Good tidings of great joy, which shall be to SOME people?

[rjs330]

All these posts and you haven't learned anything. You seem to be wasting your time. I wish I could help you. You really should at least watch that video and point out the errors. Can you do that?

I don't need to watch a video. You are not the first person I've talked to about UR. You have not made a case for UR, b cause scripture doesn't actually support it as a whole. Verses take out if context or alone, do not support UR. I don't actually expect to change your mind on the subject. I've learned I can only point out the error and let it go at that. You've posted some scriptures that you use to support UR and I've shown how they are not actually supporting what you think. Let's leave it at that. Unless you have another you would like to use. Then we can discuss that one.

UR is not supported by scripture. Any more than Universalism is. Many of the same scriptures you use are used by strict universalists who don't hold to the ideal that you still have to believe in Christ to be saved, but God's grace is enough to save everyone regardless.

 

[rjs330]

Bible 101: to be understood in the context of the whole NT. . .that's a fail.

Yes, that's why we have the entire scriptures right? Paul would not contradict Christ or the other apostles or himself. That's the problem too often with universalist views in that they use just some scripture that seems to support their views with taking into consideration other scriptures that contradict their views.

 

[Saint Steven]

So Jesus was wrong? Jesus said he was correct. If he wasn't correct then Jesus was wrong to tell him he did. Was Jesus lying? Was he off base? Why would Jesus tell him he was right if he was wrong?

You need to read all my replies on this subject.

 

[rjs330]

You need to read all my replies on this subject.

I read your response. However it contradicts what Jesus said. Jesus told him he got it right. So, the guy was correct not wrong. But you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned we can't do it. That's why we need Jesus. And when Jesus told him to sell all his stuff the guy left sad. Cause at that point he wasn't willing to do what was necessary. Jesus was making a point to him, which was he was absolutely correct in his understanding. But he was also unwilling and or unable to do it.

Just like all of us.

 

[Saint Steven]

I read your response. However it contradicts what Jesus said. Jesus told him he got it right. So, the guy was correct not wrong. But you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned we can't do it. That's why we need Jesus. And when Jesus told him to sell all his stuff the guy left sad. Cause at that point he wasn't willing to do what was necessary. Jesus was making a point to him, which was he was absolutely correct in his understanding. But he was also unwilling and or unable to do it.

Just like all of us.

The rich young ruler claimed to have kept the law, but was in violation of the first of the TCs. As made obvious when he went away sad.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I don't need to watch a video. You are not the first person I've talked to about UR. You have not made a case for UR, b cause scripture doesn't actually support it as a whole. Verses take out if context or alone, do not support UR. I don't actually expect to change your mind on the subject. I've learned I can only point out the error and let it go at that. You've posted some scriptures that you use to support UR and I've shown how they are not actually supporting what you think. Let's leave it at that. Unless you have another you would like to use. Then we can discuss that one.

UR is not supported by scripture. Any more than Universalism is. Many of the same scriptures you use are used by strict universalists who don't hold to the ideal that you still have to believe in Christ to be saved, but God's grace is enough to save everyone regardless.

Steve Gregg isn't a universalist. But he is an extremely knowledgeable Bible teacher and hosts a well known Bible answer radio show. He gave a very educational lecture regarding the three different views of hell.

 

[Saint Steven]

Jesus told him he got it right. So, the guy was correct not wrong. But you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned we can't do it. That's why we need Jesus.

You do understand that we are NOT under the law, right?

Galatians 3:23-25 NIV
Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

 

[Saint Steven]

Steve Gregg isn't a universalist. But he is an extremely knowledgeable Bible teacher. And he gave a very educational lecture regarding the three different views of hell.

Exactly.
And all three views are biblical. And all three views are in conflict with each other. Something most Christians can't fathom. They want to make everything black and white.

 

[rjs330]

That's exactly what happens when I present the scriptures that support UR. Damnationists claim it can't mean what it clearly says. I showed you this example earlier. I don't think you responded to it.

Romans 5:18-19
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Here's what Paul further says in Romans. Which helps us understand the totality of what he is getting across. The wages if sin is death and the gift if God is eternal life. You know this and it follows what is happening in Romans 5.

Paul goes on to say


There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death.For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.For they that are after the flesh mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.For the mind of the flesh is death; but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace:because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be:and they that are in the flesh cannot please God.But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness.But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to your mortal bodies through his Spirit that dwelleth in you.So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh:for if ye live after the flesh, ye must die; but if by the Spirit ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live.For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. - Romans 8:1-14 Bible Gateway passage: Romans 8:1-14 - American Standard Version

Note all the timea Paul speaks of the flesh, death and life in the spirit. Those that are in the spirit are the ones that receive eternal life. He says that if any man does not have the spirit he does not belong to God. If you do not belong to God you will die and the wages of sin are death. There is condemnation on you if you do not have Christ.

So how can this be if all.are saved? It can't. When you look at other writings of Paul he further confirms this. If you donsuch things you will NOT inherit the kingdom of God. Is Paul wrong? Does Paul contradict himself? No of course not. And Paul says absolutely nothing about people being saved after death. Nothing.

The keys are clear. Paul is addressing the facts that Jesus died for all, provided a way for all, but not all will accept Christ.

1 Corinthians 6:9
English Standard Version

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

Paul cannot contradict himself. Paul can't contradict Christ That is why it is so important not to stick to a doctrine that is not clearly supported by all of scripture. The answer is there. Jesus diesld for all men to provide a way for all men, no one will be turned away, but all must believe and all must believe before they die and pass on from this world into the next. Otherwise they will be damned

UR is not supported by scripture including Paul.

Do you believe that you here are those who will die not believing in Jesus?

 

[rjs330]

Steve Gregg isn't a universalist. But he is an extremely knowledgeable Bible teacher and hosts a well known Bible answer radio show. He gave a very educational lecture regarding the three different views of hell.

I thought he was talking about a UR video not the Gregg video. My mistake if that is the case.

 

[rjs330]

The rich young ruler claimed to have kept the law, but was in violation of the first of the TCs. As made obvious when he went away sad.

He obviously hadn't kept the law. He thought he did. But since no one can, he actually didn't.

He was still right cause Jesus told him he was. He just hadn't done what he thought. I doubt you are claiming he did, since you know no one can. But that was the way. Obey all the law. Which we know no one can.

 

[rjs330]

You do understand that we are NOT under the law, right?

Galatians 3:23-25 NIV
Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

No we are not. But at the time before Christs death and resurrection we were.

So I don't know what you are getting at. Are you trying to prove that the guy was wrong? Cause Jesus said he was right.

And if course we are no longer under the law. But that didn't happen until after Jesus death h and resurrection.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I thought he was talking about a UR video not the Gregg video. My mistake if that is the case.

And my mistake if it isn't.

 

[Saint Steven]

No we are not. But at the time before Christs death and resurrection we were.

Actually it started sooner than that. The forerunner marked the change. Until John. Then what?

Matthew 11:13 NIV
For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John.

 

[rjs330]

Actually it started sooner than that. The forerunner marked the change. Until John. Then what?

Matthew 11:13 NIV
For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John.

It actually started before that in the garden.

But I digress. I don't want to play duling scriptures. I post these not to disprove, but to show how all thing fit together. Scripture cannot contradict scripture. And if it seems to it's because we are looking at it wrong. And scripture compliments itself.

For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling them that have been defiled, sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh:how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made it.For a testament is of force where there hath been death: for it doth never avail while he that made it liveth.Wherefore even the first covenant hath not been dedicated without blood. - Hebrews 9:13-18 Bible Gateway passage: Hebrews 9:13-18 - American Standard Version

This helps us see what Matthew is saying. Jesus wasn't indicating that everything was completed yet. They were still under the law, but it was changing. But it's wasn't finished. Until his blood was shed and his death the old covenant still held. But he fulfilled the law and reconciled us to him.

So the young ruler was right. And Jesus told him so. There is no doubt he told the ruler he was right. We cannot say Jesus was wrong. He wasn't.

So let's move on from that to the really the original topic which is UR. Because I feel we have moved off of that topic. We both know we can't both be right on UR. Scripture isn't left to any interpretation we want. That just makes it moral relativism. And it's truth value. Cause if any of us can interpret it any way we want it really hold no value. And I can say that no one really has to believe because that's my interpretation.

 

[Saint Steven]

So let's move on from that to the really the original topic which is UR. Because I feel we have moved off of that topic. We both know we can't both be right on UR.

There are many topics that Christians don't agree on. UR is only one of many. And though all three views of the final judgment are indeed biblical, they are also in contradiction. Here are the three since you may not have gotten this far in your limited research on the subject.
- Damnationism
- Annihilationism
- Universal Restoration/Ultimate Redemption/UR

I think the key issue here is what each of these three views says about God. Is our loving heavenly Father a cosmic tyrant with anger management issues? UR says no. What do you say?

 

[rjs330]

There are many topics that Christians don't agree on. UR is only one of many. And though all three views of the final judgment are indeed biblical, they are also in contradiction. Here are the three since you may not have gotten this far in your limited research on the subject.
- Damnationism
- Annihilationism
- Universal Restoration/Ultimate Redemption/UR

I think the key issue here is what each of these three views says about God. Is our loving heavenly Father a cosmic tyrant with anger management issues? UR says no. What do you say?

Lol, I've done extensive research on the this subject. I have had numerous debates and discussions with those that believe these views.

I found that those are either Universalists and Annihilists generally force their interpretation on scriptures based on their own perceptions of who they want God to be rather than on who God says he is. Your post is a prime example of that. In those views God is either loving and would never punish anyone where there is suffering of some sort involved or God is some sort of sadist, angry tyrant. It's a view that is based upon emotions and feelings rather than on a true understanding of God. Because neither of those views are true or accurate.

By the way I have a degree in Bible Literature including original languages. So I am pretty familiar with this stuff.

 

[Clare73]

Lol, I've done extensive research on the this subject. I have had numerous debates and discussions with those that believe these views.

I found that those are either Universalists and Annihilists generally force their interpretation on scriptures based on their own perceptions of who they want God to be rather than on who God says he is. Your post is a prime example of that. In those views God is either loving and would never punish anyone where there is suffering of some sort involved or God is some sort of sadist, angry tyrant. It's a view that is based upon emotions and feelings rather than on a true understanding of God. Because neither of those views are true or accurate.

. . .

 

[Andrewn]

who they want God to be rather than on who God says he is.

Who does God say he is?

God is either loving and would never punish anyone where there is suffering of some sort involved

Where did you hear this claim? It is certainly not the belief expressed by UR.

 

[Ceallaigh]

In those views God is either loving and would never punish anyone where there is suffering of some sort involved or God is some sort of sadist, angry tyrant. It's a view that is based upon emotions and feelings rather than on a true understanding of God. Because neither of those views are true or accurate.

Like Andrewn said, UR doesn't teach there isn't punishment where there is suffering of some sort involved. Also the UR folks I've encountered have struck me as pragmatic rather than emotional in reaching their conclusions. And personally as someone who's attended Pentecostal churches for many years, saying the UR doctrine is based on emotions and feelings, seems rather ironic to me considering that's what's said about Pentecostalism.