Discussions Relating to Universal Reconciliation > Discussions on Universal Salvation

Comments Unique Proof For The Doctrine Of Universalism

(1/5) > >>

arcticmonster2003:
Do they say I wonder why this cannot be discussed? Afterall it is supported be scripture though arguments using different scriptures can be made? There are many such discussions trying to understand scripture at apologetic websites and it does certainly make me wonder, and certainly makes me not want to visit the site.

julzabro2:
This is the site I was banned from this morning! :mshock: They have a disclaimer that says, in so many words, that Universalist's are very always harsh, demeaning and rude. This disclaimer, in their forum rules, I believe is fairly new and actually even says that they"ll ban someone who even "hints" at Universalism! They say that they feel that Universalism keeps new believers from coming into the Body by teaching that no one goes to hell I believe it even quotes a recent argument/debate between someone there at CARM and someone from HERE at Tentmaker!!! Of course, it only shows Tentmaker's rebuttles...not there own posts.

I was very shocked at the hypocracy of this considering that there were atheists, agnostics etc etc and even so called Christians whose behavior was worse. It was a handful of Christians, myself included, who, apparently started SOUNDING universlaistic....as maybe we are...that got this site in an uproar. However, the antagonizing, condescending judgmentalistic posts, INITIALLY, came from the peanut gallery.

I didn't even know that I was a universalistic Christian until today when I saw that I had been suspended. I know there is a handful of others that will probably also be banned who may very well end up here.

julzabro2:
This was one of my posts that they suspended me on the other was merely a response/agreement to someone else's post that, I guess, they thought to be universalism. This was in my inbox and shows what I said that they deemed as "introducing universalism"...?!?! Funny, considering I didn't even know what a universalist was!  :laughing7:



Dear julzabro,

You have received an infraction at CARM.ORG - Christian Discussion Forums.

Reason: universalism introduced to forum
-------
Simply put....this is about Israel....God's chosen people denying Him and not gathering the flock...even murdering His servants. These are the Pharisees and Sadducees...those stuck in the law. They were those who were invited yet they were made stubborn (they assumed they knew the Law but they denied Grace) in order that those OUTSIDE THE CAMP (Gentiles) those....out in the highways....who were both good and bad....could be gathered. Both good and bad indicates EVERYONE but all whom they found indicates those who, IN FAITH, were near enough to BE found. Remember Israel followed the law in appearance but would not listen/obey His voice....so, in truth, they didn't follow the law.

The ONLY one who is said to be lost is the son of perdition....Satan. And he sneaks in as an angel of light. He IS the one who creeps into the wedding feast without a wedding garment.

HOWEVER, this STILL indicates a possibility of redemption. #1...He's called "friend". #2....He's speechless as one would be who does NOT YET have the Holy Spirit. #3...We are taught that we must ALL become naked (die to sin) before we can be reclothed in Christ. The old man perishes.
-------

This infraction is worth 10 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?p=1688712

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by flynn 
For those who believe that hell is a man made doctrine, shall we discuss Matthew 22:1-14?


Matthew 22:1 And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: 2 "The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, 3 and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. 4 Again, he sent out other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, "See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding."' 5 But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. 7 But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. 8 Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 9 Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.' 10 So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests.11 "But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. 12 So he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' 14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."

Simply put....this is about Israel....God's chosen people denying Him and not gathering the flock...even murdering His servants. These are the Pharisees and Sadducees...those stuck in the law. They were those who were invited yet they were made stubborn (they assumed they knew the Law but they denied Grace) in order that those OUTSIDE THE CAMP (Gentiles) those....out in the highways....who were both good and bad....could be gathered. Both good and bad indicates EVERYONE but all whom they found indicates those who, IN FAITH, were near enough to BE found. Remember Israel followed the law in appearance but would not listen/obey His voice....so, in truth, they didn't follow the law.

The ONLY one who is said to be lost is the son of perdition....Satan. And he sneaks in as an angel of light. He IS the one who creeps into the wedding feast without a wedding garment.

HOWEVER, this STILL indicates a possibility of redemption. #1...He's called "friend". #2....He's speechless as one would be who does NOT YET have the Holy Spirit. #3...We are taught that we must ALL become naked (die to sin) before we can be reclothed in Christ. The old man perishes.

I submit to you that what we are shown, biblically, is a continual process rather than a point A and point B situation. Being bound and put into outer darkness is akin to what we must suffer in the flesh before becoming worthy of the necessary righteousness needed for salvation. In the flesh we ARE ALL (physically and spiritually) seperated from God. When we become naked before Him (strip off the flesh/sin/pride), it means we have fully submitted to His will and, at that point, we are reborn/reclothed. The Pharisees and Saducees are examples of those who refuse to become bare and they were made stubborn (as the Pharoah was) for our sakes. It is due to their carrying about in the Law that those of true faith can be identified. The Gentiles are those who didn't know or were far away from the law....but they will come into Him with faith because they will, not only, hear the law by those stuck in it....yet they will obey His voice!

Or you can look at it this way....we all have to be made like the Jews (stuck in the Law) before we can become like a Gentile (those of faith). We have to learn the law....learn that we are sinners so that we can strip our flesh/die to sin and submit ourselves, in faith, to God. Learning law/sin is Jewish. Submitting to God is Gentile. But both will be changed.

Every knee shall bow. 

All the best,
CARM.ORG - Christian Discussion Forums
__________________
"When Christ returns He will teach them who really Plans Parenthood."

martincisneros:

--- Quote from: arcticmonster2003 on August 13, 2007, 05:25:22 AM ---Do they say I wonder why this cannot be discussed? Afterall it is supported be scripture though arguments using different scriptures can be made? There are many such discussions trying to understand scripture at apologetic websites and it does certainly make me wonder, and certainly makes me not want to visit the site.

--- End quote ---

Some of this is my fault 'cause in my earlier days with UR, I sorta, kinda, maybe picked a fight with Matt Slick.  He never could answer me, but it was obvious that he'd been so frustrated that he genuinely needed some psychiatric treatment for about 90 days afterwards.  I kinda, sorta, maybe, possibly, just might have hit him with more proofs and more Scriptures than ANY OF YOU can find on the whole Tentmaker site.  Let's just say, I've never seen anyone sooo offended and taken aback without dropping dead of a heart attack.  And I sorta, maybe, possibly wasn't very cordial about going after him with both barrells blazing, as if we were at the OK Corral.  I'm sorta the reason there's no longer a UR board at CARM and the reason why there's land mines within 200 miles of their website that are heat seeking in seeking out Universalists.  Gary Amirault was kinda there too, but he didn't see all of my emails.  He got in on the latter part of it with his own touch of the obnoxious.  Gary and I kinda took absolutely no prisoners.  It wasn't pretty.  And we sorta only served to harden his heart against the whole thing.

martincisneros:
And I do know that other Universalists have butted heads with Matt Slick before, but I can honestly say that I was cut-throat about it.  He was mad enough to have treated me like Calvin treated Michael Servetus, if there weren't a separation of Church and State.  I've NEVER made anyone that mad before or since.

I cornered him like an animal.

Kinda makes me wonder if a lot of people, when they first start transitioning from ET to UR, if maybe you kinda need to lock 'em in a closet for their first 3 to 5 years until they calm down just a teeny, teeny bit and don't go out to stalk an ETer.

If Matt had had previous medical issues that I didn't know about, I could have honestly hospitalized and/or killed him with the way that I behaved.


Since I brought up Servetus, here's a two webpage book review on a history book that I read on him that reads more like the most engaging historical thriller: http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2002/11/12/goldstone/index.html

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version