Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

5 Points of Tulip???

Solo said:
Lyric's Dad said:
[quote="bbas 64":145df]I thought the doctrive of UR was banned here???

Peace to u,

Bill
Where were we debating UR? I thought we were discussing the fallacy of TULIP and the limited atonement lie?
Here is a reminder for you, Lyric's Dad of who brought Universal Reconciliation into the thread, and continued to promote it throughout the recent postings:

Lyric's Dad said:
Well, this is one place we will NEVER come to an agreement at. I will never reconcile God being a forever torturer with His statement that He IS love. They are not compatible. And as for Spurgeon? I could care less what he thought. He is fallible and not the One I follow.

Just thought since you claim to follow Jesus, quoting him in scripture with the correct translation would be something that would edify your walk and correct any error that you may be holding on to. The Word of God teaches the truth for those who are in error. My post has nothing to do with Universal Reconciliation. I think Universal Reconciliation is a topic banned on this forum, therefore, I will teach the truth that Jesus teaches. Jesus teaches in Matthew 25 about the eternal destiny of the sheep and goats. They both go to two different places, one group to eternal life, and the other group to eternal punishment. When folks understand their eternal destiny without Jesus is going to be a terrible price to pay for a temporary period of sinful pleasure, they will seek out Jesus Christ for salvation.

Let us not teach lies for the truth of God's Word, especially when Jesus is so plain and precise as to the eternal destiny of each person born of the flesh.

Now for some history of this thread. The very first post that referred to Universal Reconsiliation was the following:

cubedbee said:
The "L" is false, Christ died for all, and nothing in the Bible indicates otherwise.

The next post to promote Universal Reconciliation is also from cubedbee with the following post:

cubedbee said:
The Scripture says it so many times I’m honestly surprised you could be asking me this.

1 Timothy 2:5-6 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

.....

Wow, that’s an awfully pride-filled statement. I’m going to trust the Lordâ€â€he did in fact come to save all as is clearly evidenced in the Scripture, and I know God will never fall short in anything he wills.

.....

Yes, I agree with this. The difference is, I don’t limit the scope of God’s power.

The next post promoting Universal Reconciliation is from Lyric's Dad with the following post:

Lyric's Dad said:
Amen Cubed. That is the truth and there is nothing that can come against it.

I find it reprehensible for some to reduce God to a being that would create some humans for the sole purpose of burning them. That is maniacal and not in any form a loving thing.

Then comes another from Lyric's Dad that continues with further promotion of Universal Reconciliation:

Lyric's Dad said:
LOL!! You find some peace in such a statement?

Sorry, my God is not a charles manson type who sat down with an evil grin and put together little creatures so He could use them as firewood to keep it burning. Yeah, that just sounds a little sick.

God even condemned the pagan groups who made their children walk through the fire. Hey, at least those people let their kids die in the fire. According to the L, God created people for the sole purpose of forever listening to them cry in torment. Sorry, that is not a God but a demon.

My God said He is love. I am a finite being and can see that this type of thing is not at all loving. I, as a sinner and a wretch could never do that to anyone, not even my worst enemy so am I to believe that the One who IS perfect love could? No freaking way. Jesus is love, not hate and I will never believe otherwise, even if some calvin wants me to.

Next is a response to bbas 64 from Lyric's Dad:

Lyric's Dad said:
Well, this is one place we will NEVER come to an agreement at. I will never reconcile God being a forever torturer with His statement that He IS love. They are not compatible. And as for Spurgeon? I could care less what he thought. He is fallible and not the One I follow.

Then cubedbee sets out on further Universal Reconciliation promotion in this post:

cubedbee said:
The verses I posted do in fact say that. The exact phrase "he came to save all" doesn't occur, nor does the exact word Trinity, but both are clearly taught. I posted the verses--they refer to salvation. If you think they do not, what are they referring to?

Quote:

"Wow, that’s an awfully pride-filled statement. I’m going to trust the Lordâ€â€he did in fact come to save all as is clearly evidenced in the Scripture, and I know God will never fall short in anything he wills.


Assertion, yopu have not provided a passage that says "he came to save all"


And you haven't provided one that says "He did not come to save all" So what? I provided verses that convey my assertion that Christ came to save all(yes, there are synonyms for save used in the Bible), while you in fact have not provided evidence for your assertion . You have to prove that "his people" refers to a limited number of people, instead of all people.

Quote:

Are all people saved??
Not currently.
Quote:

Is it Gods will that all people be saved?
Yes, it is. Does it get clearer than this?

1Ti 2:3-4 For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Quote:

How have I limted the power of God?? He uses his power to SAVE HIS PEOPLE.

Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Peace to u,

Bill
You've limited it by implying that HIS PEOPLE are only a limited number of people who meet whatever set of criteria you have in your head, instead of all of humanity as God has made clear throughout the Scripture. I am taking the words at their face value--God wills that all be saved, Christ died for all, my God is omnipotent, the power of Christ's death cannot be resisted, therefore all will be saved. Any other "interpretation" is a pure denial of the Scripture.

After all of this Universal Reconciliation promotion in the thread specifically posted for the 5 points of Tulip, I posted Jesus teaching on the eternal position of sheeps and goats in Matthew 25.

Cubedbee answers my post with the following Universal Reconciliation post:

cubedbee said:
Your first paragraph is absolute truth. Your second paragraph is not, it is a mistranslation into English, it takes something that is a finite age that Christ will ultimately end when he accomplishes God's will, a will that cannot be resisted or twarted, and falsely portrays it as eternal, a portrayal which makes a liar out of God and makes him powerless over sin, unable to ultimately conquer it even though he wills it. I will not deny God's sovereignty, God's omnipotence. Neither will I deny hell. The only way to reconcile these two is two correctly translate Aionios as an age, one of finite duration, a meaning which is definitely valid for the word and which is definitely used in certain Bible passages.

And then Lyric's Dad comes out of the pretense of not knowing the promotion of Universal Reconciliation, a false doctrine that he buys into, with the following response to bbas 64:

Lyric's Dad said:
Where were we debating UR? I thought we were discussing the fallacy of TULIP and the limited atonement lie?
[/quote:145df]

Good Day, Solo

This is a great wrap up in exposing of the content of this thread, and the horrid view asserted by some here known as UR.

Peace to u,

Bill
 
farley said:
bbas 64,

Greetings, sorry to be butting heads with you again. But, you stated...
I think John 1 is clear and needs no clarification as is Jn6.

I'm thinking that you feel that the above passages, John 1:10-13 and John 6:39-40, must support Calvinism.

I don't claim to understand every facet of Calvinism, but I see these passages conflicting with Calvin's predestination. I see predestination as meaning that no matter what actions one may take, their fate is sealed.

How can this be compatible with passages such as "...as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name..."?

In Christ,

farley

Good Day Farley

Have we "butted heads" before?? I am sorry you see it as "butting heads" as that carries a negitive idea. I wish to be postive in my disscussions, if I have been any thing but that in the past I am sorry and seek your forgiveness.

In dealing with predestination I will say your idea of what it is far from the truth as understood in the Doctrines of Grace. I am more than willing to disscuss it with you in a manner that is positve and forth right.

I must first ask a question have you read any writtings on this issue "predestination"? If so whom? The reason I ask is I do not what to assume any thing from the get go.

Peace to u,

Bill
 
Merry Menagerie said:
Where does the parable about the wheat and the tares fit into tall this? The wheat belong to God and the tares belong to Satan. Wouldn't the atonment be limited to those who are the wheat?

Good Day, Merry Menagerie

The understanding of this parable is given by Jesus in Matt 13:

Mat 13:36 Then he left the multitudes, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Explain unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
Mat 13:37 And he answered and said, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
Mat 13:38 and the field is the world; and the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one;
Mat 13:39 and the enemy that sowed them is the devil: and the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are angels.
Mat 13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered up and burned with fire; so shall it be in the end of the world.
Mat 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and them that do iniquity,
Mat 13:42 and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.
Mat 13:43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He that hath ears, let him hear.

I have posted a study on Matt 13 , and the parables in the Bible study section of this fourm you may want to take a look see.

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=19843

It is clear ther are 2 types of seed. Good seed, sowen by the son of Man, and Bad, sons of the evil one sown by the devil.

Just as there are 2 types of people some "of" God and those that are not 'of" God. The ones that have the "ofness" from God hear, the ones that do not cannot hear.

Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I came forth and am come from God; for neither have I come of myself, but he sent me.
Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word. Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.
Joh 8:45 But because I say the truth, ye believe me not.
Joh 8:46 Which of you convicteth me of sin? If I say truth, why do ye not believe me?
Joh 8:47 He that is of God heareth the words of God: for this cause ye hear them not, because ye are not of God.

Hope that helps....

Peace to u,

Bill
 
Solo said:
Lyric's Dad said:
[quote="bbas 64":17a8b]I thought the doctrive of UR was banned here???

Peace to u,

Bill
Where were we debating UR? I thought we were discussing the fallacy of TULIP and the limited atonement lie?
Here is a reminder for you, Lyric's Dad of who brought Universal Reconciliation into the thread, and continued to promote it throughout the recent postings:

Lyric's Dad said:
Well, this is one place we will NEVER come to an agreement at. I will never reconcile God being a forever torturer with His statement that He IS love. They are not compatible. And as for Spurgeon? I could care less what he thought. He is fallible and not the One I follow.

Just thought since you claim to follow Jesus, quoting him in scripture with the correct translation would be something that would edify your walk and correct any error that you may be holding on to. The Word of God teaches the truth for those who are in error. My post has nothing to do with Universal Reconciliation. I think Universal Reconciliation is a topic banned on this forum, therefore, I will teach the truth that Jesus teaches. Jesus teaches in Matthew 25 about the eternal destiny of the sheep and goats. They both go to two different places, one group to eternal life, and the other group to eternal punishment. When folks understand their eternal destiny without Jesus is going to be a terrible price to pay for a temporary period of sinful pleasure, they will seek out Jesus Christ for salvation.

Let us not teach lies for the truth of God's Word, especially when Jesus is so plain and precise as to the eternal destiny of each person born of the flesh.

Now for some history of this thread. The very first post that referred to Universal Reconsiliation was the following:

cubedbee said:
The "L" is false, Christ died for all, and nothing in the Bible indicates otherwise.

The next post to promote Universal Reconciliation is also from cubedbee with the following post:

cubedbee said:
The Scripture says it so many times I’m honestly surprised you could be asking me this.

1 Timothy 2:5-6 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

.....

Wow, that’s an awfully pride-filled statement. I’m going to trust the Lordâ€â€he did in fact come to save all as is clearly evidenced in the Scripture, and I know God will never fall short in anything he wills.

.....

Yes, I agree with this. The difference is, I don’t limit the scope of God’s power.

The next post promoting Universal Reconciliation is from Lyric's Dad with the following post:

Lyric's Dad said:
Amen Cubed. That is the truth and there is nothing that can come against it.

I find it reprehensible for some to reduce God to a being that would create some humans for the sole purpose of burning them. That is maniacal and not in any form a loving thing.

Then comes another from Lyric's Dad that continues with further promotion of Universal Reconciliation:

Lyric's Dad said:
LOL!! You find some peace in such a statement?

Sorry, my God is not a charles manson type who sat down with an evil grin and put together little creatures so He could use them as firewood to keep it burning. Yeah, that just sounds a little sick.

God even condemned the pagan groups who made their children walk through the fire. Hey, at least those people let their kids die in the fire. According to the L, God created people for the sole purpose of forever listening to them cry in torment. Sorry, that is not a God but a demon.

My God said He is love. I am a finite being and can see that this type of thing is not at all loving. I, as a sinner and a wretch could never do that to anyone, not even my worst enemy so am I to believe that the One who IS perfect love could? No freaking way. Jesus is love, not hate and I will never believe otherwise, even if some calvin wants me to.

Next is a response to bbas 64 from Lyric's Dad:

Lyric's Dad said:
Well, this is one place we will NEVER come to an agreement at. I will never reconcile God being a forever torturer with His statement that He IS love. They are not compatible. And as for Spurgeon? I could care less what he thought. He is fallible and not the One I follow.

Then cubedbee sets out on further Universal Reconciliation promotion in this post:

cubedbee said:
The verses I posted do in fact say that. The exact phrase "he came to save all" doesn't occur, nor does the exact word Trinity, but both are clearly taught. I posted the verses--they refer to salvation. If you think they do not, what are they referring to?

Quote:

"Wow, that’s an awfully pride-filled statement. I’m going to trust the Lordâ€â€he did in fact come to save all as is clearly evidenced in the Scripture, and I know God will never fall short in anything he wills.


Assertion, yopu have not provided a passage that says "he came to save all"


And you haven't provided one that says "He did not come to save all" So what? I provided verses that convey my assertion that Christ came to save all(yes, there are synonyms for save used in the Bible), while you in fact have not provided evidence for your assertion . You have to prove that "his people" refers to a limited number of people, instead of all people.

Quote:

Are all people saved??
Not currently.
Quote:

Is it Gods will that all people be saved?
Yes, it is. Does it get clearer than this?

1Ti 2:3-4 For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Quote:

How have I limted the power of God?? He uses his power to SAVE HIS PEOPLE.

Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Peace to u,

Bill
You've limited it by implying that HIS PEOPLE are only a limited number of people who meet whatever set of criteria you have in your head, instead of all of humanity as God has made clear throughout the Scripture. I am taking the words at their face value--God wills that all be saved, Christ died for all, my God is omnipotent, the power of Christ's death cannot be resisted, therefore all will be saved. Any other "interpretation" is a pure denial of the Scripture.

After all of this Universal Reconciliation promotion in the thread specifically posted for the 5 points of Tulip, I posted Jesus teaching on the eternal position of sheeps and goats in Matthew 25.

Cubedbee answers my post with the following Universal Reconciliation post:

cubedbee said:
Your first paragraph is absolute truth. Your second paragraph is not, it is a mistranslation into English, it takes something that is a finite age that Christ will ultimately end when he accomplishes God's will, a will that cannot be resisted or twarted, and falsely portrays it as eternal, a portrayal which makes a liar out of God and makes him powerless over sin, unable to ultimately conquer it even though he wills it. I will not deny God's sovereignty, God's omnipotence. Neither will I deny hell. The only way to reconcile these two is two correctly translate Aionios as an age, one of finite duration, a meaning which is definitely valid for the word and which is definitely used in certain Bible passages.

And then Lyric's Dad comes out of the pretense of not knowing the promotion of Universal Reconciliation, a false doctrine that he buys into, with the following response to bbas 64:

Lyric's Dad said:
Where were we debating UR? I thought we were discussing the fallacy of TULIP and the limited atonement lie?
[/quote:17a8b]I'm sorry, it is you who brought up the topic of UR, not I. The discussion was on the five points of TULIP, and I showed scriptural proof that the L is wrong. Is it now forbidden to quote Scripture because others may interpret it as supporting Universal Reconciliation? If quoting Scripture is going to be forbidden on this forum, can you honestly call it a Christian forum?
 
cubedbee said:
Solo said:
Lyric's Dad said:
[quote="bbas 64":fb377]I thought the doctrive of UR was banned here???

Peace to u,

Bill
Where were we debating UR? I thought we were discussing the fallacy of TULIP and the limited atonement lie?
Here is a reminder for you, Lyric's Dad of who brought Universal Reconciliation into the thread, and continued to promote it throughout the recent postings:

[quote="Lyric's Dad":fb377]Well, this is one place we will NEVER come to an agreement at. I will never reconcile God being a forever torturer with His statement that He IS love. They are not compatible. And as for Spurgeon? I could care less what he thought. He is fallible and not the One I follow.

Just thought since you claim to follow Jesus, quoting him in scripture with the correct translation would be something that would edify your walk and correct any error that you may be holding on to. The Word of God teaches the truth for those who are in error. My post has nothing to do with Universal Reconciliation. I think Universal Reconciliation is a topic banned on this forum, therefore, I will teach the truth that Jesus teaches. Jesus teaches in Matthew 25 about the eternal destiny of the sheep and goats. They both go to two different places, one group to eternal life, and the other group to eternal punishment. When folks understand their eternal destiny without Jesus is going to be a terrible price to pay for a temporary period of sinful pleasure, they will seek out Jesus Christ for salvation.

Let us not teach lies for the truth of God's Word, especially when Jesus is so plain and precise as to the eternal destiny of each person born of the flesh.

Now for some history of this thread. The very first post that referred to Universal Reconsiliation was the following:

cubedbee said:
The "L" is false, Christ died for all, and nothing in the Bible indicates otherwise.

The next post to promote Universal Reconciliation is also from cubedbee with the following post:

cubedbee said:
The Scripture says it so many times I’m honestly surprised you could be asking me this.

1 Timothy 2:5-6 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

.....

Wow, that’s an awfully pride-filled statement. I’m going to trust the Lordâ€â€he did in fact come to save all as is clearly evidenced in the Scripture, and I know God will never fall short in anything he wills.

.....

Yes, I agree with this. The difference is, I don’t limit the scope of God’s power.

The next post promoting Universal Reconciliation is from Lyric's Dad with the following post:

Lyric's Dad said:
Amen Cubed. That is the truth and there is nothing that can come against it.

I find it reprehensible for some to reduce God to a being that would create some humans for the sole purpose of burning them. That is maniacal and not in any form a loving thing.

Then comes another from Lyric's Dad that continues with further promotion of Universal Reconciliation:

Lyric's Dad said:
LOL!! You find some peace in such a statement?

Sorry, my God is not a charles manson type who sat down with an evil grin and put together little creatures so He could use them as firewood to keep it burning. Yeah, that just sounds a little sick.

God even condemned the pagan groups who made their children walk through the fire. Hey, at least those people let their kids die in the fire. According to the L, God created people for the sole purpose of forever listening to them cry in torment. Sorry, that is not a God but a demon.

My God said He is love. I am a finite being and can see that this type of thing is not at all loving. I, as a sinner and a wretch could never do that to anyone, not even my worst enemy so am I to believe that the One who IS perfect love could? No freaking way. Jesus is love, not hate and I will never believe otherwise, even if some calvin wants me to.

Next is a response to bbas 64 from Lyric's Dad:

Lyric's Dad said:
Well, this is one place we will NEVER come to an agreement at. I will never reconcile God being a forever torturer with His statement that He IS love. They are not compatible. And as for Spurgeon? I could care less what he thought. He is fallible and not the One I follow.

Then cubedbee sets out on further Universal Reconciliation promotion in this post:

cubedbee said:
The verses I posted do in fact say that. The exact phrase "he came to save all" doesn't occur, nor does the exact word Trinity, but both are clearly taught. I posted the verses--they refer to salvation. If you think they do not, what are they referring to?

Quote:

"Wow, that’s an awfully pride-filled statement. I’m going to trust the Lordâ€â€he did in fact come to save all as is clearly evidenced in the Scripture, and I know God will never fall short in anything he wills.


Assertion, yopu have not provided a passage that says "he came to save all"


And you haven't provided one that says "He did not come to save all" So what? I provided verses that convey my assertion that Christ came to save all(yes, there are synonyms for save used in the Bible), while you in fact have not provided evidence for your assertion . You have to prove that "his people" refers to a limited number of people, instead of all people.

Quote:

Are all people saved??
Not currently.
Quote:

Is it Gods will that all people be saved?
Yes, it is. Does it get clearer than this?

1Ti 2:3-4 For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Quote:

How have I limted the power of God?? He uses his power to SAVE HIS PEOPLE.

Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Peace to u,

Bill
You've limited it by implying that HIS PEOPLE are only a limited number of people who meet whatever set of criteria you have in your head, instead of all of humanity as God has made clear throughout the Scripture. I am taking the words at their face value--God wills that all be saved, Christ died for all, my God is omnipotent, the power of Christ's death cannot be resisted, therefore all will be saved. Any other "interpretation" is a pure denial of the Scripture.

After all of this Universal Reconciliation promotion in the thread specifically posted for the 5 points of Tulip, I posted Jesus teaching on the eternal position of sheeps and goats in Matthew 25.

Cubedbee answers my post with the following Universal Reconciliation post:

cubedbee said:
Your first paragraph is absolute truth. Your second paragraph is not, it is a mistranslation into English, it takes something that is a finite age that Christ will ultimately end when he accomplishes God's will, a will that cannot be resisted or twarted, and falsely portrays it as eternal, a portrayal which makes a liar out of God and makes him powerless over sin, unable to ultimately conquer it even though he wills it. I will not deny God's sovereignty, God's omnipotence. Neither will I deny hell. The only way to reconcile these two is two correctly translate Aionios as an age, one of finite duration, a meaning which is definitely valid for the word and which is definitely used in certain Bible passages.

And then Lyric's Dad comes out of the pretense of not knowing the promotion of Universal Reconciliation, a false doctrine that he buys into, with the following response to bbas 64:

Lyric's Dad said:
Where were we debating UR? I thought we were discussing the fallacy of TULIP and the limited atonement lie?
[/quote:fb377]I'm sorry, it is you who brought up the topic of UR, not I. The discussion was on the five points of TULIP, and I showed scriptural proof that the L is wrong. Is it now forbidden to quote Scripture because others may interpret it as supporting Universal Reconciliation? If quoting Scripture is going to be forbidden on this forum, can you honestly call it a Christian forum?[/quote:fb377]

Good Day, Cudbedbee

I disagree when I asked will all be saved, you said "currently no". Such a quaification "currently" reeks of UR. You showed no such Scriptural proof!!

I quoted

Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.


You asserted that I had to show that "His people" were not "all people" that adj "His" qualifies the "people". You then asked me to prove a negitive, show were it say "all people will not be saved". A negitive can not be proven in a negitive sense.

Matt 1:21 is a postive as to who he shall save.. His people.


Peace to u,

Bill
 
cubedbee said:
I'm sorry, it is you who brought up the topic of UR, not I. The discussion was on the five points of TULIP, and I showed scriptural proof that the L is wrong. Is it now forbidden to quote Scripture because others may interpret it as supporting Universal Reconciliation? If quoting Scripture is going to be forbidden on this forum, can you honestly call it a Christian forum?
You really ought to try to stay on topic, and quit trying to pass untruths on to others on this board.
 
Solo said:
Lyric's Dad said:
[quote="bbas 64":116ed]I thought the doctrive of UR was banned here???

Peace to u,

Bill
Where were we debating UR? I thought we were discussing the fallacy of TULIP and the limited atonement lie?
Here is a reminder for you, Lyric's Dad of who brought Universal Reconciliation into the thread, and continued to promote it throughout the recent postings:

Lyric's Dad said:
Well, this is one place we will NEVER come to an agreement at. I will never reconcile God being a forever torturer with His statement that He IS love. They are not compatible. And as for Spurgeon? I could care less what he thought. He is fallible and not the One I follow.

Just thought since you claim to follow Jesus, quoting him in scripture with the correct translation would be something that would edify your walk and correct any error that you may be holding on to. The Word of God teaches the truth for those who are in error. My post has nothing to do with Universal Reconciliation. I think Universal Reconciliation is a topic banned on this forum, therefore, I will teach the truth that Jesus teaches. Jesus teaches in Matthew 25 about the eternal destiny of the sheep and goats. They both go to two different places, one group to eternal life, and the other group to eternal punishment. When folks understand their eternal destiny without Jesus is going to be a terrible price to pay for a temporary period of sinful pleasure, they will seek out Jesus Christ for salvation.

Let us not teach lies for the truth of God's Word, especially when Jesus is so plain and precise as to the eternal destiny of each person born of the flesh.

Now for some history of this thread. The very first post that referred to Universal Reconsiliation was the following:

cubedbee said:
The "L" is false, Christ died for all, and nothing in the Bible indicates otherwise.

The next post to promote Universal Reconciliation is also from cubedbee with the following post:

cubedbee said:
The Scripture says it so many times I’m honestly surprised you could be asking me this.

1 Timothy 2:5-6 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

.....

Wow, that’s an awfully pride-filled statement. I’m going to trust the Lordâ€â€he did in fact come to save all as is clearly evidenced in the Scripture, and I know God will never fall short in anything he wills.

.....

Yes, I agree with this. The difference is, I don’t limit the scope of God’s power.

The next post promoting Universal Reconciliation is from Lyric's Dad with the following post:

Lyric's Dad said:
Amen Cubed. That is the truth and there is nothing that can come against it.

I find it reprehensible for some to reduce God to a being that would create some humans for the sole purpose of burning them. That is maniacal and not in any form a loving thing.

Then comes another from Lyric's Dad that continues with further promotion of Universal Reconciliation:

Lyric's Dad said:
LOL!! You find some peace in such a statement?

Sorry, my God is not a charles manson type who sat down with an evil grin and put together little creatures so He could use them as firewood to keep it burning. Yeah, that just sounds a little sick.

God even condemned the pagan groups who made their children walk through the fire. Hey, at least those people let their kids die in the fire. According to the L, God created people for the sole purpose of forever listening to them cry in torment. Sorry, that is not a God but a demon.

My God said He is love. I am a finite being and can see that this type of thing is not at all loving. I, as a sinner and a wretch could never do that to anyone, not even my worst enemy so am I to believe that the One who IS perfect love could? No freaking way. Jesus is love, not hate and I will never believe otherwise, even if some calvin wants me to.

Next is a response to bbas 64 from Lyric's Dad:

Lyric's Dad said:
Well, this is one place we will NEVER come to an agreement at. I will never reconcile God being a forever torturer with His statement that He IS love. They are not compatible. And as for Spurgeon? I could care less what he thought. He is fallible and not the One I follow.

Then cubedbee sets out on further Universal Reconciliation promotion in this post:

cubedbee said:
The verses I posted do in fact say that. The exact phrase "he came to save all" doesn't occur, nor does the exact word Trinity, but both are clearly taught. I posted the verses--they refer to salvation. If you think they do not, what are they referring to?

Quote:

"Wow, that’s an awfully pride-filled statement. I’m going to trust the Lordâ€â€he did in fact come to save all as is clearly evidenced in the Scripture, and I know God will never fall short in anything he wills.


Assertion, yopu have not provided a passage that says "he came to save all"


And you haven't provided one that says "He did not come to save all" So what? I provided verses that convey my assertion that Christ came to save all(yes, there are synonyms for save used in the Bible), while you in fact have not provided evidence for your assertion . You have to prove that "his people" refers to a limited number of people, instead of all people.

Quote:

Are all people saved??
Not currently.
Quote:

Is it Gods will that all people be saved?
Yes, it is. Does it get clearer than this?

1Ti 2:3-4 For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Quote:

How have I limted the power of God?? He uses his power to SAVE HIS PEOPLE.

Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Peace to u,

Bill
You've limited it by implying that HIS PEOPLE are only a limited number of people who meet whatever set of criteria you have in your head, instead of all of humanity as God has made clear throughout the Scripture. I am taking the words at their face value--God wills that all be saved, Christ died for all, my God is omnipotent, the power of Christ's death cannot be resisted, therefore all will be saved. Any other "interpretation" is a pure denial of the Scripture.

After all of this Universal Reconciliation promotion in the thread specifically posted for the 5 points of Tulip, I posted Jesus teaching on the eternal position of sheeps and goats in Matthew 25.

Cubedbee answers my post with the following Universal Reconciliation post:

cubedbee said:
Your first paragraph is absolute truth. Your second paragraph is not, it is a mistranslation into English, it takes something that is a finite age that Christ will ultimately end when he accomplishes God's will, a will that cannot be resisted or twarted, and falsely portrays it as eternal, a portrayal which makes a liar out of God and makes him powerless over sin, unable to ultimately conquer it even though he wills it. I will not deny God's sovereignty, God's omnipotence. Neither will I deny hell. The only way to reconcile these two is two correctly translate Aionios as an age, one of finite duration, a meaning which is definitely valid for the word and which is definitely used in certain Bible passages.

And then Lyric's Dad comes out of the pretense of not knowing the promotion of Universal Reconciliation, a false doctrine that he buys into, with the following response to bbas 64:

Lyric's Dad said:
Where were we debating UR? I thought we were discussing the fallacy of TULIP and the limited atonement lie?
[/quote:116ed]Excuse me solo? This was not a discussion on UR as there are too many blind people who choose not to actually discuss that topic with their brains in tact so we don't do that here.

This was a discussion on the filthy lie of the L.

You can try and attribute all you want to me of trying to promote this doctrine but you would be wrong. I did not discuss the issue of puishment as an absolute but the fact that God setting out to choose certain people to burn up while others were chosen to be in heaven is a disgusting lunacy.

Imagine that.

I did not discuss the issue of hell being real or not though that could be fun, but the fact that God setting out to choose ahead of time certain people destined to just be burned forever and ever while others were chosen to be in heaven is a disgusting lunacy. It makes God out to be a maniac and I choose not to believe that my God is One who does such things or supports people who think they are better then others.



Furthermore, if you think I am so out of line, please do us both a favor and report me. Until that time do NOT try and manipulate my intentions.
 
Good Day, Lyric's Dad

Then answer me one quick question will all be saved, and has a result go to be with the Lord forever ?


Peace to u,

Bill
 
I am not a supporter of the "limited atonement" concept. It does appear that some have leapt to the conclusion that rejection of limited atonement necessarily entails acceptance of "universal reconciliation". I think such a conclusion is not justified. Note the following from wikipedia (I added the bold):

"Limited atonement is contrasted with the view popularly termed unlimited or universal atonement, which is advocated by Arminian/Methodist, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic theologians (among others) and which says Christ's work makes redemption possible for all but certain for none. (This doctrine should not be confused with universalism.)"

For those readers who do support limited atonement, do you agree with either or both of the following statements:

1. God's election of A and not B (for example) is not in any way based on specific characteristics of A and B- in other words, God's choice of A is not based on "something about A" that qualifies him for salvation, a "something" which B happens to lack.

2. God's choice of A and not B is not "random".
 
Those who are really desiring to know the truth about Limited Atonement from a Reform point of view please read this article from Michael Finney.
Bubba

"The doctrine of Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption) is probably the most controversial of the doctrines of grace and most difficult to accept by many believers. Limited Atonement states that Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only, and actually secured salvation for them. His death was the substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ's redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation; including faith which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, therefore guaranteeing their salvation.

Scriptural Support:
Exodus 4:21, 14:4, 8, 17; Deuteronomy 2:30, 9:4-7, 29:4; Joshua 11:19; 1 Samuel 2:25, 3:14; 2 Samuel 17:14; Psalm 105:25; Proverbs 15:8, 26, 28:9; Isaiah 53:11; Jeremiah 24:7; Matthew 1:21, 11:25-27, 13:10-15, 44-46, 15:13, 20:28, 22:14, 24:22; Luke 8:15, 13:23, 19:42; John 5:21, 6:37, 44, 65, 8:42-47, 10:11, 14, 26-28, 11:49-53, 12:37-41, 13:1, 18, 15:16, 17:2, 6, 9, 18:9, 37; Acts 2:39, 13:48, 18:27, 19:9; Romans 9:10-26, 11:5-10; 1 Corinthians 1:18-31, 2:14; 2 Corinthians 2:14-16, 4:3; Galatians 1:3; Ephesians 2:1-10; Colossians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 2:9-14; 2 Timothy 2:20, 25; Titus 2:14; Hebrews 1:3, 14, 2:9, 16 (cp. Galatians 3:29, 4:28-31), 9:28; 1 Peter 2:8; 2 Peter 2:7; 1 John 4:6; Jude 1, 14; Revelation 13:8, 17:8, 15-18, 21:27.

The first thing to consider is the purpose of Christ's death. Hebrews 10:9 says that Jesus came to do the will of the Father. So it follows that the purpose of His death was to accomplish the Father's will. But what was the Father's will in the death of Christ? It was shown from Scripture in the previous article on the doctrine of unconditional election that it was the purpose of the Father to choose some for salvation, not make salvation a potential for all based on the exercise of free will, which is totally corrupted and depraved by sin. If, then, Christ came to fulfill the purpose of the Father; and it was not the purpose of the Father to elect some to salvation rather than all; then it logically follows that it was not the purpose of Christ to die for all men.

In the covenant of grace, the Father chose a people, Christ promised to die for them, and the Spirit pledged Himself to apply salvation to their hearts. In Isaiah 53:10-12 it says: "But the LORD was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief; if He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, and the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; by His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, and He will divide the booty with the strong; because He poured out Himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet He Himself bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors."

Christ foresaw the suffering and agony that He would have to endure, and yet, He was content with it, for He realized that by His death, everyone for whom He died would be redeemed from sin. Now if Christ died for all men, and some for whom He died ended up going to hell anyway, then Christ could not have foreseen the suffering and agony of His soul and been satisfied. He would have been disappointed because His efforts would not have been sufficient to save everyone for whom He died. Therefore, the atonement Christ made for the sins of His people was limited in purpose; not in its value, but in its purpose, for it was designed for the elect of God.

The second point to consider is that the purpose of the death of Christ was to save His people from their sins. That is clearly stated for us in Matthew 1:21: "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." This passage did not say that He would save the whole world, nor did it say that He should try to save His people; but that He would save His people from their sins. If that was the prophecy given concerning the birth of Jesus Christ and the purpose for which He came, we must surely know that which was determined by the Father was fulfilled by His faithful Son. Luke 19:10 supports this point: "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost." If that then was His purpose; He accomplished that very thing.

Thirdly, the purpose of Jesus' death was to bring the elect to glory. Romans 8:28-30 says: "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." In John 17 is the prayer of intercession made by the Lord Jesus. In verse 2 He prayed, "Even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life." Note that eternal life was not for all men, but those that were given to Him by the Father. In verse 9 He continues: "I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours;". It would not be reasonable that Christ would limit His prayers to those given to Him by the Father, and at the same time die for all men, knowing very well that many would not be saved. He prayed for those for whom He died, and He died for those given Him by the Father. His purpose then was not to save the entire human race, for if that had been His purpose He would have accomplished it. Christ is the Almighty and accomplishes everything He intends to do. It was His purpose to save only the elect of God, and His purpose was fulfilled.

Christ died for His sheep, and because of this none can be lost. In John 10:10-11 He said, "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep." And in verse 28 He continues: "I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand." (Notice that He does not offer them eternal life.) Jesus died for the sheep, and He gives eternal life to everyone for whom He died. Christ did not come to attempt to save men; He came to redeem His people. He purged their sins and then sat down on the right hand of His Father. (Hebrews 10:12)

As was stated at the beginning, there are many who find this doctrine hard to accept and so object to it. Nonetheless it is truth that is taught in the Word of God. There are many objections that are raised, and this article will only deal with some of the main ones. One of the first things objectors usually refer to is the use of the word "world" in the Scriptures, and the first passage that is always read is John 3:16: " For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." John 3:16 simply states that the design of God's love, that all who believe in Christ should be saved by Him. These believers in their unregenerate state are scattered abroad among the Gentiles as well as among the Jews, and so are fitly described by the word "world." Of course, there are those who reject this explanation. They may look to Acts 11:18 for support: "When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, 'Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life." But does this mean that every Gentile has been granted repentance, and that every Gentile will be saved? Of course not. What this passage shows is that repentance has been granted to the Gentiles; it simply means that all those of God's elect among the Gentiles shall be given repentance unto salvation. The Jews are not the only ones to be granted this gift. Jews as well as Gentiles have been given repentance, and so it is the same in John 3:16. It does not have reference to every person in the world, but it has reference to men of all nations.

A passage that illustrates this point well is found in Revelation 5:9: "And they sang a new song, saying, 'Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.'" This helps us to understand, in this context, what is meant by the use of the word "world". It means people of every tribe, tongue, and people; that Christ's death was not restricted to the Jews, but that it was for members of the entire human race scattered throughout the earth.

There are several other examples. In John 7:7 the word "world" is used to distinguish unbelievers from believers. In John 12:9 the word "world" is used of a special people. Romans 11:15 uses it to distinguish Gentiles from Jews, and thus so in passages such as John 3:16 and 1:27, 1 John 2:1 and 2 -- it is used of all the elect of God. Hebrews 2:9 says, "But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone." At this point someone may say, "This is Scriptural proof that Christ died for all men." But the context will explain what it means. "For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, 'I WILL PROCLAIM YOUR NAME TO MY BRETHREN, IN THE MIDST OF THE CONGREGATION I WILL SING YOUR PRAISE.'" (Hebrews 2:10-12) When read in context it can be seen that the passage has reference to sons; it has reference to the church; it has reference to the brethren; it has reference to those who are the children of God. So this passage could be understood to say that "Christ has experienced death for every son," for every one that was given to Him by the Father.

What about 2 Peter 2:1? "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves." It must be made clear that these false teachers are unsaved. They are compared to dogs and pigs, not to sheep (2 Peter 2:22). Such people are described in Jude 19 "devoid of the Spirit." If a person does not have the Spirit of God within, he is not a child of God (Romans 8:9). He may appear to be saved and even become a member or an officer in the church, but eventually, in one way or another, he will deny the Lord.

Notwithstanding, this passage is not discussing the atonement of Christ. Peter's first epistle was written to Jews, so most likely was his second one. (1 Peter 1:1; Galatians 2:7) In what sense were these false teachers "bought" by the Lord? To a Jew who was not a Christian "the Lord" would most naturally refer to God the Father, not Jesus. And the Jews were "bought" by God in the Exodus.

One more passage of Scripture to consider is Romans 8:34. It is a clear example of Limited Atonement, or Particular Redemption. It says, "Who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us." How could any for whom Christ died be condemned? The law has been fulfilled, justice has been satisfied, sin has been paid for; and so, the Apostle Paul argues that condemnation is impossible. And since condemnation is excluded by His death, then none for whom He died can be condemned. All for whom Christ died, died in Him; thus the law could not again demand their death.

The renowned 19th century British preacher and evangelist Charles H. Spurgeon had these words to say about limited atonement (from his sermon, "The Mission of the Son of Man"):

"Now, some people love the doctrine of 'universal atonement' because they say it is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that 'Christ should have died for all men'; it commends itself, they say, to the instincts of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty.

"I admit there is; but beauty may be often associated with falsehood.

"There is much which I might well admire in the theory of 'universal redemption' but let me just tell you what this supposition necessarily involves. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were damned before He died; because if this doctrine (that He died for all men) is true, He died for some that were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were myriads there that had been cast away.

"Once again, if it were Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed! For we have His own evidence that there is a lake that burns with fire and brimstone, and into that pit must be cast some of the very people, who according to that theory, were bought with His blood!

"To think that my Savior died for men in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to imagine. That He was the substitute for the sons of men, and that God having first punished the substitute, punished these same men again, seems to me to conflict with any idea of justice.

"That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards, some of those very men should be punished for the same sins which Christ had already atoned for, seems to me, to be the most marvelous monstrosity that ever could have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, aye, to the god of the Thugs, or the most diabolical heathen demons!

"God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise."

In conclusion, the death of Christ is the foundation of the Christian's hope. But those believing in a general redemption cannot possibly fully enjoy that blessed hope in Christ. They claim to believe in a redeemer who is not completely successful in redeeming the lost; an atonement that falls short of achieving its purpose; thus believing that the death of Christ must be joined with freewill in order to save. Fortunately, Jesus is a Redeemer who does deliver His people from sin; not just tries to deliver His people with the possibility of losing some of them. His grace is thoroughly efficacious in saving the elect, for whom He died. And one elected by the grace of God is bound to come to Him, for it would be then natural for him to do so."

Michael Finney
 
Hi, bbas 64...


Good Day Farley

Have we "butted heads" before?? I am sorry you see it as "butting heads" as that carries a negitive idea. I wish to be postive in my disscussions, if I have been any thing but that in the past I am sorry and seek your forgiveness.

Please no apology needed!!! You have been nothing BUT polite! It's just an expression that I use a lot, no offense meant, when discussing issues with those of differing views.

In dealing with predestination I will say your idea of what it is far from the truth as understood in the Doctrines of Grace. I am more than willing to disscuss it with you in a manner that is positve and forth right.

Thank you for your offer

I must first ask a question have you read any writtings on this issue "predestination"? If so whom? The reason I ask is I do not what to assume any thing from the get go.

Excellent idea...yes, most of my view of Calvin comes from an online page called 'The Calvinist Corner', at w*w.carm.org, I believe it is.

EDIT: Evidently the 'Calvinist Corner' has now evolved to the point where it has it's own URL at w*w.mslick.com.

The following paragraph is a clip from there...


Predestination is the doctrine that God alone chooses (elects) who is saved. He makes His choice independent of any quality or condition in sinful man. He does not look into a person and recognize something good nor does He look into the future to see who would choose Him. He elects people to salvation purely on the basis of His good pleasure. Those not elected are not saved. He does this because He is sovereign; that is, He has the absolute authority, right, and ability to do with His creation as He pleases. He has the right to elect some to salvation and let all the rest go their natural way: to hell. This is predestination.


BTW, after some recent additional study, not only do I see Calvin's definition of predestination conflicting with Scripture, but it also definitely conflicts with Calvin's own tenet of 'Irresistible Grace'.

Peace to u,

Bill

In Christ,

farley
 
Predestination is the doctrine that God alone chooses (elects) who is saved. He makes His choice independent of any quality or condition in sinful man. He does not look into a person and recognize something good nor does He look into the future to see who would choose Him. He elects people to salvation purely on the basis of His good pleasure. Those not elected are not saved. He does this because He is sovereign; that is, He has the absolute authority, right, and ability to do with His creation as He pleases. He has the right to elect some to salvation and let all the rest go their natural way: to hell. This is predestination.
Note that I have added the bolding in the above to draw attention to the matter that I wish to address.

I have a big problem with this quote. Let's talk about A who is part of the elect and B who is not. If, as the quote, suggests, A's election is not based on anything that in any way distinguishes him meritoriously from B, then the only alternative that we humans can make sense of is that God chooses randomly or in a similarly arbitrary manner. And I suspect that most of us, whether Calvinists or not, would reject that.

The point here is a bit "technical". We need to ask ourselves the following question: If the choice between A and B is not based on merit, what other options remain? Surely, even God sees A and B as individuals. Surely what makes me "me" and not "you", even from God's perspective, is a whole array of characteristics that we do not share. I am tall, you are short, I come from Canada, you come from Sweden, I have such and such experiences, you have your own experiences, etc. etc. Presumably even God must distinguish us based on some attributes we do not have in common.

Unless A and B are in fact, identical in all respects, their individuality is expressed in terms of features that discriminate between them - such differences are the very basis on which one can say that A is distinct from B. So what is left to discriminate between A and B if we take away characteristics that are "meritorious"? What's left is a whole vast array of things, such as DNA code, height, numbers of hairs, favourite color, place of birth, etc. etc. Is it sensible that God chooses A over B on the basis of one or more of these characteristics? Many would agree with me that this is absurd.

And yet this is effectively what the above quote asks us to accept. It claims that God selects "purely on the basis of his good pleasure". But what does such an expression really mean? I submit that the lack of adequate analysis of this expression lulls us into thinking that God has some non-merit related criteria for choosing A over B. Yet, if we actually try to identify what that characteristic might be, we realize that all possible "criteria" seem absurd and arbitrary.

Perhaps the Calvinist will respond that God has ways to distinguish between A and B that are not meritorious and yet also not "trivial" (e.g. picking A because A has an even number of nostril hairs while B has an odd number). However, if we are going to have even the faintest hope of describing God to one another, we cannot build descriptions that seem non-sensical to us. One cannot have it both ways - on the one hand making actual claims about the nature of God and then, when challenged about the sensibility of such claims, to resort to the old "its a mystery" answer. If it really is such a mystery, we need to avoid claiming otherwise in the first place.
 
Drew, I believe if you carefully consider the first 24 verses of Romans 9, you can readily discern that God has already answered your ponderings. Though we often find problem with a God that is not of our liking or understanding.
Bubba

I tell the truth in Christ. I am not lying, my conscience testifying with me in the Holy Spirit,

9:2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing pain in my heart.

9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brothers' sake, my relatives according to the flesh,

9:4 who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service, and the promises;

9:5 of whom are the fathers, and from whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God, blessed forever. Amen.

9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has come to nothing. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel.

9:7 Neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all children. But, "In Isaac will your seed be called."

9:8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as a seed.

9:9 For this is a word of promise, "At the appointed time I will come, and Sarah will have a son."

9:10 Not only so, but Rebecca also conceived by one, by our father Isaac.

9:11 For being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him who calls,

9:12 it was said to her, "The elder will serve the younger."

9:13 Even as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? May it never be!

9:15 For he said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

9:16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy.

9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I caused you to be raised up, that I might show in you my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth."

9:18 So then, he has mercy on whom he desires, and he hardens whom he desires.

9:19 You will say then to me, "Why does he still find fault? For who withstands his will?"

9:20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed ask him who formed it, "Why did you make me like this?"

9:21 Or hasn't the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel for honor, and another for dishonor?

9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath made for destruction,

9:23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory,

9:24 us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?
 
Solo said:
cubedbee said:
I'm sorry, it is you who brought up the topic of UR, not I. The discussion was on the five points of TULIP, and I showed scriptural proof that the L is wrong. Is it now forbidden to quote Scripture because others may interpret it as supporting Universal Reconciliation? If quoting Scripture is going to be forbidden on this forum, can you honestly call it a Christian forum?
You really ought to try to stay on topic, and quit trying to pass untruths on to others on this board.
I followed the topic where others led it, and conveyed the truths from Scripture as I understand them.

My original post was, and I will get back on topic with it, that the "L" in TULIP is completely and utterly false, it contradicts the Scriptures, and it makes God out to be a monster that he is not. If it's permitted, others might want to hear about alternatives to TULIP given we know the L can't be true---the conversation had led me towards talking about TUUIP, which I find to be consistent with the Scriptures, but I would also like to offer TUURP as a more Biblical correct belief system. Can we really not discuss these issues in a mature Christian manner? Do we really have to instead artifically limit our spiritually related conversation because what we talk about might "smack" of a doctrine that isn't popular in mainstream Christianity? Is there any point in having any threads like this if divergent viewpoints can't be presented?
 
Greetings Bubba:

Thanks for the post - I am already familiar with this text. If I may ask, do you struggle with the whole "election" business and accept it anyway, in virtue of the authority you confer on the Scriptures? At this point anyway, I cannot reconcile the notion of a just and loving God with the assertion that some are "programmed" for eternal destruction (I am not sure whether you believe this, but it does seem to follow from the Romans 9 material you posted).
 
Lyric's Dad said:
Solo said:
[quote="Lyric's Dad":8e0d2][quote="bbas 64":8e0d2]I thought the doctrive of UR was banned here???

Peace to u,

Bill
Where were we debating UR? I thought we were discussing the fallacy of TULIP and the limited atonement lie?
Here is a reminder for you, Lyric's Dad of who brought Universal Reconciliation into the thread, and continued to promote it throughout the recent postings:

Lyric's Dad said:
Well, this is one place we will NEVER come to an agreement at. I will never reconcile God being a forever torturer with His statement that He IS love. They are not compatible. And as for Spurgeon? I could care less what he thought. He is fallible and not the One I follow.

Just thought since you claim to follow Jesus, quoting him in scripture with the correct translation would be something that would edify your walk and correct any error that you may be holding on to. The Word of God teaches the truth for those who are in error. My post has nothing to do with Universal Reconciliation. I think Universal Reconciliation is a topic banned on this forum, therefore, I will teach the truth that Jesus teaches. Jesus teaches in Matthew 25 about the eternal destiny of the sheep and goats. They both go to two different places, one group to eternal life, and the other group to eternal punishment. When folks understand their eternal destiny without Jesus is going to be a terrible price to pay for a temporary period of sinful pleasure, they will seek out Jesus Christ for salvation.

Let us not teach lies for the truth of God's Word, especially when Jesus is so plain and precise as to the eternal destiny of each person born of the flesh.

Now for some history of this thread. The very first post that referred to Universal Reconsiliation was the following:

cubedbee said:
The "L" is false, Christ died for all, and nothing in the Bible indicates otherwise.

The next post to promote Universal Reconciliation is also from cubedbee with the following post:

cubedbee said:
The Scripture says it so many times I’m honestly surprised you could be asking me this.

1 Timothy 2:5-6 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

.....

Wow, that’s an awfully pride-filled statement. I’m going to trust the Lordâ€â€he did in fact come to save all as is clearly evidenced in the Scripture, and I know God will never fall short in anything he wills.

.....

Yes, I agree with this. The difference is, I don’t limit the scope of God’s power.

The next post promoting Universal Reconciliation is from Lyric's Dad with the following post:

Lyric's Dad said:
Amen Cubed. That is the truth and there is nothing that can come against it.

I find it reprehensible for some to reduce God to a being that would create some humans for the sole purpose of burning them. That is maniacal and not in any form a loving thing.

Then comes another from Lyric's Dad that continues with further promotion of Universal Reconciliation:

Lyric's Dad said:
LOL!! You find some peace in such a statement?

Sorry, my God is not a charles manson type who sat down with an evil grin and put together little creatures so He could use them as firewood to keep it burning. Yeah, that just sounds a little sick.

God even condemned the pagan groups who made their children walk through the fire. Hey, at least those people let their kids die in the fire. According to the L, God created people for the sole purpose of forever listening to them cry in torment. Sorry, that is not a God but a demon.

My God said He is love. I am a finite being and can see that this type of thing is not at all loving. I, as a sinner and a wretch could never do that to anyone, not even my worst enemy so am I to believe that the One who IS perfect love could? No freaking way. Jesus is love, not hate and I will never believe otherwise, even if some calvin wants me to.

Next is a response to bbas 64 from Lyric's Dad:

Lyric's Dad said:
Well, this is one place we will NEVER come to an agreement at. I will never reconcile God being a forever torturer with His statement that He IS love. They are not compatible. And as for Spurgeon? I could care less what he thought. He is fallible and not the One I follow.

Then cubedbee sets out on further Universal Reconciliation promotion in this post:

cubedbee said:
The verses I posted do in fact say that. The exact phrase "he came to save all" doesn't occur, nor does the exact word Trinity, but both are clearly taught. I posted the verses--they refer to salvation. If you think they do not, what are they referring to?

Quote:

"Wow, that’s an awfully pride-filled statement. I’m going to trust the Lordâ€â€he did in fact come to save all as is clearly evidenced in the Scripture, and I know God will never fall short in anything he wills.


Assertion, yopu have not provided a passage that says "he came to save all"


And you haven't provided one that says "He did not come to save all" So what? I provided verses that convey my assertion that Christ came to save all(yes, there are synonyms for save used in the Bible), while you in fact have not provided evidence for your assertion . You have to prove that "his people" refers to a limited number of people, instead of all people.

Quote:

Are all people saved??
Not currently.
Quote:

Is it Gods will that all people be saved?
Yes, it is. Does it get clearer than this?

1Ti 2:3-4 For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Quote:

How have I limted the power of God?? He uses his power to SAVE HIS PEOPLE.

Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Peace to u,

Bill
You've limited it by implying that HIS PEOPLE are only a limited number of people who meet whatever set of criteria you have in your head, instead of all of humanity as God has made clear throughout the Scripture. I am taking the words at their face value--God wills that all be saved, Christ died for all, my God is omnipotent, the power of Christ's death cannot be resisted, therefore all will be saved. Any other "interpretation" is a pure denial of the Scripture.

After all of this Universal Reconciliation promotion in the thread specifically posted for the 5 points of Tulip, I posted Jesus teaching on the eternal position of sheeps and goats in Matthew 25.

Cubedbee answers my post with the following Universal Reconciliation post:

cubedbee said:
Your first paragraph is absolute truth. Your second paragraph is not, it is a mistranslation into English, it takes something that is a finite age that Christ will ultimately end when he accomplishes God's will, a will that cannot be resisted or twarted, and falsely portrays it as eternal, a portrayal which makes a liar out of God and makes him powerless over sin, unable to ultimately conquer it even though he wills it. I will not deny God's sovereignty, God's omnipotence. Neither will I deny hell. The only way to reconcile these two is two correctly translate Aionios as an age, one of finite duration, a meaning which is definitely valid for the word and which is definitely used in certain Bible passages.

And then Lyric's Dad comes out of the pretense of not knowing the promotion of Universal Reconciliation, a false doctrine that he buys into, with the following response to bbas 64:

Lyric's Dad said:
Where were we debating UR? I thought we were discussing the fallacy of TULIP and the limited atonement lie?
[/quote:8e0d2]
Excuse me solo? This was not a discussion on UR as there are too many blind people who choose not to actually discuss that topic with their brains in tact so we don't do that here.
[/quote:8e0d2]
I know that this was not a topic for discussion on Universal Reconciliation, but you and cubedbee turned it into one. Notice the posts from cubedbee and yourself. Cubedbee says that the "L" is false and that Christ died for all. BBas 64 asks cubedbee where in scripture that it says that Christ came to save all. Cubedbee replies that he is surprised that bbas 64 is asking him that question because the scripture says it so many times. He then goes on to quote various scriptures (1 Timothy 2:5-6, Hebrews 2:9, 1 John 2:2, and 1 Corinthians 15:22).

cubedbee said:
bbas 64 said:
cubedbee said:
The "L" is false, Christ died for all, and nothing in the Bible indicates otherwise.
Good Day, Cubedee

Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.


He only came to save his people, where in the Scripture does it say he came to save all?
The Scripture says it so many times I’m honestly surprised you could be asking me this.

1 Timothy 2:5-6 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

cubedbee said:
bbas 64 said:
If he in fact came to save all he has fallen short and will spend eternity un forfilled.
Wow, that’s an awfully pride-filled statement. I’m going to trust the Lordâ€â€he did in fact come to save all as is clearly evidenced in the Scripture, and I know God will never fall short in anything he wills.

cubedbee said:
bbas 64 said:
He saves his people, his sheep, the ones given to him by the Father. He does not only try too, he really does save them.

All the Father gives me I "will" rasie up on the last day......

Peace to u,

Bill
Yes, I agree with this. The difference is, I don’t limit the scope of God’s power.

So cubedbee has began the Universal Reconciliation dialog within the thread of the 5 Tulips (which is not allowed by the TOS), and you, Lyric's Dad responded, not with a reminder to cubedbee to follow the rules of the TOS, but instead an AMEN to his post with a praise that it was truth and "there is nothing that can come against it". Note the post below:

Lyric's Dad said:
Amen Cubed. That is the truth and there is nothing that can come against it.

I find it reprehensible for some to reduce God to a being that would create some humans for the sole purpose of burning them. That is maniacal and not in any form a loving thing.


After showing the history of the off topic direction that the thread has taken with the emphasis changing to the Universal Reconciliation doctrine, you, Lyric's Dad post the following response:

Lyric's Dad said:
This was a discussion on the filthy lie of the L.

You can try and attribute all you want to me of trying to promote this doctrine but you would be wrong. I did not discuss the issue of puishment as an absolute but the fact that God setting out to choose certain people to burn up while others were chosen to be in heaven is a disgusting lunacy.

Imagine that.

I did not discuss the issue of hell being real or not though that could be fun, but the fact that God setting out to choose ahead of time certain people destined to just be burned forever and ever while others were chosen to be in heaven is a disgusting lunacy. It makes God out to be a maniac and I choose not to believe that my God is One who does such things or supports people who think they are better then others.

Furthermore, if you think I am so out of line, please do us both a favor and report me. Until that time do NOT try and manipulate my intentions.

You really ought to come to grips that your understanding is lower than God's, and your ways are not God's ways. You should not let unbelief govern your attitudes towards the truth contained in the doctrines of God in the Word of God, and should take the Words of Jesus to heart, instead of wearing his name in a false manner.

Jesus is very clear in describing the judgment of the sheep and goats. I even showed in your favorite translation where Jesus says that the goats will go to eternal punishment, and the sheep will go to eternal life. The same word is used by Jesus in both instances. You can call God's plan and Jesus' Words lunacy if you want, but you are telling on yourself. How reprehensible is this? Jesus did not say that it was reprehensible.

How long should one be able to burn in the lake of fire before it becomes lunacy or maniacal? I wonder why Jesus did not describe the torment of the rich man as being short so that God didn't appear to be a maniac or lunatic?

By the way, your misunderstanding of the Word of God in no way portrays God as a maniac. You should know better.

6 Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: 7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:6-9
 
Hi Drew,
Yes, I struggle with the election aspect of Scripture, but from Genesis to the Revelation we are forced to deal with it. I think if one truly believes that man is depraved, the idea of election and reprobation doesn’t seem so harsh or unfair. Also, some theologians (Fudge, Stott) are re-examining the whole notion of annihilation after a limited period of punishing (depending on the severity of sin) instead of eternal torment, which if true, helps us cope with verses like Proverbs 16:4, but I will let the SDA’s argue this thought. I often wonder why I was given revelation over another and Romans 9:16 basically states it is God’s prerogative.
Bubba
 
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Romans 9:16-23
 
Greetings Solo and others:

If someone takes issue with limited atonement, this simply does not imply UR. It is really quite simple. Rejecting limited atonement is entirely consistent with the following non-UR position: Christ died for all in the sense that all have the "free will" option of accepting that gift. Not all will. This is not a UR position.
 
bbas 64 said:
Good Day, Lyric's Dad

Then answer me one quick question will all be saved, and has a result go to be with the Lord forever ?


Peace to u,

Bill
Sounds like you are trying to spark a conversation on the merits or lack thereof on UR.

Furthermore, my stance on this issue is not the topic of this thread. This thread is about TULIP. Try staying on topic.
 
Back
Top