THE FALSE TEACHINGS OF UNIVERSALISM - BEWARE!

[FineLinen]

What are you accusing @FineLinen of?
Drinking the cup of demons? Partaking of the table of demons?

I think you owe him an apology. What a horrible thing to post.
We have some standards we are held to here. And for good reason.

Dear Saint: The Linen dude is the very least of what Lily has to be worried.

The Father of all fathers, the Saviour of the radical all of mankind, is NOT a potential Saviour, He IS Saviour, extending as far as the curse is found.

When her poor blind eyes are opened, her tone will be one of spontaneous vibrations of worship!

 

[a-lily-of-peace]

What are you accusing @FineLinen of?
Drinking the cup of demons? Partaking of the table of demons?

I think you owe him an apology. What a horrible thing to post.
We have some standards we are held to here. And for good reason.

I’m saying that if he isn’t sickened by the below description and image of fictional characters it’s because he can not see what sort of spirit influenced their creation.

Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who, and Mrs. Which are immortal beings who can travel across large stretches of time and space by dematerializing and rematerializing. They are capable of shapeshifting, but spend most of their time on Earth as elderly women.

https://www.denofgeek.com/wp-conten...elease-date-bonus-features.jpg?resize=768,432

Fine Linen, I’m sorry if you thought I was accusing you of worshipping demons. If anything it’s a testimony to your own innocence because the world you raised in wasn’t as saturated with this sort of thing and you might honestly never have had to think much about it.

God brought fire from heaven to show me without any doubt that these fairy tales are wrong. It’s not about winning an argument on the internet but about facing the real enemy, and I pray God blesses the sword I will use to divide the two.

No offense to you, no compromise with them.

 

[Saint Steven]

Hey---You do not want to do what He asks of You don't!! I will. He did everything for you and you are not willing to do anything for Him! Fine. We shall see soon what is to be. Goodbye!

Do what you want, but don't claim that we can't earn heaven and then come back with your list of requirements. Is that too much to ask? --- And then get angry with me. (even threatening) Where does that come from? --- Does your church using shaming to get you to comply with their list of requirements? --- "He did EVERYTHING for you, the least you could do is... and... and... and... and... and..." Where does it end? Did you do enough to NOT earn your way to heaven?

Saint Steven said: ↑
There you go adding to the finished work of God AGAIN. When will you STOP ???

 

[ClementofA]

You make His death of no value, for sinners come out of the lake of fire without needing His forgiving blood

Wrong. That remark just demonstrates your ignorance of what i believe. And universalists in general.

---you can deny this till the sinners come out of the lake of fire, it is exactly what you do---make His sacrifice of no value.

Wrong again. Same remark as above.

Sinners will have come out of the lake of fire without the need of His forgiving blood, they'll just have to suffer a little, then they get eternal life.

Wrong yet once more. Same remark as above.

That could have been for everyone and no one need have obeyed Him ever, and He need never have died at all.

Wrong. See above.

At least you're consistent!

 

[ClementofA]

Your being dishonest now dear friend.

Really? Please explain.

 

[ClementofA]

There is a common thread with you, Lily & the lovely Lover. None of you read any ones "stuff" & if you do, just continue to live in your bubble.

I wonder if ClementofA did not know there were none of you until 1864 or "thereabouts"?

 

[ClementofA]

I quote the part I want to address. Nothing dishonest about that.

Yup. Just plain old good common sense!

Evidently not everyone is gifted with it.

 

[ClementofA]

Again, universalism claims we can be saved without the blood of Jesus---

Incorrect!

just a little time spend in the lake of fire!

The ECF Universalist Origen said, if i recall, it would be, perhaps, many eons. Is that a "little time".

 

[Saint Steven]

Jesus died to show His love for us.

Right. Jesus died to show His love for us.
If you don't believe that, you will be incinerated to show His love for you.
Choose carefully. - lol
(no pressure - we believe in free will decisions)

 

[Saint Steven]

• Second Council of Constantinople - 5th Ecumenical Council (553 A.D.)

CHURCH FATHERS: Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553)


The Anathemas of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen
_________________________________________________________________

9.
"If Anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) will take place of demons and of impious men, Let Him Be Anathema.

Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these opinions together with his nefarious and execrable and Wicked Doctrine and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus, or defends these opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them."

.

Why on earth would you support a supposed decision of the Latin Church?
@Shrewd Manager will be along to straighten you out shortly. (I hope) - lol

 

[ClementofA]

• Second Council of Constantinople - 5th Ecumenical Council (553 A.D.)

CHURCH FATHERS: Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553)


The Anathemas of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen
_________________________________________________________________

9.
"If Anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) will take place of demons and of impious men, Let Him Be Anathema.

Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these opinions together with his nefarious and execrable and Wicked Doctrine and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus, or defends these opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them."

.

A mid sixth century council means little, & counts for little, if anything, IMO. Especially considering what many have written about it, e.g.

A month or so ago I found myself hovering at the edges of a long, rambling, repetitive intra-Orthodox theological debate over the question of universal salvation, and specifically the question of whether there exists any genuine ecclesial doctrine hostile to the idea. It is an issue that arises in Eastern Christian circles with some frequency, for a number of reasons, some of them reaching back to the first five centuries of the Church, some only as far back as the middle of the nineteenth century in Russia. Not that there really is much of an argument to be had on the matter. Orthodoxy’s entire dogmatic deposit resides in the canons of the seven ecumenical councils—everything else in Orthodox tradition, be it ever so venerable, beautiful, or spiritually nourishing, can possess at most the authority of accepted custom, licit conjecture, or fruitful practice—and the consensus of the most conscientious and historically literate Orthodox theologians and scholars over the past several decades (Evdokimov, Bulgakov, Clément, Turincev, Ware, Alfeyev, to name a few) is that universalism as such, as a permissible theologoumenon or plausible hope, has never been condemned by the Church. Doctrine is silent on the matter. So live and let live.

But there are those who find this an intolerable state of affairs, sometimes because of an earnest if misguided devotion to what they believe Scripture or tradition demands, sometimes because the idea of the eternal torment of the derelict appeals to some unpleasantly obvious emotional pathologies on their parts. And the fiercest on this score seem to be certain converts from Evangelicalism who bristle at the thought that Orthodox tradition might be more diverse, indeterminate, and speculatively daring than what they signed on for. And so the argument went on, repeating a familiar pattern. Those who were keen to defend the gates of hell against every assault of hope cited the small handful of New Testament verses seeming to threaten everlasting damnation; those on the other side responded that none of those pericopes, when correctly interpreted and translated, says what the “infernalists” imagine, and then cited the (far more numerous) passages proclaiming universal rescue. The eternal-damnation party invoked various “binding” authorities, such as the 1583 edition of the Synodikon; the total-reconciliation party pointed out (quite correctly) that Orthodox dogma is the province only of the Seven Councils, not of some hoary collection of canonical pronouncements and para-canonical opinions. The hellions made vague appeals to “holy tradition”; the empyrealists (knowing that “holy tradition” can mean anything from unshaven priests to crypto-gnostic superstitions about departed souls rising through “aerial tollhouses” supervised by devils) were unimpressed.

I expect my own sympathies are showing, however. In fact, I found the debate boring, except at the one juncture where it infuriated me. It should not have done, since I knew it was coming, but it touched upon an old sore point with me, and it was voiced by two of the disputants. And it is the one argument that the membership of the Hellfire Club (as I came fondly to think of that merry band) believes unassailable: Did not the Fifth Ecumenical Council, in 553, name Origen of Alexandria (a.d. 185–254) a heretic, and condemn “Origenism,” and thus the very idea of universal salvation?

In point of fact, no—absolutely not.

It is true that something remembered by tradition as “Origenism” was condemned by someone in the sixth century, and that Origen was maligned as a heretic in the process; and it is also true that for well more than a millennium both those decisions were associated with the Council of 553 by what was simply accepted as the official record. But, embarrassingly, we now know, and have known for quite some time, that the record was falsified. And this is a considerable problem not only for Orthodoxy, but for the Catholic Church as well, inasmuch as the authority of the ecumenical councils must in some way be intimately—if obscurely—bound to some notion of the indefectibility of the Church’s transmission of the faith. (And, frankly, the prejudices of ecclesial fundamentalists are as impervious to historical fact as are the naivetes of young-earth creationists to science.)

But, really, it is the most shameful episode in the history of Christian doctrine. For one thing, to have declared any man a heretic three centuries after dying in the peace of the Church, in respect of doctrinal determinations not reached during his life, was a gross violation of all legitimate canonical order; but in Origen’s case it was especially loathsome. After Paul, there is no single Christian figure to whom the whole tradition is more indebted. It was Origen who taught the Church how to read Scripture as a living mirror of Christ, who evolved the principles of later trinitarian theology and Christology, who majestically set the standard for Christian apologetics, who produced the first and richest expositions of contemplative spirituality, and who—simply said—laid the foundation of the whole edifice of developed Christian thought. Moreover, he was not only a man of extraordinary personal holiness, piety, and charity, but a martyr as well: Brutally tortured during the Decian persecution at the age of sixty-six, he never recovered, but slowly withered away over a period of three years. He was, in short, among the greatest of the Church Fathers and the most illustrious of the saints, and yet, disgracefully, official church tradition—East and West—commemorates him as neither.

I cannot really say what irks me more, though: that it happened or that, in fact, it really never did. The oldest records of the council (which was convened to deal solely with certain Antiochian theologians) make it clear that those fifteen anathemas were never even discussed by the assembled bishops, let alone ratified, published, or promulgated. And since the late nineteenth century various scholars have convincingly established that neither Origen nor “Origenism” was ever the subject of any condemnation pronounced by the “holy fathers” in 553. The best modern critical edition of the Seven Councils—Norman Tanner’s—simply omits the anathemas as spurious interpolations.

As for where they came from, the evidence suggests they were prepared beforehand by the vicious and insidiously stupid Emperor Justinian, who liked to play theologian, who saw the Church as a pillar of imperial unity, and who took implacable umbrage at dissident theologies. A decade earlier, he had sent ten similar anathemas of Origen (or what he imagined Origen to have taught) to Patriarch Menas; and on the council’s eve he apparently submitted the fifteen anathemas of 553 to a lesser synod of bishops, in hope of securing some kind of ecclesial approbation for them. Or they may instead have been proposed at a synod as much as nine years before. Whatever the case, it was only well after the Fifth Ecumenical Council’s close that they were attached to its canons, and Origen’s name inserted into its list of condemned heretics. In this way the anathemas “went on the books,” where they remain: peremptory, garbed in immemorial authority, and false as hell.

In themselves, the fifteen anathemas are an odd relic of disputes of which we can now glimpse only the shadows. Few of them are even remotely reminiscent of Origen’s actual ideas, except in almost comically distorted form, and he in fact is never named in any of them. Perhaps some of the ideas denounced vaguely echo aspects of the thought of Stephen bar Sudhaile (late fifth century); others have a faintly “gnostic” or “orphic” hue; still others might have been concocted by Aristophanes and Edward Lear during a long night’s assault on a distillery; but they all emanate from schools that have left no other historical traces. Even if the anathemas had actually been approved by the council, they no more constitute a serious condemnation of Origen than they do a recipe for brioche.

And I am not entirely certain why anti-universalists cling to them so pertinaciously, since they do not even really condemn universalism as such at all. The first anathema speaks of the idea of a “monstrous restoration” (apokatastasis), but only the version of that idea that logically follows from a particular “fabulous” account of the soul’s preexistence. And the succeeding anathemas fill in the details of the tale: an undifferentiated substantial unity of all rational natures at the beginning and then, identically, at the end; the spherical shape of resurrected bodies (Christ’s included); christological speculations that more parody than promote Origen’s beliefs; caricatures of Origen’s views of angels and demons; and so on.

In any event, I stopped following the debate when I was sent a link to a fatuous screed by some converso polemicist who not only defended the fifteen anathemas, but insisted on praising “St Justinian’s” rebukes of “Origen.” Admittedly, technically he was within his rights. East or West, all Christians are burdened with the absurdities of Christian imperial history. But any conception of orthodoxy that obliges one to grant the title of “saint” to a murderous thug like Justinian while denying it to a man as holy as Origen is obviously—indeed ludicrously—self-refuting. And one does not defend tradition well by making it appear not only atrociously unjust, but utterly ridiculous.

Saint Origen | David Bentley Hart


Early Church Writings Fathers:
Church Fathers & Universalism since Early Church times
Indeed Very Many: Universalism in the Early Church
Early church writings re final destiny (paradise, Gospel, incarnation, Jehovah) - Christianity - - City-Data Forum
Articles on the history of Christian Universalism throughout the centuries
https://s3.amazonaws.com/unsearchablerich/booksonwebsite/©CPC+The+Ancient+History+of+Universalism.pdf
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.shtml
Lawrence R. Farley

 

[Saint Steven]

No offense to you, no compromise with them.

Thanks. I misunderstood what was happening there.
It gets my Eire up if I think someone is dissing the FL. (grr...)

 

[FineLinen]

Incorrect!



The ECF Universalist Origen said, if i recall, it would be, perhaps, many eons. Is that a "little time".

There are those who think the Lake of Theos will be avoided. They also think the Lake has nothing positive.

The fact is, the Lake of Fire & Deity will ONLY be avoided by a unique segment of saints known as overcomers. They, & they alone are not "hurt" by the 2nd death.

Hurt = blapto

 

[FineLinen]

Thanks. I misunderstood what was happening there.
It gets my Eire up if I think someone is dissing the FL. (grr...)

My brother Steve: They can diss me till the cows come home, perhaps after they make it home. I do appreciate you arising to grrrr at those who do not appreciate the wonderful saint F.L. is (LOL).

The purpose of the cross is to do away with you, blessed riddance!

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Thanks for your post.
I would say the results we find in Universal Restoration falsify Annihilationism.

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

Arr but you are the ones claiming God has failed. Though God has made his plan of salvation for all mankind it says no where in his Word that all mankind will accept his plan of salvation. There are two goups of people descibed in the scriptures. These are the righteous who accept and believe God's Word *JOHN 3:16; JOHN 3:3-7; 1 JOHN 3:6-9 and the wicked who do not and are destroyed at the second coming *MATTHEW 7:12-27; MATTHEW 25:31-41; HEBREWS 10:26-31; REVELATION 22:12; 2 THESSALONIANS 1:6-10. Sin is the difference between the children of God and the children of the devil *1 JOHN 3:10.

Here let me help you with the correct interpretation of the scriptures you posted above...
1 CORINTHIANS 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so IN CHRIST all will be made alive.

The key word here is IN CHRIST. ALL THOSE IN CHRIST will be made alive.

Hope this helps.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You and Lover suffer from a hearing loss and blind eyes which must be met by the Master of Ephphatha. On that dark road the Master of Life still travels.

The most powerful word in koine regarding destruction is apollumi. The Master of Reconciliation does not lose (apollumi) any of His sheep or His goats. They may become lost, but the Saviour of the all finds them!

He loses NOTHING

There is only life in the living Word. These are his Words and not my own. Freely I give because freely I have received. Your Words are not directed towards me but to the one who the Word belongs. The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known. I must speak in the light and what I hear preach in the housetops. Many will not hear because they do not know Him. He is the Word of God and those that believe him are those that he has chosen. They follow him because they love him and are loved by him.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Once again, the claim that the plan and will of God was frustrated by his own creation. If a human did that, we would be pretty quick to point out the ill-conceived plan. Poor planning, leading to an unsuccessful end. Even Jesus taught that if someone built a tower, they should consider the cost before building, lest they be unable to complete it.

Both Damnationism and Annihilationism conclude that the plan of God failed. However, they blame this on created humanity rather than on the creator. Blame the victims of the plan, rather than the planner.

However, Universal Restorationism says that the creator has indeed succeeded and will restore all of creation at the culmination of the ages. That spells success. Anything less is complete failure.

Nonsense. By Universalism denying God's justice and judgement it denys God's love to a fallen world and makes a mockery of the life death and ressurection and the blood JESUS spilled for all mankind that opens the door to God's GRACE and salvation and denies God's Word counting the BLOOD of the covenant an unholy thing doing dispite to God's Spirit of GRACE. This doctrine of polluted waters from broken cisterns denies God's LOVE in justice and judgement and fails to see Gods' love for a fallen world in sending JESUS to die on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins by receiveing God's justice and judgements for the sins of all those who choose to receive Gods' free gift of God's Grace.

It is here at the cross of God's justice and judgement for SIN that we see the greatest act of LOVE known to mankind but UNIVERSALISM closes it's eyes to sin, Gods' justice and judgment and makes a mockery of the Cross and work of JESUS and closes its eyes to the greatest act of Gods love for all mankind. God being a God of love, mercy, justice and judgment proves that God has succeeded. Universalism denying God's justice and judgement teaches God has failed and the wages of sin is not death all are free to sin and take the chances with the gampling lady of second chances which is not biblical but a doctrine of devils IMO.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Not in so few words, no... Correct me if I misunderstood, but you seem to be saying that unless Jesus saves us from the wrath of God we will be incinerated. True or false?

Correction. JESUS has already made provision for all mankind through God's his great sacrifice of LOVE, receiving God's justice and judgement for the sins of the world. Yet this free gift of GRACE is only received by all those who hold out the hand of faith to receive it *EPHESIANS 2:8-9. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin *ROMANS 14:23 and those who reject God's gift of GRACE count the blood of the convenant an unholy thing doing dispite to the Spirit of Grace. There remains no more sacrifice for sin but a fearful looknig forward to of the judgement to come to all those who reject the gift of God's dear son *HEBREWS 10:26-31; ROMANS 6:23

..............

The scriptures

2 THESSALONIANS 1:6-10
[6], SEEING IT IS A RIGHTEOUS THING WITH GOD TO RECOMPENSE TRIBULATION TO THEM THAT TROUBLE YOU;
[7], AND TO YOU WHO ARE TROUBLED REST WITH US, WHEN THE LORD JESUS SHALL BE REVEALED FROM HEAVEN WITH HIS MIGHTY ANGELS,
[8], IN FLAMING FIRE TAKING VENGEANCE ON THEM THAT KNOW NOT GOD, AND THAT OBEY NOT THE GOSPEL OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST:
[9], WHO SHALL BE PUNISHED WITH EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION FROM THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD, AND FROM THE GLORY OF HIS POWER;
[10], WHEN HE SHALL COME TO BE GLORIFIED IN HIS SAINTS, AND TO BE ADMIRED IN ALL THEM THAT BELIEVE BECAUSE OUR TESTIMONY AMONG YOU WAS BELIEVED IN THAT DAY.

Yep not looking to good for some come 2nd coming when God takes VENGENCE and DESTROYS the wicked now right?

HEBREWS 10:26-39
[26], FOR IF WE SIN WILLFULLY AFTER THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH, THERE REMAINS NO MORE SACRIFICE FOR SINS,
[27], BUT A CERTAIN FEARFUL LOOKING FOR OF JUDGMENT AND FIERY INDIGNATION, WHICH SHALL DEVOUR THE ADVERSARIES.
[28], He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
[29], OF HOW MUCH SORER PUNISHMENT, SUPPOSE YOU, SHALL HE BE THOUGHT WORTHY, WHO HAS TRODDEN UNDER FOOT THE SON OF GOD, AND HAS COUNTED THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT, WITH WHICH HE WAS SANCTIFIED, AN UNHOLY THING, AND HAS DONE DESPITE TO THE SPIRIT OF GRACE?
[30], For we know him that has said, Vengeance belongs to me, I will recompense, said the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
[31], IT IS A FEARFUL THING TO FALL INTO THE HANDS OF THE LIVING GOD.

Yep looks like Paul and JESUS are in agreement here, not looking to good for the wicked. The GREEK Word used here for "DEVOUR" meaning the "FIREY INDIGNATION OF GOD will eat up and consume the wicked agreeing with 1 THESSALONIAN 1:9 "DESTRUCTION" or the wicked through God's "VENGENCE" at the second coming.

We can go back to the words of JESUS again if you like if your still unsure....

MATTHEW 25:31:41 [31], WHEN THE SON OF MAN SHALL COME IN HIS GLORY, AND ALL THE HOLY ANGELS WITH HIM, THEN SHALL HE SIT ON THE THRONE OF HIS GLORY:
[32], AND BEFORE HIM SHALL BE GATHERED ALL NATIONS: AND HE SHALL SEPARATE THEM ONE FROM ANOTHER, AS A SHEPHERD DIVIDES HIS SHEEP FROM THE GOATS:
[33], AND HE SHALL SET THE SHEEP ON HIS RIGHT HAND, BUT THE GOATS ON THE LEFT.
[34], THEN SHALL THE KING SAY TO THEM ON HIS RIGHT HAND, COME, YOU BLESSED OF MY FATHER, INHERIT THE KINGDOM PREPARED FOR YOU FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD [35], For I was an hungered, and you gave me meat: I was thirsty, and you gave me drink: I was a stranger, and you took me in: [36], Naked, and you clothed me: I was sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37], Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we you an hungered, and fed you? or thirsty, and gave you drink? [38], When saw we you a stranger, and took you in? or naked, and clothed you? [39], Or when saw we you sick, or in prison, and came to you? [40], And the King shall answer and say to them, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me. [41], THEN SHALL HE SAY ALSO TO THEM ON THE LEFT HAND, DEPART FROM ME, YOU CURSED, INTO EVERLASTING FIRE, PREPARED FOR THE DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS

The above show that the wicked receive the same punishment at the devil and his Angels (second death).

REVELATION 21:7-8 [7], He that overcomes shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. [8], BUT THE FEARFUL, AND UNBELIEVING, AND THE ABOMINABLE, AND MURDERERS, AND FORNICATORS, AND SORCERERS, AND IDOLATERS, AND ALL LIARS, SHALL HAVE THEIR PART IN THE LAKE WHICH BURNS WITH FIRE AND BRIMSTONE: WHICH IS THE SECOND DEATH.

Yep no coming out of that one. This is where all those who are not found in God's book of life are found...

REVELATION 20:14-15 [14], And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. THIS IS THE SECOND DEATH. [15], AND WHOEVER WAS NOT FOUND WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF LIFE WAS CAST INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE.

Yep not looking to good for some come judgement day. Looks like God's Words are true when he says...

EZEKIEL 18:4 [4], BEHOLD, ALL SOULS ARE MINE; AS THE SOUL OF THE FATHER, SO ALSO THE SOUL OF THE SON IS MINE: THE SOUL THAT SINS, IT SHALL DIE.

There are many more we can finish with some words of JESUS here...

MATTHEW 7:21-23
[21], NOT EVERY ONE THAT SAID TO ME, LORD, LORD, SHALL ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN; BUT HE THAT DOES THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN.
[22], Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and in your name have cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works?
[23], And then will I profess to them, I never knew you: DEPART FROM ME YOU WHO WORK SIN.

Yep not looking so good for the wicked at the second coming. Time for us all to repent today if we want to be ready for Christs return unless he catches us off gaurd like a theif in the night. What do you think?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Clearly Annihilationism and Damnation "say" (maintain) that God is a failure in reference to God's desire that everyone be saved. Only Universal Restoration maintains that God succeeds in his desire to save all of humankind.

Not really dear friend. Sadly it is that false teaching of Universalism that believes God has failed by denying God's justice and judgement for sin and making a mockery of the life death and ressurection and the blood JESUS spilled for all mankind that opens the door to God's GRACE and salvation counting the BLOOD of the covenant an unholy thing doing dispite to God's Spirit of GRACE. This doctrine of polluted waters from broken cisterns denies God's LOVE in justice and judgement and fails to see Gods' love for a fallen world in sending JESUS to die on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins by receiveing God's justice and judgements for the sins of all those who choose to receive Gods' free gift of God's Grace. Clearly then Universalism claims (maintains) God's is a failure in not maintaining His justice and judgement for sin and makes a mockery of the Cross of his Son given as a gift for all mankind.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

By incinerating countless billions?
Because he loves us and has our best interests at heart? How does that work on any level? Why doesn't he teach us to incinerate our enemies? Wouldn't that be godly behavior from your perspective?

What is a more loving God?

1. A God of love, mercy, justice and judgement who warns the world that the wages of sin is death and gives us free will to choose to believe and follow his Word or not to believe and follow his Word. Then because of his love and mercy to fulfill his justice and judgement
makes a plan of salvation from the foundation of the world for all mankind and even sends his only begotten son to pay the penalty for the sins of the whole Word to those who believe and accept Gods' gift to free them from this sins power and penalty of death so they can be reconcile to God?

or

2. A God that has failed at maintaining his justice and judgement and says oh well, if your not going to do what I ask you to do. I will send you to the lake of fire and torture you there until you repent and I force you to worship me?

To me # 2 is not the God of the bible and one that does not know what he is doing. It is a the God of failure and mistakes and not a God of love and forces people into obedience and worship through torture? Yet this is the God of Universalism.

Something to pray about.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

We cannot be saved on our own merit. Why do you pretend that we can.
Didn't you ask me why Christ died for our sins? (maybe that was Jack) Too many posts going on here.

If salvation is based on our own merit, how do you measure such things?
Could you have done more? (of course) Was it enough? (who knows?)

When salvation is based on the FINISHED work of the atonement, that is ENOUGH and it is completely measurable.

Your missing the point. If there was no justice and judgement JESUS would not have to die for our sins.