Author Topic: kind of traditional argument against UR from reason  (Read 1762 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline anti_nietzsche

  • Est
  • *
  • Posts: 207
  • Gender: Male
kind of traditional argument against UR from reason
« on: July 02, 2008, 07:38:56 PM »
The argument is simply that: ET and UR are mutually exclusive. Adhering to one or the other doctrine makes a big difference.

Now consider this, if UR is true, why has God not seen to it that it remained the orthodox teaching of the church? Why are there so MANY christians who do not believe in UR, who instead embrace ET doctrines?

I think I can say that I can witness to Christ working in the lives of ET people too. They do have the Holy Spirit just like us. But, if UR is right, why does the Holy Spirit not intervene when people believe in ET? There are also many prophets out there, christian prophets, that is. But I am not aware of many of them embracing UR.

How could christianity be so wrong about this thing, when it is believed that all non UR churches are led by God too?

About the only counterargument to this I can think of, is the reformation. Before the reformation took hold, most christians believed in salvation thru works. Did they all get damned for this falsity? Did the teachers and church-ians of that day get damned?

Paul Hazelwood

  • Guest
Re: kind of traditional argument against UR from reason
« Reply #1 on: July 02, 2008, 08:44:12 PM »


I think the issue may be that God is not  dwelling in physical structures of men.  This does not mean that if you walk into a church "building" that God is not present, it means that the structure does not represent God.  So it may seem  innocent to say "Lets go to the Lords house" it is indeed unscriptural to believe a structure is actually Gods house.

That however does not mean that God will not work within each individual in any given congregation.  It is well known that within any congregation of any particular denomination each individual person may indeed hold different beliefs from one another, and from the church's doctrine or creed.

I believed in UR for 3 years before I left a church that had an ET doctrine. That ET doctrine did not keep God from doing anything in the lives of people.   

The difference is that God works  "ALL" things according to the counsel of "HIS" will and that does include the people who believe ET.  This also means that God works the lives of Atheists, God just hasn't revealed that to them yet.





martincisneros

  • Guest
Re: kind of traditional argument against UR from reason
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2008, 02:28:10 AM »
The argument is simply that: ET and UR are mutually exclusive. Adhering to one or the other doctrine makes a big difference.

Now consider this, if UR is true, why has God not seen to it that it remained the orthodox teaching of the church? Why are there so MANY christians who do not believe in UR, who instead embrace ET doctrines?

I think I can say that I can witness to Christ working in the lives of ET people too. They do have the Holy Spirit just like us. But, if UR is right, why does the Holy Spirit not intervene when people believe in ET? There are also many prophets out there, christian prophets, that is. But I am not aware of many of them embracing UR.

How could christianity be so wrong about this thing, when it is believed that all non UR churches are led by God too?

About the only counterargument to this I can think of, is the reformation. Before the reformation took hold, most christians believed in salvation thru works. Did they all get damned for this falsity? Did the teachers and church-ians of that day get damned?

But are UR and ET the only areas where Christians have been divided where the implications were such strong polar opposites?  What about vows of poverty in the Catholic Church verses vows of prosperity in the Charismatic circles?  Both claim the authority of Scripture in these matters.  What about the nonsense over Sabbatism?  The Sabbath is Saturday, but Christians in many groups want to meet on Sunday and call that the Sabbath because of their traditions which have nothing to do with the Word of God.  What about Catholic vows to never get married that the priest must embrace ever since about the 11th century or so, whereas many Protestant denominations that turn St. Paul's general guidelines in his pastoral letters into another form of law that says that you're not really fit for Christian ministry just with the Word of God, sanctification, and the Spirit alone, but you must be married and have kids and add those pressures to the pressures that the congregation will put upon you and if you don't crack under the enormous pressure from every direction, then and then alone are you truly a Godly minister, whereas Protestants will [often] go so far as to claim that Catholic vows against getting married in some way necessitate Catholic priests turning to homosexuality -- which is the furthest from the truth that it would necessitate that.

Diversity of opinion doesn't prove the validity of one perspective as opposed to the other on that basis alone.  Christians of absolutely all of the above perspectives and countless others have been used mightily by God in evangelistic endeavors because God was merciful and where there was a successful ministry involved, there was generally a whole lot of prayer and fasting for God's intervention.  God's involvement is for Christ's sake so often and not because of the validity of any group of Christians on all points of doctrine.  God is answering the prayers involved when there's the manifestation of His Spirit and/or angelic intervention, and not providing us with fleece validations of all of our doctrines as when Gideon was fleecing Him in Judges chapter 6.

autoimmune

  • Guest
Re: kind of traditional argument against UR from reason
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2008, 06:12:32 AM »
I have a short answer and a long answer.  I'll give the short one:

It is rational, anti_nietzsche, because many are called and few are chosen.  It is rational because there is a narrow, difficult path and a wide, easy one.  It is rational because God planned it that way and does as He will, not as man wills.

Take your suggestion to its logical end. 

To suggest that all Christians would be granted the same, precise, concise interpretation of scriptures is irrational and counter to the gospel.  The road would be easy then and all who are called would have to be immediately chosen.  Since God wills all to be saved, that means He would have to call and choose ALL men to hear the good news.  No man could have the option of saying no in that case.  Such a thing is ultimately irrational because the end result (UR) could only happen then through the loss of our free choice to learn Love as He lived (and died because of) it, and that lets out the  possibility of a true Love relationship between God and His creation.

We will all be reconciled to God through Christ in the end, but it will be a free will choice by ALL creation that comes from a Godly understanding of what Love actually is, each group learning to Love as Christ did in the logical and natural order ordained by God.  Not a forced obedience of automatons, cookie-cutter Christians.

To do that Jesus made the road to the Father narrow and told us we could only walk it if we went the same places He did out of love for others. Christ first, then the firstfruits in Christ, followed by His Bride after her testing, and then the reconciliation of all the rest of creation.  Each step is necessary to the next. And very logical and rational :)

Mary Ellen

Offline firstborn888

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1080
  • Gender: Male
  • Not all those who wander are lost
Re: kind of traditional argument against UR from reason
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2008, 07:47:42 AM »
But, if UR is right, why does the Holy Spirit not intervene when people believe in ET? There are also many prophets out there, christian prophets, that is. But I am not aware of many of them embracing UR.

True, but I am not aware of many modern day prophets who get much of anything right. (That statement comes from working in charismatic circles for 30 years).

How could christianity be so wrong about this thing, when it is believed that all non UR churches are led by God too?

Again, there's a lot of wonderful Christian people out there but they are pretty much 'hit and miss' as far as the big picture plan of God goes. Remember that God hides things from the wise and prudent, even unto this day.

About the only counterargument to this I can think of, is the reformation. Before the reformation took hold, most christians believed in salvation thru works. Did they all get damned for this falsity? Did the teachers and church-ians of that day get damned?

The only ones whom Jesus had harsh words for were those who knowingly, willingly suppressed the advancement of the kingdom to protect their own position. The oppressors always get judged, not the victims of false teachings.

blessings,
 - Byron 

Offline willieH

  • Read Only
  • *
  • Posts: 2260
  • Gender: Male
Re: kind of traditional argument against UR from reason
« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2008, 08:02:35 AM »
willieH: Hello  A_N!   :cloud9:

The argument is simply that: ET and UR are mutually exclusive. Adhering to one or the other doctrine makes a big difference.

Now consider this, if UR is true, why has God not seen to it that it remained the orthodox teaching of the church? Why are there so MANY christians who do not believe in UR, who instead embrace ET doctrines?

GOD is JUDGE A_N...  :dontknow:  It is not up to us to JUDGE the "ET crowd"... GOD has a purpose for their error...

A_N... The MANY (not FEW) shall say (Matt 7:22-23):

22  MANY will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name, and In Thy name have cast out devils?  and in Thy name done MANY WONDERFUL WORKS?

23  And I will profess unto them, I never KNEW YOU; depart from Me, ye that work iniquity.


And MANY (not FEW) shall come saying (Matt 24:5):

5  For MANY shall COME IN MY NAME... Saying, I am CHRIST [witnessing] and shall DECIEVE, ...MANY.

FEW there be that find the TRUTH A_N... not MANY...  The MANY travel the pathway of destruction, for they bear NOT the TRUTH... That GOD actually LOVES ALL... instead...

They bear a message to the world that GOD is more of a monster than was Hitler...

Teaching that World which GOD SO LOVED (let me remind you that GOD never changes! Mal 3:6)...

That He shall BURN without MERCY, the vast MAJORITY ...OF IT... FOREVER!  :omg:

How much WORSE and MORE TAINTED could their "message" be?  :crywipe:

peacE...
...willieH  :cloud9:

auggybendoggy

  • Guest
Re: kind of traditional argument against UR from reason
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2008, 06:08:10 PM »
Hi Anti-N,
I would argue like the others that hearing does not imply that all christians here ALL truth.  We are moved from glory to glory.

While many christians may hold that ET is true, they are blind in the notions that God's love never fails.  They reconcile in their minds that God offers salvation but ONLY saves upon the agreement of the person.
Where this is in scripture is EVER MORE OBSCURE than UR. 

What is known is God gets what he wants and God wants all men to be saved.

So how is it ET believers can have God working in them.  Because they have basic fundamental properties which are CRITICAL to life.

1) Love
2) faith (comes from love)

Their understanding of love (thoough conflicting) does understand that God loves his enemies.  So this belief in love affects their understanding of God (to a point) that they can minister to others. 

IF THEY BELIEVED GOD HATES BLACK PEOPLE AND THEY FULLY LOVE THAT GOD WHO HATES BLACK PEOPLE, Will they love black people?

My point is that if they believe God loves all men then they too will love all men. 

So what about calvinists who believe God does not love all men?  They trick their minds into loving everyone based on their blindness that they do not know who the elect or reprobate are.  Therfore they HAVE to love everyone in order to not break the law of love.  Thus kindness is forced from their behaviors. 

God can use even non-christians to bring about his cause so he can use christians (ET, UR, Cath...even mormon) to bring about his means.  It does not mean any of these beliefs are correct but it does mean HE IS GOD AND DOES AS HE PLEASES.

Remember as well that none of us eternal torment or Universal Reconciliationists have every doctrine right.  So when you speak of the reformation, remember that we all have different ideas.  If having even a slight idea wrong means hell for people then to hell ALL men will go.  So our being wrong on ET does not condemn us.

Aug
« Last Edit: July 13, 2008, 06:12:49 PM by auggybendoggy »

Offline B_T

  • Est
  • *
  • Posts: 200
  • Gender: Male
Re: kind of traditional argument against UR from reason
« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2008, 06:13:35 PM »
Why are there so MANY christians who do not believe in UR, who instead embrace ET doctrines?

I think I can say that I can witness to Christ working in the lives of ET people too. They do have the Holy Spirit just like us. But, if UR is right, why does the Holy Spirit not intervene when people believe in ET?

It's simple, man. A lot of people know that something's not right. They never confess.