Universalism

[timlamb]

You've totally missed my point.
If your attitude is supposed to be a model of the sort of person who "follows and depends on the Word as written", I'll pass, thank you!



.

I'll pass, thank you!

Appears to me you already passed on the Word before I got to you. Not many blessings coming down from your keyboard either sister.

 

[timlamb]

Tissue;52420381]I see it quite clearly in there.

You are telling me that it is not in between the lines when I see it in between the lines.

Yep, that's pretty much what I'm telling you.

That is akin to telling a person that is staring at a refrigerator that no refrigerator exists there.

Nope, I'll back you up on the refrigerator.

 

[Rajni]

Appears to me you already passed on the Word before I got to you. Not many blessings coming down from your keyboard either sister.

The feedback I've been receiving from quite a few others tells me otherwise. But we digress .... I'll give you the last word (to quote O'Reilly ); you seem to need it more than I do.






.

 

[Tissue]

Nope, I'll back you up on the refrigerator.

Rationality in one instance does not prove rationality in all instances. This is a keen example of that.

Point is, simple negation won't fly, Tim. Prove that our position is inconsistent. And, again, philosophy might do you well here. We've already shown quite clearly that our position in Scripture is quite valid.

 

[timlamb]

chaela;52420490]The feedback I've been receiving from quite a few others tells me otherwise.

Othersw who don't believe the Word as written either

But we digress .... I'll give you the last word (to quote O'Reilly ); you seem to need it more than I do.

Gee, thanks, (bless your heart)






.[/quote]

 

[timlamb]

Tissue;52420553]Rationality in one instance does not prove rationality in all instances. This is a keen example of that.

ROFL

Point is, simple negation won't fly, Tim. Prove that our position is inconsistent. And, again, philosophy might do you well here. We've already shown quite clearly that our position in Scripture is quite valid.

I gave up trying to convince you a long time ago. You have it all Philosophied out in you head that scripture means nothing to you. I have quoted the whole book of jude, the send chapter of second Peter and the 21 chapter of Revelation just a few posts apart and it all gets written off. 2Kings showed what I had tried to show many times(only he did it better) that eternal judgment and eternal salvation are both proven by the origional wording. Nadiine gave lessons on the nature of God, and so many others have stuck in here at one time or another to prove your theology false teaching, but you just ignore it all.

No, I've stuck it out for those on the fence who need to see the truth as compared to what you are teaching. Your smug little attitudes of pride and irreverance said we didn't understand God or thought God too weak to save us or we are haters because we know God WILL punish sin and it ain't no correctional institution, it is an eternal sentance.

I'll hang around to disclaim you until you get me kicked off, but I gave up trying to convince you, you just don't listen.

 

[timlamb]

"?"

 

[Nadiine]

2 Tim,
the facts have been given - and that's our only responsibility
brother.
These threads usually end up just repeating the same info
and subjects over and over back and forth...

As scripture says, if we have ears, we'll hear.

God bless you

 

[2 King]

Well, atleast this picture aint as funny as the Panther. Actually, I find this one very "un-funny"

 

[Tissue]

I gave up trying to convince you a long time ago.

Oh. Why are you still bothering with this topic then? If you've given up conversing with us (a claim you've made in conversation), then why should we bother with your posts?

You have it all Philosophied out in you head that scripture means nothing to you.

Well that's false. Scripture means something to me. I just don't resonate with the fundamentalist 'It's all right or it's all wrong' standpoint. I also am hesitant to apply the standard of 'eternal law' to statements given to a particular culture. These stances of mine are not out of spite, but out of reflection and study. You have not shown why they are incorrect, so I'm not entirely certain why you are giving up. There is always that option open to you, if you are up to it.

I have quoted the whole book of jude, the send chapter of second Peter and the 21 chapter of Revelation just a few posts apart and it all gets written off.

How do you think we feel, quoting verse after verse that displays the fundamentals of Universalism with clarity and beauty?

The problem is, as I have noted before, that there multiple technically valid (that is, consistent) interpretations of Scripture (an infinite number, actually). Your's fits your presuppositions. Our's fits our presuppositions.

To get at the presuppositions would require philosophy, but you don't seem so keen to delve into that. Yet, it is, again, open to you.

2Kings showed what I had tried to show many times(only he did it better) that eternal judgment and eternal salvation are both proven by the origional wording.

Proven? Not proven. Not even in the most colloquial sense of that word.

Nadiine gave lessons on the nature of God, and so many others have stuck in here at one time or another to prove your theology false teaching, but you just ignore it all.

If it were proven (a word you might want to look up in the dictionary), then I would have no choice as a rational person but to agree. But it has not been proven. I have provided defenses, as have others, that successfully (or apparently successfully, as you and others have been unable to mount a successful critique of them) accounts for your assaults.

You need to understand that, even if you have the strongest intuition that you are right, there is always the chance that you are wrong. Open-mindedness would solve a lot of problems in this topic.

No, I've stuck it out for those on the fence who need to see the truth as compared to what you are teaching. Your smug little attitudes of pride and irreverance said we didn't understand God or thought God too weak to save us or we are haters because we know God WILL punish sin and it ain't no correctional institution, it is an eternal sentance.

Pride? Irreverence? Sounds like you're getting upset. I am not denigrating your stance. I am merely trying to present our stance as something that more fully encapsulates the love of God.

Charity, friend.

I'll hang around to disclaim you until you get me kicked off, but I gave up trying to convince you, you just don't listen.

Tim, if you provide a consistent, powerful argument that is tight and valid, I will listen. But, may I be frank? I will assume so, as your recent post was quite caustic.

Your arguments are horrible. Shallow. Hollow. Inconsistent. Weak. And now, you are upset with me because I am not convinced by your inferior arguments?

I am open-minded. I have been confronted by issues on this forum a number of times that have caused me to edit my views. Were I not open-minded, I might have stayed a conservative fundamentalist all my life (as that was the world in which I grew up). But to change an open mind, it takes more than mere claims. It takes reasoning, and your's I have found to be lacking every step of the way.

I'm sure you think you're being quite clever or clear in your reasoning, but I do not find you to be so, nor do others. If you wish to blame this on our ignorance, we can say nothing to change your mind. That would be, however, quite a cop-out.

 

[LJSGM]

all's I'm saying is that before salvation, we're DEAD in our sin
& trespasses against God - dead in spirit.

But we HAD a spirit that was still viable and active in order for
God to even quicken it to life.

The "spirit" is just too hard for us to understand right now I think. Our minds are too limited.

I don't believe in anihilationism - altho as I often say, I find more
credibility for it than Universalism.
Still tho, imo, it's no "payment for sin" to be dead and gone -
to know nothingness is totally worth living a full life my own
way; nothing gained, nothing lost.
In fact, anihilationism is a RELEASE from sin & penalty.

So, you don't believe it based on your own logic and not because of scriptures?

The worst penalty that we have in the US government is the death penalty. The death penalty certainly isn't a release from their sentence.

Our life is the only thing that we have, and even that would be taken from us... If we don't follow the Lord.

Luke 8:18
Therefore consider carefully how you listen. Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has will be taken from him."

 

[Nadiine]

The "spirit" is just too hard for us to understand right now I think. Our minds are too limited.



So, you don't believe it based on your own logic and not because of scriptures?

The worst penalty that we have in the US government is the death penalty. The death penalty certainly isn't a release from their sentence.

Our life is the only thing that we have, and even that would be taken from us... If we don't follow the Lord.

Luke 8:18
Therefore consider carefully how you listen. Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has will be taken from him."

When other verses directly refute annihilationism as you describe it,
then it will cause me to see that your theology may not actually be
correct.
All I say is that it's alot more biblically accurate than Universalism
is when most of it is read in from 'out-of-context' verses and
directly refuted elsewhere which goes ignored.

Since we have a viable spirit for God to quicken to life, and it's
considered "DEAD" prior to His regeneration in us, then it's very
possible that the 'destruction' you speak of isn't annihilationism.

The 2nd death is listed as eternally being in Gehenna where the
smoke ascends forever.

Also, again, being annihilated is RELEASE from punishment, not
punishment. I believe all souls to be created in God's image,
and eternal. That they continue to exist - the angels continue
existing as well.

 

[LJSGM]

When other verses directly refute annihilationism as you describe it

Where are they then, because I know that God does not torture people for an eternity, so you're going to have to prove it using scriptures, otherwise you are close to blasmphemy giving God such a horrible attribute/name.

Since we have a viable spirit for God to quicken to life, and it's
considered "DEAD" prior to His regeneration in us, then it's very
possible that the 'destruction' you speak of isn't annihilationism.

It says the soul will be destroyed in hell, there is a difference between the soul and the spirit.

If you can not give me a good explanation of what spirit is, then how can you use this explanation to prove anything?

The 2nd death is listed as eternally being in Gehenna where the
smoke ascends forever.

Gehenna was an ever burning garbage dump outside the city. Jesus used many if not all culturally revelent terms in order for the people at the time to understand what he was speaking of. They understood him full well what he meant and it wasn't everlasting torture.

Also, again, being annihilated is RELEASE from punishment, not
punishment.

this is just your own opinion now....

I believe all souls to be created in God's image,
and eternal.

You don't what he meant by that since He never specifically said what he meant by it. I personallly believe that it was that we were made as a trinity of sorts. It does not say that "they can not be destroyed."

That they continue to exist - the angels continue
existing as well.

Says who?

 

[Tissue]

In my opinion, either annihilation or universal reconciliation MUST be correct. I cannot say with certainty that everyone will be saved, but I can say with certainty (while admitting I am fallible) that there can not be persons eternally damned, according to my understanding of God. It simply doesn't fit.

I am naturally sympathetic toward my brothers and sisters, and thus am inclined toward universalism.

 

[timlamb]

Tissue;52421583]Oh. Why are you still bothering with this topic then? If you've given up conversing with us (a claim you've made in conversation), then why should we bother with your posts?

There you go putting words in my mouth. I said I gave up trying to convince you. I'll converse with you just to keep the truth in front of the reader.

Well that's false. Scripture means something to me. I just don't resonate with the fundamentalist 'It's all right or it's all wrong' standpoint. I also am hesitant to apply the standard of 'eternal law' to statements given to a particular culture. These stances of mine are not out of spite, but out of reflection and study. You have not shown why they are incorrect, so I'm not entirely certain why you are giving up. There is always that option open to you, if you are up to it.

I could write a book from all the different arguements I've used on this topic over the last three years. I have argued philosophical musings on the nature of God and the word by word commentary of hundreds of scripture. What it comes down to is that the Bible is true, and second chances from the Lake of Fire are not in there (except where you read the white spaces between the lines and find it some how). You miss all the examples from scripture where litteral scripture is a foreshadowing of things to come. When God brought the Israelites out of bondage, then destroyed the non-believers. Where God saved Noah and his family and destroyed the non-believers. Where God saved Lot and his family and destroyed the non-believers.
God IS telling us something in these stories. They aren't just stories of another time and place, they are like living parables. Like Abraham prepared to sacrifice his sone, until God sends a sacrifice in his place. The way the bible starts with the seven day creation and continues on with patterns of seven. God has seven day patterns all through scripture. He also has three day patterns when it comes to being raised from death. like His time from crucifixion to resurrection. No one in their right mind can claim to understand it but the truth is in it.

How do you think we feel, quoting verse after verse that displays the fundamentals of Universalism with clarity and beauty?

You haven't quoted anything that hasn't been refuted. Just like your arguements on the word eternal, they are groundles manipulations of the truth.

The problem is, as I have noted before, that there multiple technically valid (that is, consistent) interpretations of Scripture (an infinite number, actually). Your's fits your presuppositions. Our's fits our presuppositions.

To get at the presuppositions would require philosophy, but you don't seem so keen to delve into that. Yet, it is, again, open to you.

You admit it here, you believe what you want to believe and ignore the rest. Then you move from God's word to man made philosophies and you can make anything work then.

Proven? Not proven. Not even in the most colloquial sense of that word.



If it were proven (a word you might want to look up in the dictionary), then I would have no choice as a rational person but to agree. But it has not been proven. I have provided defenses, as have others, that successfully (or apparently successfully, as you and others have been unable to mount a successful critique of them) accounts for your assaults.

You need to understand that, even if you have the strongest intuition that you are right, there is always the chance that you are wrong. Open-mindedness would solve a lot of problems in this topic.

So it's only proven if YOU believe it? Sorry, YOU are not my standard for truth. God's word is.

Pride? Irreverence? Sounds like you're getting upset. I am not denigrating your stance. I am merely trying to present our stance as something that more fully encapsulates the love of God.

Charity, friend.

You say this and then slam me. If you want to preach it live it.

Tim, if you provide a consistent, powerful argument that is tight and valid, I will listen.

ROFL, LOL, ROFL

But, may I be frank? I will assume so, as your recent post was quite caustic.

Your arguments are horrible. Shallow. Hollow. Inconsistent. Weak. And now, you are upset with me because I am not convinced by your inferior arguments?

I am open-minded. I have been confronted by issues on this forum a number of times that have caused me to edit my views. Were I not open-minded, I might have stayed a conservative fundamentalist all my life (as that was the world in which I grew up). But to change an open mind, it takes more than mere claims. It takes reasoning, and your's I have found to be lacking every step of the way.

I'm sure you think you're being quite clever or clear in your reasoning, but I do not find you to be so, nor do others. If you wish to blame this on our ignorance, we can say nothing to change your mind. That would be, however, quite a cop-out.

MY arguements are lame huh.
"All will one day believe given enough time"
"All will love the Lord given enough time"
"All will walk humbly with God, even in the Lake of fire"
"All will worship God once they are burned enough"
"I don't limit God, I free Him, so long as He saves everyone."
"I could not love a God who didn't save everyone, even those who are not his children and don't want to be"

And you call my arguements lame:o

 

[timlamb]

In my opinion, either annihilation or universal reconciliation MUST be correct. I cannot say with certainty that everyone will be saved, but I can say with certainty (while admitting I am fallible) that there can not be persons eternally damned, according to my understanding of God. It simply doesn't fit.

I am naturally sympathetic toward my brothers and sisters, and thus am inclined toward universalism.

Believing anything but scripture. Your opinions are so bias and as you say yourself, it is based on YOUR understanding, not God's word.

 

[timlamb]

I am naturally sympathetic toward my brothers and sisters, and thus am inclined toward universalism.

True, biblical brothers or sisters are realted either by blood or Spirit. The ungodly are not our brothers or sisters.

You way over estimate the spirit of the comon man. Most are enemies of your Lord and Savior. Try to get them saved but don't call them family and think they are children of God until you do. Calling everyone a chil;d of god is a pantheistic approach.

 

[LightSeaker]

The ungodly are not our brothers or sisters.

I understand what your saying. But for myself, I do see even the ungodly as my brothers and sisters. Why you ask? Because like myself, they were created with the God's Breath of life. So by God's own breath, I do see myself as brothers and sisters with all human beings. And from my heart and soul, I also look to them as such.

You way over estimate the spirit of the comon man. Most are enemies of your Lord and Savior.

Most don't even care one way or another about Jesus Christ. That does not make them enemies of Jesus Christ.

Try to get them saved but don't call them family and think they are children of God until you do.

I can't help myself…If I see a spark of God with in the souls of others, even if they don't believe in God...I will love them as children of God. And by God's own Breath that gave all of us life, they are my brothers and sisters. Tim, my brother, you don’t need to do so, I understand your limits on seeing others as your brother and sister, but I just can’t help myself and will continue to do so. I think the world is better off that way.

Calling everyone a chil;d of god is a pantheistic approach.

I think some might see it as more panenthistic in nature.

.

 

[Tissue]

There you go putting words in my mouth. I said I gave up trying to convince you. I'll converse with you just to keep the truth in front of the reader.

Oh, I didn't think you recognized the difference. I've been hoping for a conversation all this time, and have said so multiple times, but 'conversation' in your vocabulary apparently means 'argument'. If you're giving up on the argument but moving into conversation, then by all means, let's chat.

I could write a book from all the different arguements I've used on this topic over the last three years. I have argued philosophical musings on the nature of God and the word by word commentary of hundreds of scripture. What it comes down to is that the Bible is true, and second chances from the Lake of Fire are not in there (except where you read the white spaces between the lines and find it some how). You miss all the examples from scripture where litteral scripture is a foreshadowing of things to come. When God brought the Israelites out of bondage, then destroyed the non-believers. Where God saved Noah and his family and destroyed the non-believers. Where God saved Lot and his family and destroyed the non-believers.

Ok, I haven't seen any philosophy from you whatsoever on this point. Perhaps I missed it. Mind repeating it?

You haven't quoted anything that hasn't been refuted. Just like your arguements on the word eternal, they are groundles manipulations of the truth.

I haven't found my points refuted at all. All you've been able to do is show that it is inconsistent with your presuppositions, but that's hardly a refutation of my position.

Again, perhaps I missed where you actually employed rationality to dismantle my position, rather than a series of posts that boils down to 'Oh, I don't believe that.' If that is the case, please link me to those posts.

You admit it here, you believe what you want to believe and ignore the rest. Then you move from God's word to man made philosophies and you can make anything work then.

I believe what I want to believe because I want to believe the truth, and I am going after the truth as far as I can.

God's Word is Jesus, not the Bible.

The Bible is a human book.

'Man-made' philosophy is what your entire theology is built upon.

So it's only proven if YOU believe it? Sorry, YOU are not my standard for truth. God's word is.

Huh?

You say this and then slam me. If you want to preach it live it.

I am saying what needs to be said of necessity. You apparently do not know why it is I do not accept your arguments. The reason is, I find them to be lacking. How else can I say that without it appearing to be a slam? Should I lie?

It does not stem out of pride or irreverence. It stems from my own ability (or, at least, perceived ability) to recognize rationality in arguments, and my following analysis of your argument.

MY arguements are lame huh.
"All will one day believe given enough time"
"All will love the Lord given enough time"
"All will walk humbly with God, even in the Lake of fire"
"All will worship God once they are burned enough"
"I don't limit God, I free Him, so long as He saves everyone."
"I could not love a God who didn't save everyone, even those who are not his children and don't want to be"

And you call my arguements lame:o

Those aren't arguments, Timi. Those are claims.

 

[Tissue]

Believing anything but scripture. Your opinions are so bias and as you say yourself, it is based on YOUR understanding, not God's word.

Once again you suggest that I do not believe Scripture, but this is quite false. I think I would be one to know. I suppose next you'll be arguing that my hair is not brown.

God's Word is Jesus, not the Bible.

All opinions are biased, including your's.

No human has access to God's understanding. It all must pass through the human brain, which is fallible, and material.