
the problem with the RC is that it has been led by a single man with a magisterium that dictates what they Church will believe and what it will practice for 1000 years. Changes have been made along the way that drastically has changed the meaning of the Original Gospel. Most changes were made on the suggestion of a person or a very small number of people. Some were made with out any reason to make them, just that something aught to be changed.
What you have done is moved from the pot into the fire. Now, instead of a man or magisterium you depend on your own ability which is as fallible as any other human. You also depend on a book that is now isolated from its full content and context in order to determine what kind of faith you shall have or believe.

As only an individual yourself, the above is your perspective, yes. However, I was asking for objective evidence that I have not produced absolutely, positively no evidence of the truth of universal redemption.

Unless you would like to claim to be an original Apostle. And claim that for some reason it has never been believed and taught before but now we have some authentic evidence that the Apostles did indeed teach Universalism. It would turn on its head what has always been taught and beleived. It would mean that the Holy Spirit failed to give us ALL Truth in the beginning and has been unable to preserve that teaching from the beginning.

According to some sources. Other sources say that the belief in universal reconciliation was the dominant belief initially. Even historians are biased. Again, I wasn't there from the beginning, so, like everyone else, I have only the shifting sands of biased historians' reporting from which to draw my conclusions.

One must be careful in how terms are used. Universal reconciliation does not mean Universalism necessarily. I also believe in universal reconciliation because that is precisely what Christ did on the Cross in redeeming His creation. That is precisely what Col 1:15:20 is saying, But this has nothing to do with the fact that the Church has always believed in a hell. That not all men will be soul saved. These are two separate issues.

Well, that's all part of another debate, namely the ongoing one between the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox (the aforementioned "We Were Here Firstism" debate).

It may be an ongoing debate, but history is quite easy to follow as to which is correct.

 

[Rajni]

chaela,
Historians have nothing to do with it. Historians do not construct theology. The Church Fathers and what has been consistantly, from any part of the world, from any century it has remained the same. It is putting your faith in the Holy Spirit, In Christ and the promise made to ensure that the Once Given Gospel remains, that the Body of Christ shall remain.
the problem with the RC is that it has been led by a single man with a magisterium that dictates what they Church will believe and what it will practice for 1000 years. Changes have been made along the way that drastically has changed the meaning of the Original Gospel. Most changes were made on the suggestion of a person or a very small number of people. Some were made with out any reason to make them, just that something aught to be changed.
What you have done is moved from the pot into the fire. Now, instead of a man or magisterium you depend on your own ability which is as fallible as any other human. You also depend on a book that is now isolated from its full content and context in order to determine what kind of faith you shall have or believe.
Unless you would like to claim to be an original Apostle. And claim that for some reason it has never been believed and taught before but now we have some authentic evidence that the Apostles did indeed teach Universalism. It would turn on its head what has always been taught and beleived. It would mean that the Holy Spirit failed to give us ALL Truth in the beginning and has been unable to preserve that teaching from the beginning.
One must be careful in how terms are used. Universal reconciliation does not mean Universalism necessarily. I also believe in universal reconciliation because that is precisely what Christ did on the Cross in redeeming His creation. That is precisely what Col 1:15:20 is saying, But this has nothing to do with the fact that the Church has always believed in a hell. That not all men will be soul saved. These are two separate issues.
It may be an ongoing debate, but history is quite easy to follow as to which is correct.

Oy vey! I think we're going in circles now.

Perhaps the best course of action is for you to continue believing what you do while I continue believing what I do, considering that neither of us see much evidence compelling us to do otherwise at this point. It'll all work out!



.