Getting swarmed in a debate

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: I went over there looking for what you wrote Shawn, but I can't find it.... :dontknow:

[shawn]

:cloud9: I went over there looking for what you wrote Shawn, but I can't find it.... :dontknow:

I started one about Christian Double talk...based on a post here.  I also posted in several other topics in the open forums.  But, I can no longer post there.  It's absolutely draining.  I hold out hope that these believers can be freed from the bondage of doctrine.  I have said what needed said and now I will be back home to post.  And, I do consider this home.  You guys/gals are a breath of fresh air in the Kingdom.  I love you all.

[shawn]

Shawn, have you attempted to post in the Christians only section of the board?

Perhaps you can respond to HansC's thread where he says universalists aren't saved (evidently, Jesus did not die to save all sinners, but in order to save people from believing that His death will save all sinners).  I am not permitted to post there, as they have deemed me an unbeliever.  Actually, they called me the child of satan.

I am done posting there.  And honestly Samuel for your own spiritual sanity I would suggest you leave them be.  As for being called a child of satan well I have been called similar on other boards before coming here.  When you buck doctrine you will get a backlash from people in love with their understanding.  It is a sad state of affairs.

[WhiteWings]

:thumbsup:

I've been following Shawns thread. A lot of talk why is OP is bad. But nobody even tries to refute his post.
FYI UR is first thaught in the sixties.

LOL, yes!  The hippies came up with the idea of UR while they are tripping on acid at Woodstock.

It was what Titus claimed.
Proving church fathers were UR is gonna be hard. -> Read they will try to side track every single bit of proof.
But even them can't maintain it started in the sixties because there are many UR books on Google books dating back to the 1800's.

I had quite a few quotes from Origen that supported a UR stance.  I will have to dig them up.  What would be their counter?

I've many too. Actually I have a whole book...
http://home.online.nl/spamfree/The_prevailing_doctrine.htm
http://home.online.nl/spamfree/PrevailingUniversalism.pdf

Their counter? Easy:
a] They say you are attacking their believes and are not wanting to discuss. They just keep repeating that just like they did in your Double Talk thread. Just bla bla but no arguments.
b] They will just answer with a bunch of hell verses to refute it.
c] Claim the quotes are wrong.
d] Or as one ET once wrote on YouTube. Yes UR was the main doctrine in the early centuries and many church fathers believed it. Fortunately Augustine came and set things straight by removing the veil so people could see the lie of UR.

[WhiteWings]

HansC writes:

While the universalist argument has no Scriptural foundation, relays upon a deliberate distortion, and in essence is the basic devil's argument "ye shall not die." Buying into the devil's argument can lead to death.

WOW.

All people die/died upon today. I think all denominations agree on that.
So my guess is they link that death to the after life -> Hell / LoF
But according to their own doctrine people are very much alive in those places.
So they also say "you shall not die"

[jabcat]

:cloud9: I went over there looking for what you wrote Shawn, but I can't find it.... :dontknow:

I started one about Christian Double talk...based on a post here.  I also posted in several other topics in the open forums.  But, I can no longer post there.  It's absolutely draining.  I hold out hope that these believers can be freed from the bondage of doctrine.  I have said what needed said and now I will be back home to post.  And, I do consider this home.  You guys/gals are a breath of fresh air in the Kingdom.  I love you all.

Inspired move.  At some point shake off the dust, and soak in the balm of Gilead.

21 Since my people are crushed, I am crushed;
   I mourn, and horror grips me.
22 Is there no balm in Gilead?
   Is there no physician there?
Why then is there no healing
   for the wound of my people?   Jer. 8

:HeartThrob:

[jabcat]

and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by.  Ex. 33:22

[shawn]

:cloud9: I went over there looking for what you wrote Shawn, but I can't find it.... :dontknow:

I started one about Christian Double talk...based on a post here.  I also posted in several other topics in the open forums.  But, I can no longer post there.  It's absolutely draining.  I hold out hope that these believers can be freed from the bondage of doctrine.  I have said what needed said and now I will be back home to post.  And, I do consider this home.  You guys/gals are a breath of fresh air in the Kingdom.  I love you all.

Inspired move.  At some point shake off the dust, and soak in the balm of Gilead.

21 Since my people are crushed, I am crushed;
   I mourn, and horror grips me.
22 Is there no balm in Gilead?
   Is there no physician there?
Why then is there no healing
   for the wound of my people?   Jer. 8

:HeartThrob:

Thank you for those verses Jab.

[WhiteWings]

The thread is closed...

Does God want all to be saved?  They don't seem to be the Calvinist... so I'm guessing they would say yes.  Can God achieve His desires?  This is where they will probably disagree.  Show the scriptural facts.

And don't lose focus.  If God wants all to be saved, then He is not going to leave any suffering forever.  If God wants all to be saved, then people do not suffer forever in the lake of fire.

They answer: God doesn't like it but He respects them chosing hell.

LOL very bad response.  God "respects" their choice - even though God binds people to disobedience, hardens their hearts, and sends them a strong delusion - yet he still "respects" their choice.  Interesting perspective.

That contradiction was expressed in the Double Talk list Shawn posted over there.
They completely ignore the list. They only wrote about bad intentions. There was only one small reference to the list that that was teh famous "out of context" quote.

Where does it even say sinners stay forever in the lake of fire?  AFAIK on a literal reading, it doesn't.  AFAIK It says the devil, the beast, and the false prophet are the only "eternal" inhabitants of the lake of fire.  So what does that mean for all the every day average sinners?  (Assuming the beast and false prophet are literal people - which is an incorrect assumption).

The passage below shows sinners go into the fire. (if that fire is LoF or not is of little importance.
Then automaticly we arrive at the fanout Matthew 25:46. I think you know what that means.... "Eternal=eternal" "Hu? So you say eternal life is ending?"

Thus why we need to be precise.  Matt 25:46 doesn't mention lake of fire.

Assuming they agree with that their anwer will be: But it's fire anyway. Or prove it's not LoF. Or where doesn the Bibe state there is another fire/helllisg place?

Of course the whole aionios/eternal thing is a issue, and IMHO is a bad place to start with someone who is being difficult.  Not that its a problem - just that is hard to explain to someone who won't listen.

I'm sure you have read plenty of ET posts and know Matthew 25:46 is very frequently quoted. And then you no longer can get out of the age-debate.
It's a package deal.

Let me give you an example of what I mean by being precise.

Rev 20:15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

People will read this and assume they never get out.  That is imprecise.  Does this verse say what happens to them in the lake of fire?  NO.  Does this verse say they stay in there forever?  NO.  Does it say they get out?  NO.  All we know is that those not written in the book of life are thrown into the lake of fire.

Their answer: It's true the verse doesn't say no one exits. But if there is no verse that proves nobody exits it's only logical nobody exits.[/quote]They will, and did, answer with a question. Show us one verse that says people exit LoF.
What happens inside? It's fire so are in pain and gnash teeth and have no rest.

But we must stay focused on what we know.  God wants to save all men.  So He will do it.  Therefore the lake of fire is:

All=elect/believers.
Wants=hope not fact.

More adding to the text.[/quote]No that's simply what the word means. So it has to be proven what it means when linked to God. Do all His wishes get carried out? Or is desire to punish bigger than His desire to save. I'm simply saying they will not accept a single verse.

[jabcat]

Welcome Shawn.  Blessings and peace.     "My peace I leave with you, not as the world gives...and the world can't take it away".


I agree WW.  If they want to believe what they believe bad enough, they can find ways to "prove it" (whether it's accurate or makes sense or not).  Facts as plain as the nose on your face can be twisted.

Another good reason to state what one feels led to share and move on, IMO.  If it's their time to see, they'll begin to see.  If not, they'll/we'll stay blinded.  Otherwise, a seed has been planted for later germination.   :thumbsup:

[shawn]

Welcome Shawn.  Blessings and peace.     "My peace I leave with you, not as the world gives...and the world can't take it away".


I agree WW.  If they want to believe what they believe bad enough, they can find ways to "prove it" (whether it's accurate or makes sense or not).  Facts as plain as the nose on your face can be twisted.

Another good reason to state what one feels led to share and move on, IMO.  If it's their time to see, they'll begin to see.  If not, they'll/we'll stay blinded.  Otherwise, a seed has been planted for later germination.   :thumbsup:

Just got done reading about planting seeds.  "Seeds are not to be forced, but they are to be planted", "There are seasons to planting".  Good stuff.

[Aleax]

I was thinking whether there would be any efficacy in pointing them to testimonies of people who had a pro-UR vision/revelation. Gary Amirault, Hannah Whitall Smith, George DeBenneville, Charles Slagle etc.

Probably not, though. Their counter? Easy:

a] those people never got any revelation, but are lying to promote their beliefs
b] those people actually did get a revelation, but were deceived by satan or his minions
c] those people never got any revelation, but were just imagining things

But yeah, I agree, seeds aren't to be forced.

[WhiteWings]

Some seeds fall on rocks. That forum is full of rocks in a desert....

[Molly]

Some seeds fall on rocks. That forum is full of rocks is a desert....

Imagine how frustrated God must get with us!

John 11:35
Jesus wept.

[legoman]

The thread is closed...

Does God want all to be saved?  They don't seem to be the Calvinist... so I'm guessing they would say yes.  Can God achieve His desires?  This is where they will probably disagree.  Show the scriptural facts.

And don't lose focus.  If God wants all to be saved, then He is not going to leave any suffering forever.  If God wants all to be saved, then people do not suffer forever in the lake of fire.

They answer: God doesn't like it but He respects them chosing hell.

LOL very bad response.  God "respects" their choice - even though God binds people to disobedience, hardens their hearts, and sends them a strong delusion - yet he still "respects" their choice.  Interesting perspective.

That contradiction was expressed in the Double Talk list Shawn posted over there.
They completely ignore the list. They only wrote about bad intentions. There was only one small reference to the list that that was teh famous "out of context" quote.

Where does it even say sinners stay forever in the lake of fire?  AFAIK on a literal reading, it doesn't.  AFAIK It says the devil, the beast, and the false prophet are the only "eternal" inhabitants of the lake of fire.  So what does that mean for all the every day average sinners?  (Assuming the beast and false prophet are literal people - which is an incorrect assumption).

The passage below shows sinners go into the fire. (if that fire is LoF or not is of little importance.
Then automaticly we arrive at the fanout Matthew 25:46. I think you know what that means.... "Eternal=eternal" "Hu? So you say eternal life is ending?"

Thus why we need to be precise.  Matt 25:46 doesn't mention lake of fire.

Assuming they agree with that their anwer will be: But it's fire anyway. Or prove it's not LoF. Or where doesn the Bibe state there is another fire/helllisg place?

Of course the whole aionios/eternal thing is a issue, and IMHO is a bad place to start with someone who is being difficult.  Not that its a problem - just that is hard to explain to someone who won't listen.

I'm sure you have read plenty of ET posts and know Matthew 25:46 is very frequently quoted. And then you no longer can get out of the age-debate.
It's a package deal.

Let me give you an example of what I mean by being precise.

Rev 20:15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

People will read this and assume they never get out.  That is imprecise.  Does this verse say what happens to them in the lake of fire?  NO.  Does this verse say they stay in there forever?  NO.  Does it say they get out?  NO.  All we know is that those not written in the book of life are thrown into the lake of fire.

Their answer: It's true the verse doesn't say no one exits. But if there is no verse that proves nobody exits it's only logical nobody exits.

They will, and did, answer with a question. Show us one verse that says people exit LoF.
What happens inside? It's fire so are in pain and gnash teeth and have no rest.

But we must stay focused on what we know.  God wants to save all men.  So He will do it.  Therefore the lake of fire is:

All=elect/believers.
Wants=hope not fact.

More adding to the text.[/quote]No that's simply what the word means. So it has to be proven what it means when linked to God. Do all His wishes get carried out? Or is desire to punish bigger than His desire to save. I'm simply saying they will not accept a single verse.
[/quote]


--

Hi WW,

Yes you are right there is always a response to whatever is said.  And you know all the counter-responses to what you just wrote above.

They will see what they want to see.  But hopefully a seed will grow there.

I agree at a certain point you have to get into aion/aionios translations - that is where many people cannot believe it.  They have faith in the English words and translators. 

Reading over their responses to Shawn, I'm not sure I want to discuss much over there.  But I will still try to lay out a solid case. Not just yet - maybe tomorrow.  I want to prepare my introduction well so it cannot be claimed to be "attacking".  Must proceed with patience and caution.

[WhiteWings]

Hi WW,

Yes you are right there is always a response to whatever is said.  And you know all the counter-responses to what you just wrote above.

Yeah unfortunately I am right. On many boards people don't even try to listen. This one is even worse because the crew decides to lock a thread before the debate even started. Even Matt Slick had the courtesy to really debate.
I have still to decide for myself if they are just blinded or just scared and ignorant. The crew acts like they are protecting people from reading UR lies.
But all the can do in nagging about the tone of a post.
If you want to protect readers jsut post a long list of verses that impress people.

I agree at a certain point you have to get into aion/aionios translations - that is where many people cannot believe it.  They have faith in the English words and translators. 

Mr. Strong and Thayer are seen a respected scholar. Non UR scholars. Even they admit there is at least sometimes an age in the Bible. The plan of the ages picture may be helpful.....?

Reading over their responses to Shawn, I'm not sure I want to discuss much over there.  But I will still try to lay out a solid case. Not just yet - maybe tomorrow.  I want to prepare my introduction well so it cannot be claimed to be "attacking".  Must proceed with patience and caution.

Just my  :2c: just do a frontal assualt. There was nothing bad in Shawns list. Everything none ET is classified offensive.

Or another approach I suggested earlier. What about acting like an ET?
http://home.online.nl/spamfree/index.html?page=Questions%20without%20answers.htm
http://home.online.nl/spamfree/index.html?page=Bible%20Threatenings%20Explained.htm
Ask help refuting those satanic teachings.
Maybe they will try to help. And best of all many will see the imo fine articles.

Get out your mountain climing gear. You'll need it for the uphill struggle :thumbsup:

[Nathan]

After reading through this thread, two Scriptures have been resonating that I'd like to bring up here . . .one is in the gospels where the disciples came to Jesus, patting themselves on the back for rebuking some guy they saw casting demons out in Jesus name but he wasn't OF THEIR GROUP.  And Jesus rebuked them for doing so . . .and he then stated "if they're not against us . . .they are for us.  These people over at the other forum that Shawn has been visiting don't seem to be aware of this . . .amongs many other things obviously.

Luke 9
49And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.  50And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

All this is, is doctrine . . .whether or not everyone sees it like we see it is really secondary.  What "should" be primary to me, in my own life, is that my doctrine does not damage my relationship with others.  If my relationship is severed, so is my ability to birth life into the other person I just cut off.  So I lean more towards "UR" than any other doctrine, so what?  Why would that be the factor that would cause separation between me and another person?  So they "don't" believe in UR . . .so what . . .it's the same response.  Relationship over religion.  We can even take something as liberating as UR and turn it into the same religion of bondage to those we target if we're not careful . . .having said that, I'm in agreement with you guys who've shared your impressions on Shawn's responses over there.  He's done nothing but reach out in innocense and honesty.  They've taken their swords (remember, it's still resembling the Word of God) and cut him to pieces with their "knowledge" of their word.

And now, showing even more maturity, Shawn is realizing the futility of trying to till the land and plant the seed on frozen ground.  The good news to all of this is . . .seasons change.  Their time is coming when God is going to thaw them out . . .it's just not today is all.

The other passage . . .I gotta tell ya . .that thing that someone put out yesterday "What they say versus what they mean" I printed that off and took it with me to church last night and handed it out.  In doing so I sorta explained what has been going on with this other site.  In the list, there is a reference to 1 Timothy 4 . . .it's dealing with "their" reasoning for believing only the elect will go to heaven . . .well, in seconds, someone read a passage out of 1 Timothy 6 . . .I still don't know how they ended up there . . .I asked if they knew ahead of time that that's what it said.

1 Timothy 6
3 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4 they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.

I know talk forums kinda wince a little at this kind of stuff, but again, there's nothing wrong with discussion . . .and this Scripture I'm sharing is not to force on you or anyone, it's just something that I see NEEDS to be applied TO ME . . .and if it fits others . . .that's a good thing to.

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: I went over there and read a few of their posts and Shawn's and it's pretty obvious to me, at BEST you got to drop some seeds for later germination, but that ground over there does not look well plowed to me.  :sigh: Sometimes it takes years for fruit to come forth.  :2c:

[Samuel Cripps]

Here's an example of some of the christian charity I'm receiving via private messages over there:

HistoryB writes:

"inquisition
It would be a party to put you on the stake, good times to be had by all."

"You know what your doing son of Satan."

"ha
What a despicable person you are, always lying. Go away troll your nothing but trouble here"

"go away
No one wants you. All you do is torment, go somewhere else all you are is making everyone's life miserable. Grow up and get out your mother's basement and go get a job you troll"


Nice guy, eh?

[Cardinal]

 :sigh: Lovely.....know them by their fruits, comes to mind.....

[Samuel Cripps]

Here is a pm from RoyS, the charitable moderator over there:

You are the child of your father; the father of lies. Why be honest with anyone, about anything.
We're 'not having it', because it's a false doctrine, as has been explained to you countless times, WITH SCRIPTURE. You, on the other hand, can't produce a single verse to support your position. Where's that 'case', you promised to post? Another lie?

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Harold Lovelace compiled 600 UR scriptures. Google him and give them 600 to refute...... should leave them scratching their heads for awhile, and who knows, maybe there are some lurkers there who don't have quite as much to lose as those you're trying to reach, because they've already been humbled to receive.  :dontknow:

[Molly]

Gabe, where do you think Roy was going with all that questioning of having to have faith to be saved?  He was taking you down a path and you were agreeing with him and then he abruptly stopped and called you the usual names.  Do you think he realized that he was about to prove that even universalists will be saved because they are believers, because they have faith?  I think he was trying to set a trap and then figured out he was  about to be caught in his own trap... Or maybe he was going somewhere with it and got frustrated... :dontknow:

[shawn]

After reading through this thread, two Scriptures have been resonating that I'd like to bring up here . . .one is in the gospels where the disciples came to Jesus, patting themselves on the back for rebuking some guy they saw casting demons out in Jesus name but he wasn't OF THEIR GROUP.  And Jesus rebuked them for doing so . . .and he then stated "if they're not against us . . .they are for us.  These people over at the other forum that Shawn has been visiting don't seem to be aware of this . . .amongs many other things obviously.

Luke 9
49And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.  50And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

All this is, is doctrine . . .whether or not everyone sees it like we see it is really secondary.  What "should" be primary to me, in my own life, is that my doctrine does not damage my relationship with others.  If my relationship is severed, so is my ability to birth life into the other person I just cut off.  So I lean more towards "UR" than any other doctrine, so what?  Why would that be the factor that would cause separation between me and another person?  So they "don't" believe in UR . . .so what . . .it's the same response.  Relationship over religion.  We can even take something as liberating as UR and turn it into the same religion of bondage to those we target if we're not careful . . .having said that, I'm in agreement with you guys who've shared your impressions on Shawn's responses over there.  He's done nothing but reach out in innocense and honesty.  They've taken their swords (remember, it's still resembling the Word of God) and cut him to pieces with their "knowledge" of their word.

And now, showing even more maturity, Shawn is realizing the futility of trying to till the land and plant the seed on frozen ground.  The good news to all of this is . . .seasons change.  Their time is coming when God is going to thaw them out . . .it's just not today is all.

The other passage . . .I gotta tell ya . .that thing that someone put out yesterday "What they say versus what they mean" I printed that off and took it with me to church last night and handed it out.  In doing so I sorta explained what has been going on with this other site.  In the list, there is a reference to 1 Timothy 4 . . .it's dealing with "their" reasoning for believing only the elect will go to heaven . . .well, in seconds, someone read a passage out of 1 Timothy 6 . . .I still don't know how they ended up there . . .I asked if they knew ahead of time that that's what it said.

1 Timothy 6
3 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4 they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.

I know talk forums kinda wince a little at this kind of stuff, but again, there's nothing wrong with discussion . . .and this Scripture I'm sharing is not to force on you or anyone, it's just something that I see NEEDS to be applied TO ME . . .and if it fits others . . .that's a good thing to.

Personally, I love discussion especially about our Lord Jesus.  I enjoy healthy discourse.  I enjoy iron sharpening iron.  But, I know that is too easy to state something thinking you are doing something  helpful when it's actually divisive.  And, even worse when in the mist of discussion that gets heated it can become less about sharperning, being sharpened and more about being right.  Pride creeps in and corrupts.  What you are saying certainly fits  I agree tent should be different.  I consider this placea an oasis.  We should be careful about protecting that.  And I certainly need to do my part in that.

[Samuel Cripps]

Gabe, where do you think Roy was going with all that questioning of having to have faith to be saved?  He was taking you down a path and you were agreeing with him and then he abruptly stopped and called you the usual names.  Do you think he realized that he was about to prove that even universalists will be saved because they are believers, because they have faith?  I think he was trying to set a trap and then figured out he was  about to be caught in his own trap... Or maybe he was going somewhere with it and got frustrated... :dontknow:

Molly, he was going to try to prove that because those in "hell" have already "seen", then faith is impossible.  I have yet to go there today, so I don't know if he ever got around to making the argument.