Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This one makes a strong argument for UR. @Agallagher (just one from my long list)agallagher,
1. Traditional view is based upon Revelation 20:12-15.
All the wicked are judged for their wicked ways and thrown in the lake of fire forever alive with wailing and gnashing of teeth and never die.
2. They will will be thrown into the lake of fire alive and will completely die.
The thought is within Revelation 12-15.
Also the thought is a loving God would not prolong such uncivilized horror or be so harsh.
3. Universal Reconciliation deals with purgatory till eventually they learn their lesson and God will save everyone from sin based on 2 Corinthians 5:19 about reconciling the world to himself not imputing their trespasses unto them.
Personally, I don’t believe in UR personally according to the contexts scriptures.
What do you believe and we can get into the scriptures about the whys of this subject. Jerry Kelso
This one makes a strong argument for UR. @Agallagher (just one from my long list)
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.
I completely disagree.saintsteven,
1. Sorry, but this is not a strong argument.
2. Verse 18 says that sin came upon men because of one man, the first Adam.
Verse 19 says that eternal life comes upon men because of Christ finished work because he was without sin. This is the way to keep the correct context consistent.
3. Verse 19, by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners. We know many is really every man in reality.
The obedience of one shall many be made righteous. In reality, all men do not choose God and die in sin.
This is where purgatory and UR come in.
4. The love of God is great and includes eternal justice whether eternal life or eternal damnation.
5. So what do you believe about purgatory and UR? Jerry Kelso
I completely disagree.
Your comments come from a Damnationist perspective. You are forcing your dogma on the scripture. What it says is very plain. This is a comparative of equals. The just as/so also statements make this clear. Claiming that it just can't be so ignores the clear declaration of scripture.
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.
Are you claiming that your scriptures are correct and mine are not? What you call "proper context" is only a doctrinal bias.1. You have a right to your opinion but you are not dealing with reality and proper context that will not agree with other scriptures.
Hogwash. You do the same thing.3. Proper context across the board in scripture you can not prove your point. You have to isolate scripture and the end result is pulling it out of context.
Saint Steven" said:Hogwash. You do the same thing.
Except for a few Damnationist passages the whole Bible supports UR. Didn't Jesus teach us to love our enemies? What are you claiming God will do with his enemies? (incinerate them) Is that loving his enemies? (not in the least)
Hogwash. You do the same thing.
Except for a few Damnationist passages the whole Bible supports UR. Didn't Jesus teach us to love our enemies? What are you claiming God will do with his enemies? (incinerate them) Is that loving his enemies? (not in the least)
UR-ites claim context is "doctrinal bias" because, observing proper context proves them wrong every time.
You might want to look up "context" and understand why it is improper exegesis.
What does God do with His enemies? Try reading your Bible.
Psalms 110:1
[1] 1 A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.This must be very important it is repeated seven times in scripture.
[2] Matthew 22:44
44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
[3] Mark 12:36
36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
[4] Luke 20:42-43
42 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
43 Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
[5] Luke 20:42-43
42 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
43 Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
[6] Acts 2:34-35
34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
[7] Hebrews 1:13
13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Now I want someone to show me one verse where God, Himself, or Jesus, Himself, unequivocally says that those enemies will become faithful followers.
One verse, two or more would be better.
Here are some examples of out-of-context.
1. This has been the best play I've seen all year! Of course, it is the only play I've seen all year.
2. This was a fantastic movie, as long as you aren't looking for plot or character development.
.....In both of these reviews, you start out with an ironic observation which is followed by an explanation that communicates that the foregoing was meant to be taken ironically rather than literally. This can be a dangerous tactic for reviewers to employ because unscrupulous promoters can do this:
3. John Smith calls this "the best play I've seen all year!"
4. "...a fantastic movie..." - Sandy Jones, Daily Herald.
.....In both cases, passage of the original material has been taken out of context and thereby given a meaning that is exactly the opposite of what was intended. Because these passages are being used in the implicit argument that others should come to see the play or movie, they qualify as fallacies, in addition to just being unethical.
Quoting Out of Context Fallacy (Changing Meaning)
At some point I see this happening.@Saint Steven Just the last chapter alone in revelation is enough of a stand point to see that all people are resurrected, only some are on the outside of the kingdom of heaven while some are on the inside.
The only thing that is I can not figure out will be if people can come from outside to inside, on the other side/ Echo Side (After Life).
At some point I see this happening.
Anyone who has knees to bow and a tongue to speak, in heaven and on earth and under the earth (in the realm of the dead), will whole-heartedly, and without reservation, acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord. (Philippians 2:10-11) No one can say that “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:3) If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” you will be saved. (Romans 10:9) Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. (Romans 14:9)
Seriously? Bible versus Bible? Who will win? (who will lose?)saintsteven,
1. Sorry, but that is contradictory with Revelation 20:12-15 and many other passages and these are not in context. Jerry Kelso
Since Paul continued to write scripture it is quite obvious that he did not literally die each day, therefore he must have been speaking figuratively.der alte,
1. Doctrinal bias can seem bias as explains a statement away.
However, even plain statements have a context.
Do you think you can tell me what Paul meant when he said “I die daily” by that one verse?
When read in context it does address UR. Earlier in this thread a UR-ite used a verse "love your enemies." Then asked "What does God do to His enemies?" Implying that God loves them and does not destroy them. The 7 vss. I quoted show what God does to His enemies. They don't jump up and instantly love God.2. God will make his enemies his footstool. There is nothing that says those enemies would become faithful followers including Hebrews 1:13. You also haven’t proved that is the context for the phrase making his enemies footstool has nothing to do with making a faithful follower.
You evidently did not read it thoroughly. If a movie reviewer says,"The best movie I have seen this year." "But I have only seen one."3. Out of context fallacy is incorrect on number one. That is a true statement upon the information they had seen.
Yes it is an opinion on plot and character development. That was the point.. The average person reading a movie review will tend to rely on the opinion of a reviewer. Reading only "Fantastic movie" is a far cry from "Fantastic movie if you are not looking for plot or character development." Implying the movie did not have a good plot or character development.4. Number 2 is just an opinion on plot and character development.
That has nothing to do with taking out of context and definitely no comparison to the scriptures.
I gave examples of out-of-context quotes showing St. S how such quotes give a false view of what is actually printed/said and is not restricted to doctrinal bias as he claimed. It exists in virtually every area of writing.Critics may be right in certain circumstances but they still give their professional opinion.
You have proved nothing.
I was not specifically addressing UR. I was informing someone who said "out-of-context" was "doctrinal bias" that he did not know what he is talking about.The only way you can prove UR you have to change the meaning of words and whole passages and that is not representing God as God of love or try to prove purgatory. So far you have not proved at all especially scripturally. Jerry Kelso
Have you looked at the last chapter? @jerry kelso
Here's a newsflash. There are 21 chapters in Revelation. (not 20) No UR in Revelation? Look at this.Last chapter of Revelation 20 is about the Great White Throne Judgement.
The wicked dead will be resurrected Acts 24:15 and judged for their wicked works.
Death and hell are cast into their lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. There is no UR in there.
Since Paul continued to write scripture it is quite obvious that he did not literally die each day, therefore he must have been speaking figuratively.
When read in context it does address UR. Earlier in this thread a UR-ite used a verse "love your enemies." Then asked "What does God do to His enemies?" Implying that God loves them and does not destroy them. The 7 vss. I quoted show what God does to His enemies. They don't jump up and instantly love God.
You evidently did not read it thoroughly. If a movie reviewer says,"The best movie I have seen this year." "But I have only seen one."
The average person would assume 'Best of many" If the second clause is omitted. Not the best of only one.
Yes it is an opinion on plot and character development. That was the point.. The average person reading a movie review will tend to rely on the opinion of a reviewer. Reading only "Fantastic movie" is a far cry from "Fantastic movie if you are not looking for plot or character development." Implying the movie did not have a good plot or character development.
I gave examples of out-of-context quotes showing St. S how such quotes give a false view of what is actually printed/said and is not restricted to doctrinal bias as he claimed. It exists in virtually every area of writing.
I was not specifically addressing UR. I was informing someone who said "out-of-context" was "doctrinal bias" that he did not know what he is talking about.
I was not specifically addressing UR. I was not trying to prove UR.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?