Universalism: Attractive yet false?

[Samuel Cripps]

http://arminiantoday.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-universalism-is-so-attractive.html

This was written by HansC, a member here.

[Samuel Cripps]

1.  Laziness in Evangelism. 

To be blunt: they never share their faith and its easier to simply embrace a system where people are A) already saved as in universalism or B) they will be saved postmortem.  They either fear what people would say about them if they told them about Jesus or they simply don't want to share their faith at all.

[Quaesitor]

Your intent?

[Quaesitor]

1.  Laziness in Evangelism. 

To be blunt: they never share their faith and its easier to simply embrace a system where people are A) already saved as in universalism or B) they will be saved postmortem.  They either fear what people would say about them if they told them about Jesus or they simply don't want to share their faith at all.

:mlaugh:

How can he know?

[jabcat]

As God starts to reveal His plan for the ages more and more, I'd imagine strongly entrenched mainstream/orthodoxy will be more disturbed and defensive.

I hardly ever go there, preferring to avoid foolish controversies (Titus 3:9) and focus on "whatever is true, pure, of a good report", etc., but actually briefly saw a similar post at another site (still under the "other religions" board   :bigGrin:  [the message of the Bible is "another religion" eh?]) and decided to leave it alone.   

NOTE - HansC is a member;  and since belief in Jesus as Savior is the linking bond, he's also a brother in the Lord (whether he'll admit it or not  :laughing7:) - as well as, there's some history involved.  So whatever tact others may take, we will discuss it here civilly.   :thumbsup:


Anyway, to the point - ("I, yet not I",  it was Jesus working through me) but He shared Himself through me to someone just this evening.  I was able to share with her about belief on Jesus unto salvation.  But I was also able to share with her that though most will have to go through temporary discipline, God is a God we can trust - not some monster waiting to physically burn them for a billion years for no redemptive purpose.

God is good.  The end of the Lord is full of mercy. 

[Samuel Cripps]

Your intent?

Are you asking what my intent is in posting the link to the article?

If so, to facilitate discussion, of course.

[Lefein]

Its easy to paint negative pictures of people.  All you have to do is throw mud at the painting.

[Aleax]

Nothing new under the sun, I've heard those arguments before. Shawn answered them quite well IMO.

I could write a similar article on Calvinism, but perhaps it's for the best if I don't. I have this gut feeling it could turn out rather ugly...

[WhiteWings]

1.  Laziness in Evangelism. 

To be blunt: they never share their faith and its easier to simply embrace a system where people are A) already saved as in universalism or B) they will be saved postmortem.  They either fear what people would say about them if they told them about Jesus or they simply don't want to share their faith at all.

So that's why there are so many UR sites, books and articles?
And even if you are right; does it make UR more or less true.

I think this is primarily where Bell comes from.  He rejects both inerrancy and infallibility and therefore there is no standard for defining what is truthful and what is not.  No doubt Bell will quote from the Bible when it fits his views but as far as using proper exegesis and then submitting to what the Bible says even if it goes against your views is probably not going to happen.   When we reject the Bible, we open ourselves to other "truths" and other holy books and other voices.  But when we accept what Jesus said in John 10:35, that the Scriptures cannot be broken then we must submit ourselves to what the Lord says about salvation, death, judgment, etc.

I think that quote says it all....
Sorry to say HansC but that's pure blindness. Many see the KJV as inspired and without flaws.
Firstly there is no proof KJV was more inspired than other translations. (there is more proof it's less inspired)
Secondly KJV defenders often claim they are the ones with the best manuscripts. By that they agree many manuscripts are not inspired or at least not free of errors. And every Bible based on that manuscript is simply not perfect. Then the only logical conclusion is that many Bibles are flawed.

It's nothing else than keeping traditions of men and not being open to to better views/translations.

I don't want to live my life for my sins, my flesh, and my desires and ease my conscience with false teachings.  I want to obey Jesus' words in Matthew 28:19-20 and make disciples of as many people as I can make for the glory of God.

Ha! So now you are claiming that people who advanced beyond the pagan teachings of your church only believe in UR because they want to sin?

[WhiteWings]

Its easy to paint negative pictures of people.  All you have to do is throw mud at the painting.

'Maybe he is...
But so HansC.

1. UR people are to lazy to spread the word. I get the impression many UR are very busy spreading their views.
2. UR people only believe in UR because they want a license to sin. Do you agree with that Lefein?
3. Insinuating Jesus is not part of UR.

And  :thumbsup: to the med guy...

[Lefein]

To clarify, I was making the point (attempting to) that HansC was making a sweeping generalisation about UR advocates, which are incorrect.

[WhiteWings]

In that case I completely misunderstood you. I wonder if HansC notices he's simply baring false witness.
I can fully accept he believes other things and has a different view on what words and verses mean.
He made a dozen posts on this forum; dealt with UR believers on his own forum and likely did see a few articles elsewere on the Internet.
Many of those posts are about Jesus. Then how can claim UR is not about Jesus?
The same is true for many of the anti UR crowd. They keep "accidently" confusing Christian Universalists with Universalists/Unitrarians. Just because the names sound similar. Anti-Christ and Christ also sound similar but nobody claims they are the same. I think HansC is not a member of the Catholic church which means Universal Church :winkgrin:

[Lefein]

It is alright that you misunderstood me, I should have been clearer.

As for him - I simply think there is at best (believing the best) such a desire to protect true teaching that he can't see the Truth for the shields and walls and armies and swords and defensive moat that he has put around his own imagination of it, or the Truth itself - if it could be put behind walls or boxes at all.  Jesus couldn't be held by the tomb, much less by a man's imagination.

At worst, he is a zealot for self-righteousness, and a soldier for the idol-god that is his theology.  But I shouldn't throw mud at him either.  I hope he's trying to defend the truth even if it is through an imperfect understanding of it.  That would be noble enough.  But then, if it is the worst-case it isn't up to us to burn the thing out of him, but God his Father.

[WhiteWings]

As God starts to reveal His plan for the ages more and more, I'd imagine strongly entrenched mainstream/orthodoxy will be more disturbed and defensive.

Really? A few centries ago wrong believer were burned at the stake. I think those time were more defensive. Or perhaps it's that today church has no influence on the justice department.

I hardly ever go there, preferring to avoid foolish controversies (Titus 3:9) and focus on "whatever is true, pure, of a good report", etc., but actually briefly saw a similar post at another site (still under the "other religions" board   :bigGrin:  [the message of the Bible is "another religion" eh?]) and decided to leave it alone.

I don't really search for it either but I'm a Google addict and I often find ET stuff. Some have extremly dark minds. Others hav equally dark minds but somehow I get the feeling if they just understood one thing a little different they would break free.   

NOTE - HansC is a member;  and since belief in Jesus as Savior is the linking bond, he's also a brother in the Lord (whether he'll admit it or not  :laughing7:) - as well as, there's some history involved.  So whatever tact others may take, we will discuss it here civilly.   :thumbsup:

I think HansC was polite when discussing here. He also seemed to understand what our view is. But on his blog he uses the same old propaganda. That leads nowhere. He thinks spreading the Gospel is important. I see nothing negative in that. But to use a little quote from Leifein "shields and walls and armies and swords and defensive moat" and direct assault solve nothing. His spreading the Gospel is a waste of time because when everyone jumps in defensive mode nothing is learned.
Better is to find common ground and from there take little baby steps.

But I was also able to share with her that though most will have to go through temporary discipline,

Any farmers around here?
I would like some numbers on barley, wheat and grape harvests. I wonder if those numbers mirror the percentage of people saved in each harvest???

[Quaesitor]

Your intent?

Are you asking what my intent is in posting the link to the article?

If so, to facilitate discussion, of course.

Good.
:grin:

[micah7:9]

WW are you into God's Kingdom Ministry with bro. Jones?  Just wondering cause Im reading his work the last couple of days.

[Nil Recurring]

I share my faith MUCH more as a Christian Universalist than I ever did beforehand. Before I fully embraced UR I was constantly feeling inner conflict about my Christianity due to what seemed to be such an abhorrent doctrine of eternal torture....it never made any sense to me and when I was in that state I had no desire to spread my own misery.

Now I feel much more empowered to spread the true good news so I guess I personally just invalidated his first point.

[redhotmagma]

I share my faith MUCH more as a Christian Universalist than I ever did beforehand. Before I fully embraced UR I was constantly feeling inner conflict about my Christianity due to what seemed to be such an abhorrent doctrine of eternal torture....it never made any sense to me and when I was in that state I had no desire to spread my own misery.

Now I feel much more empowered to spread the true good news so I guess I personally just invalidated his first point.

:thumbsup: right there with you

[HartleyIrvinDamboiseII]

1.  Laziness in Evangelism. 

To be blunt: they never share their faith and its easier to simply embrace a system where people are A) already saved as in universalism or B) they will be saved postmortem.  They either fear what people would say about them if they told them about Jesus or they simply don't want to share their faith at all.

So that's why there are so many UR sites, books and articles?
And even if you are right; does it make UR more or less true.

I think this is primarily where Bell comes from.  He rejects both inerrancy and infallibility and therefore there is no standard for defining what is truthful and what is not.  No doubt Bell will quote from the Bible when it fits his views but as far as using proper exegesis and then submitting to what the Bible says even if it goes against your views is probably not going to happen.   When we reject the Bible, we open ourselves to other "truths" and other holy books and other voices.  But when we accept what Jesus said in John 10:35, that the Scriptures cannot be broken then we must submit ourselves to what the Lord says about salvation, death, judgment, etc.

I think that quote says it all....
Sorry to say HansC but that's pure blindness. Many see the KJV as inspired and without flaws.
Firstly there is no proof KJV was more inspired than other translations. (there is more proof it's less inspired)
Secondly KJV defenders often claim they are the ones with the best manuscripts. By that they agree many manuscripts are not inspired or at least not free of errors. And every Bible based on that manuscript is simply not perfect. Then the only logical conclusion is that many Bibles are flawed.

It's nothing else than keeping traditions of men and not being open to to better views/translations.

I don't want to live my life for my sins, my flesh, and my desires and ease my conscience with false teachings.  I want to obey Jesus' words in Matthew 28:19-20 and make disciples of as many people as I can make for the glory of God.

Ha! So now you are claiming that people who advanced beyond the pagan teachings of your church only believe in UR because they want to sin?

No, I believe that He is claiming that he is an Israelite and NOT a Gentile, because if you believe that anything in the Book of Matt. is written for a follower of Christ Jesus in Grace , then you missed the word Obey in the above quote, meaning that to obey means that you have a Law and not a follower of Christ, your following the old system,  Gal: 5: 3-4 Christ will profit you nothing , you are a debtor to do the Whole law and i.e. also you have to follow the dictakes of the law to get clean for one year through the Jewish high Preist and your offerings,,

[/size][/color]