Universalism

[Nadiine]

Wow Nadiine, you nailed it. Pantheism, God in everything. A spirit force that pervades all creation. Living by the feeling; the feel good Jesus.

Unscriptural but oh so enticing to those who struggle with religion. This is what makes this anti-religion campain so dangerous. "It's not religion, it's God" bologna. It's religion no matter how you slice it but one is true and recorded and a faithful representation of God and His Word, and the other is a subtile deception, nothing backing it up and everyone is OK, everyone is right, and "all roads lead to God".

Yep, end times prophecy revieled in "a form of godliness".

exactly.

And again, this is how false teaching works in Christianity -
using similar terms, but the terms have opposite meaning
than the Bible teaches of them.

JW's & Mormons both use "Jesus" - now try defining that Jesus
and you'll see the stark differences.
Same with New Age - same terms, completely different
meanings.

These other similar religions are counterfeits to decieve.
Nothing is new under the sun, just new packaging for
presentation

 

[red77]

That's exactly the problem - we have given tons of evidence
and rebuttals, but they just move onto the next "proof".

Granted, I have seen them do a better job this round of actually
trying to make more responses to the rebuttals - so I give them
that credit this time.
The last debate I was in was horrible with ignoring rebuttals

I can't say I'm impressed with this, talk about pots and kettles. I've been waiting for you to address several points of mine and without any success. One question in particular I must have asked you over six times by now.....

 

[red77]

You said you don't believe the earth is approx 6000 yrs old. How old is it? How did it come about? Your statement lead me to believe that you may consider evolution as truth, which would be a problem. I apologize if I made an incorrect assumption.

The book of Revelation uses symbols to talk about litteral events, so yes it is litteral.

It's only a problem if you're a biblical literalist. I'm not. Science has pretty much proved beyond doubt that the earth is a lot lot older than 6000 years. Acknowledging this doesn't negate the earth being created by God, it only becomes a problem as before if you're a literalist. You have to fly in the face of all scientific evidence to maintain there was no metaphor.

If Revelation uses symbols then who knows what these events are going to actually be?

Again, I have not failed to address the issue. The bible gives us so many examples showing that seeing is no believing. Did not the children of Israel build for themselves an idol of gold while God sat on a mountain with Moses not some 100 yards away from them?

Seeing doesn't matter if your heart isn't with God. Of course my co-worker would take the million because he values it. He however does not value God yet thus He fills as if God doesn't matter. I've given him several of my own testimonies showing how God has worked in supernatural ways within my own life. His response was "meh"

Well, it was your analogy with the money so I went with it. I would wager the majority of people would snap up a million dollars if it was right there in front of them as a free gift. however, how many do you think would be sceptical if wasn't tangibly there and they only had your say that they would inherit it? There's the difference.

Saul didn't value God either until he was directly approached. The rest, as they say, is history

Unless the heart is converted no change will occur. God could sit them down and spell out everything for them from end to end, this however will not cause them to repent if they have choosen not to love God, but the world instead.

Disagreed. Do you think that Saul could have chosen to reject after his encounter? You limit God with this argument.

Again, Lucifer sat in heaven. He covered God's glory, and He fell. He tried to fight His creator. The God who spoke the world into existence, Lucifer thought he could conquer.

I don't believe in a literal Lucifer, which will no doubt be a problem for you I suspect! For one reason it makes no sense as your paragraph above points out. How could a created being possibly think he could overthrow an omnipotent creator? He had no chance. God could have destroyed him in an instant if He chose so what was he thinking of? And who tempted Lucifer?

Sin is enmity against God, and it doesn't matter what measures are taken, unless the heart willingly submits to God there will never be change, save God force the change, which He will not do.

What did God do with Saul? Has it occurred to you that once people know that God exists they wouldn't need to be forced into accepting the truth?

 

[timlamb]

I can't say I'm impressed with this, talk about pots and kettles. I've been waiting for you to address several points of mine and without any success. One question in particular I must have asked you over sis times by now.....

I know what you mean red. Unis have done the same to me. I try to stick to short direct questions and answers otherwise they don't get read or replyed to.

I have found if I just repeat it with every post or keep bumping my post forward sooner or later some one will get mad and respond, usually by critisizing the question or statement and not responding to it. But because we all have this happen, the repeated whining over it only gets a chuckle out of both sides. You want it anwered, repeat and repeat, and if you're lucky, it may get anwswered before someone critisizes what you said.(but getting it answered by the one you asked first is too much to ask)

 

[red77]

imo, checking our brain at the door is the act of tossing obvious
scripture out the window to follow our own humanistic reasonings
and preferences becuz we're the corrupted ones.

The Bible is given to us to enlighten us as to who God is and how
He operates, what He demands for us, what pleases Him and what doesn't, etc.

It's to show us who God is (who is above our knowledge &
understanding/comprehension), so for man to just mold God
into his own image IS checking one's brain at the door becuz
they aren't learning anything, they're making a god in
their own image.
Common to their human nature; bringing God DOWN to their
lower level of knowledge and understanding.

Or it could be blindly following a set theology without question....

 

[red77]

I know what you mean red. Unis have done the same to me. I try to stick to short direct questions and answers otherwise they don't get read or replyed to.

I have found if I just repeat it with every post or keep bumping my post forward sooner or later some one will get mad and respond, usually by critisizing the question or statement and not responding to it. But because we all have this happen, the repeated whining over it only gets a chuckle out of both sides. You want it anwered, repeat and repeat, and if you're lucky, it may get anwswered before someone critisizes what you said.(but getting it answered by the one you asked first is too much to ask)

Tim, we agree!

Both sides (probably in any debate let alone this one) suffer from the same so it's pointless to make a general criticism of the opposing side on this issue...

 

[red77]

Stryder:

Jesus would agree:
Mt 13
13"Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
14"In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,
'YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND;
YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE;

And to Red:

YES, people do believe hell exists! MANY do - what they believe
however is that they are not going to end up there becuz
they are "good people".
They conveniently compare themselves to monsters like
Hitler in order to feel justified for their own lifestyles.

Further, people believe HEAVEN EXISTS TOO - that sure doesnt'
make them accept God right now, does it?

So proof or truth of any eternal place doesn't convince
anyone of any side to convert or not convert.
You cannot use it to support Universalism, it doesn't float.

Many people have hope and many believe that life continues after death in some way. That is not the same as believing in a literal fiery pit or the "traditional" notions of Heaven and hell that orthodoxy teaches. What you preach wouldn't give many people hope for loved ones passed on for example.

 

[timlamb]

Or it could be blindly following a set theology without question....

You don't think we question ourselves? You think we read the bible once and said "that's it, I got it, enough said"?

I went the "all roads lead to God, just be true to your beliefs" route. I believed in evolution, I wanted to believe in universalism because I have unsaved people I love, but in seeking the truth of scripture I decided I had to start by believing scripture, and the evidence has come around to support scripture.

The evidence is all the same. But the evidence is vague enough and soft and plyable enough that whatever angle you start from you can make it fit well enough to convince yourself.

Either God gave us the book or He didn't. And if a perfect omniciant God gave us the book I don't think He left out any essential facts. And the facts end with the Lake of fire for many, you either stop there and accept it or you make up theories based on single verses that expose the desires of God that humans deny. The fact that Jesus did die for all makes rejecting Him an unforgivible sin.

 

[red77]

Why anybody would hold to universalism is beyond me. I'm much closer to holding to universal damnation than universalism. Thank Jesus for His sacrifice.

Of course you yourself wouldn't be one of those damned right? If the idea of God being able to restore all He creates and there being no such thing as eternal agony for others is 'beyond you' then I only hope one day it becomes that much clearer.

 

[preistsplace]

he is able and willing to restore all of creation.
Glory to God

 

[Hentenza]

he is able and willing to restore all of creation.
Glory to God

He is able and willing but unfortunately some are not willing. It easy. All they have to do is believe.

 

[red77]

You don't think we question ourselves? You think we read the bible once and said "that's it, I got it, enough said"?

I went the "all roads lead to God, just be true to your beliefs" route. I believed in evolution, I wanted to believe in universalism because I have unsaved people I love, but in seeking the truth of scripture I decided I had to start by believing scripture, and the evidence has come around to support scripture.

The evidence is all the same. But the evidence is vague enough and soft and plyable enough that whatever angle you start from you can make it fit well enough to convince yourself.

Either God gave us the book or He didn't. And if a perfect omniciant God gave us the book I don't think He left out any essential facts. And the facts end with the Lake of fire for many, you either stop there and accept it or you make up theories based on single verses that expose the desires of God that humans deny. The fact that Jesus did die for all makes rejecting Him an unforgivible sin.

If you are still open to questioning theology then thats good. I don't mean to imply that 'every' person who believes in eternal hell does so solely because they've swallowed whats taught by the modern orthodox church. In my experience I've tended to find that those who ascribe to a more "unorthodox" viewpoint are those that have questioned the traditional teaching the more "evangelical" churches preach as the message.

It's not an absolute rule of thumb but I've met very few, none that I can recall who have gone from unorthodoxy to orthodoxy.

For myself I questioned the doctrine of eternal hell from the outset. I'll admit that it was initially from an emotional aspect. I was 17 and it didn't make sense. I would stumble across passages in the bible that were at odds with it. I wasn't literate enough at the time to be cohesive enough to make sense of it. Even after the first exposure to universalism where it was explained in detail I was disillusioned and cynical enough where I didn't just embrace it without question despite how hopeful and appealing it was.

It was years later where I seriously looked at theology again and tried to research it in much more depth, it couldn't just be there for a 'warm and fuzzy' teaching because there had to be scripture to support any such thing. And there is, a lot more than I had originallythought. The amount of passages that support, in fact just flat out say that God will reconcile all things are more than the "odd one". Lists have been provided on this very thread alone

When you talk about clarity then why do we have so many conflicting ideas about the nature of hell and the lake of fire? There are so many opinions and theories about what they are just from those that ascribe to eternal torment.

If you wish to stop at the lake of fire and see it as a literal unending place of torment then it's your perogative. I've seen plenty of explanations given in this thread and those in the past that refute the traditional teaching that not only rebut the darkness of unending suffering but mean that the Will of God can be accomplished. Any doctrine that dictates that God cannot will what He wishes into fruition is one to be questioned....

 

[Nadiine]

He is able and willing but unfortunately some are not willing. It easy. All they have to do is believe.

I'd go even further, He is not willing when people are
not willing.

This is the flaw in their view of God, they think He has only 1
will and since He's all powerful, that that one will HAS to be
accomplished becuz God wants it that way.

The error in it is that God has a permissive will - and allows the evil
and tragedy to happen, and Will's to do things a different way
than what they expect based on the faulty premises.

If God only has one will, then we shouldn't see 4 year old girls
molested becuz it's not God's will that people sin OR that
a little girl is sexually ravaged (and murdered) by a sexual
deviant.

So clearly He has a will to allow evil, and that means that He
allows man to suffer extreme loss.
Therefore, it's no leap to consider (via scriptures), that God
Also wills to put sinners who refuse to repent and turn to
Him, in a place where their sin is eternally contained -
since they have no atonement for their sin (when we know that
sin does not get removed except by Christ. Rejecting Christ
means the sin is retained and must be eternally paid for)

 

[timlamb]

he is able and willing to restore all of creation.
Glory to God

Regardless of it's truth this is a completely un supported statement. This is the kind of thing that I talked about. It doesn't matter what evidence of scripture we show or any level of theological or phylosophical discussion.

...the incomplete reasoning of a simple minded dreamer will bring the biggest AMEN from the Uni crowd.

The tell us to debate and answer their questions but this is what they lean on, unfounded assumptions.

 

[red77]

He is able and willing but unfortunately some are not willing. It easy. All they have to do is believe.

How can God be able if to reconcile ALL is incumbent on the finite will of man?

 

[red77]

Regardless of it's truth this is a completely un supported statement. This is the kind of thing that I talked about. It doesn't matter what evidence of scripture we show or any level of theological or phylosophical discussion.

...the incomplete reasoning of a simple minded dreamer will bring the biggest AMEN from the Uni crowd.

The tell us to debate and answer their questions but this is what they lean on, unfounded assumptions.

How can you say "Regardless of its truth"? And how is it an unsupported statement when it's implicitly stated in the bible? If God says He will reconcile all things then what actually is there to add?

 

[LightSeaker]

And no, I do not believe one who is not a "Christ follower" is living in His presence. That is against scripture!

But it's not against what's happening in real life.

.

 

[red77]

I'd go even further, He is not willing when people are
not willing.

This is the flaw in their view of God, they think He has only 1
will and since He's all powerful, that that one will HAS to be
accomplished becuz God wants it that way.

The error in it is that God has a permissive will - and allows the evil
and tragedy to happen, and Will's to do things a different way
than what they expect based on the faulty premises.

If God only has one will, then we shouldn't see 4 year old girls
molested becuz it's not God's will that people sin OR that
a little girl is sexually ravaged (and murdered) by a sexual
deviant.

So clearly He has a will to allow evil, and that means that He
allows man to suffer extreme loss.
Therefore, it's no leap to consider (via scriptures), that God
Also wills to put sinners who refuse to repent and turn to
Him, in a place where their sin is eternally contained -
since they have no atonement for their sin (when we know that
sin does not get removed except by Christ. Rejecting Christ
means the sin is retained and must be eternally paid for)

You still seem to insist that because we have temporal suffering in the now means that there's no reason that we can't have eternal. As much as there is sheer indescribable horror and pain in this world you cannot compare the two. Eternal suffering makes the worst atrocities of man equivalent to a day at the beach on a sunny day.

 

[timlamb]

But it's not against what's happening in real life.

.

If you believe someone who is not following Jesus Christ is living in His presence, you are being decieved. Jesus said, those who believe in Him will live in Him, and He in them.

But since scripture does not matter to you, you will be decieved.

 

[Nadiine]

You still seem to insist that because we have temporal suffering in the now means that there's no reason that we can't have eternal. As much as there is sheer indescribable horror and pain in this world you cannot compare the two. Eternal suffering makes the worst atrocities of man equivalent to a day at the beach on a sunny day.

and you still seem to ignore the fact that SIN IS NOT TEMPORAL.

Sin is lasting and doesn't get removed until it's washed away
by Jesus' blood.

The actions they did were temporal, the sin it created is PERMANENT.
The wages of SIN is death (not the wages of stealing a pencil
is death).
THE SIN is permanently there UNLESS ONE COMES TO GOD
WITH A SACRIFICE - just like they came to the temple with
their sacrifices under the Law.
Same thing - Christ replaced the animal.

Once you die, you "come to God" - you either have your
sacrifice or you do not.
If you do not have a blood atoning sacrifice (Christ who you
accepted as Saviour of your soul), YOU ARE NOT COVERED.

Your sin remains, and that sin is permanent.
Sin being permanent, gets permanently banned from
the Kingdom of God and separated / quarentined in
a place where it cannot leach out and harm God's
newly regenerated kingdom.

That is God's PROMISE to the saints that He ends sin.
If He doesnt put all evil and all sin into Gehenna, then
He becomes a liar and sin never ends, it forever works
against all that is pure and righteous.
Death will always exist, as will suffering and pain and disease
and curse, etc.

This is where your reasoning falls apart - it's all in the premise
and ideals you base the doctrines on