Questions for Ran Ran

[Kelp]

I'm trying to understand the nature of your universalism. You say that both Calvinists and Arminians/Molinists have a limited atonement because they say that the salvation of any individual is dependent on some factor (God's choice in Calvinism or the person's choice in Arminianism/Molinism). But what is your alternative view?

Do you believe that all go straight to Heaven at death? Or, do you believe that unbelievers go to Hell until they believe?

If you take the former belief, then it seems to me that you really do have an unlimited atonement by your own standards.

If you take the other route, as I thought I heard you say once, I do not think that you really have an unlimited atonement by your own definition of "ulimited". I think that you would have an atonement like that of Arminianism. The reason being that the both of you make an individual's salvation from Hell dependent on their belief. So, even though your atonement might be technically utld. and even though you believe that all beings will eventually leave Hell, in practice you would still be saying that Christ's sacrifice is off limits to the unbeliever in his unbelief.

[RanRan]

I'm trying to understand the nature of your universalism. You say that both Calvinists and Arminians/Molinists have a limited atonement because they say that the salvation of any individual is dependent on some factor (God's choice in Calvinism or the person's choice in Arminianism/Molinism). But what is your alternative view? 'Christ was a ransom for all.' What's limited about that?

Do you believe that all go straight to Heaven at death?No, "Everyone will be salted with fire.' We will all contribute our dross to the flames. And gladly so.

Or, do you believe that unbelievers go to Hell until they believe?Belief, at that point, has nothing to do with it. It's clearly seen. They will be salted with fire.

If you take the former belief, then it seems to me that you really do have an unlimited atonement by your own standards. That's not what it is based upon at all!

If you take the other route, as I thought I heard you say once, I do not think that you really have an unlimited atonement by your own definition of "ulimited". I think that you would have an atonement like that of Arminianism. The reason being that the both of you make an individual's salvation from Hell dependent on their belief.It's not a matter of faith when things are clearly seen. The resurrected will confess Christ universally - we are told this is going to happen.

So, even though your atonement might be technically utld. and even though you believe that all beings will eventually leave Hell, in practice you would still be saying that Christ's sacrifice is off limits to the unbeliever in his unbelief.Christ's sacrifice was for all mankind. The faithful are the nobility of Christ's Kingdom. They are special and they are few. As in any kingdom they shall rule over commoners who confess Christ on the other side of this veil. All of this is to God's Glory. His Love has not failed in its purpose: complete victory over Satan and death. His WILL that none should perish is accomplished while He remains just and good.

'Everyone will be salted with fire.' This will remain true: 'God has placed everyone under disobedience, that He may show mercy to them all.'

[Kelp]

'Christ was a ransom for all.' What's limited about that?Arminians and Molinists believe that as well.



No, "Everyone will be salted with fire.'Are you talking about punishment in life or some kind of purgatory? Does anyone spend time in some analog of the traditional view of Hell?



Belief, at that point, has nothing to do with it. It's clearly seen. Yes, but "even the devils believe and shutter." I was speaking of submitting to Christ's Lordship and obeying Him, not intellectual acknowledgment. At any rate, are you trying to say that the Apostles didn't "believe" seing as how they saw Christ after He rose and saw Him ascend? It seems like that's where that sort of logic leads.


It's not a matter of faith when things are clearly seen. Are you sure? Even the devil sees that God is master but he refuses to acknowledge it.


Christ's sacrifice was for all mankind. The faithful are the nobility of Christ's Kingdom. They are special and they are few. As in any kingdom they shall rule over commoners who confess Christ on the other side of this veil. All of this is to God's Glory.I see. But if they were totally and unconditionally atoned no matter whether they believe or not, why are they salted with fire? God is punishing them for something he already forgave them for?

[RanRan]

God is punishing them for something he already forgave them for?
He's not punishing them, you hypocrite, who has sinned as well. He's cleaning them up. Think of the fire you will be salted with as well as very very hot shower. And be glad for it.

[Kelp]

He's not punishing them, you hypocrite, who has sinned as well.I think you missunderstand me. I was talking about the internal consistency of your system. Of course, I've sinned and I expect discipline for any future disobedience. He's cleaning them up. Think of the fire you will be salted with as well as very very hot shower. And be glad for it.So, are you talking about some kind of spiritual purgatory or discipline before death after which all people enter Heaven?

[RanRan]

So, are you talking about some kind of spiritual purgatory or discipline before death after which all people enter Heaven?
The disobedient dead from the flood were held captive by death for thousands of years. Christ joined them in death and preached to them and will resurrect them. He came to set the captives free. In the end they will all confess Christ to God's Glory.

According to Paul, the reason you don't believe any of this is because you prefer myths and old wives' tales to the truth that 'God is the savior of all men, especially those who believe.'

'Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives' tales; rather, train yourself to be godly. For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come. This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.
Command and teach these things.' 1tim3

'God has placed everyone under disobedience, that He may show mercy to them all' This includes those held captive by death.

Put your hope in the living God.

[Bernie]

I think your reasoning, though it (probably purposefully) lacks technical elaboration, is sound ran.

[RanRan]

I think your reasoning, though it (probably purposefully) lacks technical elaboration, is sound ran.

I think what people forget is that Christ raising up a faithful nobility for His Kingdom - so when He tells us to love and forgive our enemies (as He does) - what He's really saying is 'forgive your future subjects, my noble ones of faith.'

[Eleleth]

indeed the fires of hell will purify even the most evil soul, revelations speaks of the fires of gods alter raining down on the earth, the inhabitants will be burned by these fires and they shall make them clean, as they did to isiaih when he was before God.

[RanRan]

indeed the fires of hell will purify even the most evil soul, revelations speaks of the fires of gods alter raining down on the earth, the inhabitants will be burned by these fires and they shall make them clean, as they did to isiaih when he was before God.

Thanks for the reminder!
"Woe to me!" I cried. "I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty." Then one of the seraphs flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. With it he touched my mouth and said, "See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for."

I think this is exactly what happens to the resurrected. It's a precursor. It explains why all the resurrected ( which is all men ) confess Christ as their Lord and savior. It is why Christ said, "Everyone will be salted with fire.'

'Your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.' This is exactly what Christ preached to the disobedient dead while He was WITH them.

This is all going to be an absolute mystery to the unbelievers in Christ's atonement of mankind. They will stammer and strut and defend their belief in another gospel while failing to join the noble. Belief in another gospel lands one amongst the commoners. 'Lord, Lord, didn't we defend Calvinism or Arminianism'? - both groups are going into their respective justification for their 'faith' - and both run into a wall.

The Gospel is hidden from all but the Noble - His purposed Elite. And, no, I do not consider myself one of them.

God hates a coward - look at how they run away from this thread!

[Kelp]

Okay, so in summation, the atonement has created a situation whereby all are given discipline ("salted with fire") in this life in order to encourage them to pursue holiness (first and foremost by becoming universalist Christians) so that they may be rulers with Christ after the end.

Those who do not believe until after the Ressurection become "commoners" in the New Heavens and New Earth.

All references in the NT that are usually thought to refer to judement and Hell actually refer to discipline designed to turn one into a universalist so that they might become elite after the end. Right?

So does any of the "salting with fire" occur after death in some supernatural region (a Catholic-like purgatory for example?) or is it all suffering in this life?

What is your view of the state between death and Ressurection? What happens to non-universalists who die before the point when all confess Christ?

[Eleleth]

Okay, so in summation, the atonement has created a situation whereby all are given discipline ("salted with fire") in this life in order to encourage them to pursue holiness (first and foremost by becoming universalist Christians) so that they may be rulers with Christ after the end.

Those who do not believe until after the Ressurection become "commoners" in the New Heavens and New Earth.

All references in the NT that are usually thought to refer to judement and Hell actually refer to discipline designed to turn one into a universalist so that they might become elite after the end. Right?

So does any of the "salting with fire" occur after death in some supernatural region (a Catholic-like purgatory for example?) or is it all suffering in this life?

What is your view of the state between death and Ressurection? What happens to non-universalists who die before the point when all confess Christ?

Read and find out for yourself, the place of sadness and anger, inside the outer darkness. People exist their on earth but in death who could know? we have not experienced death, when we do then we shall understand more at that time, the questions you ask are not for someone in the flesh to understand, the answers are like the wind.

[Kelp]

I was actually talking to RanRan. I'm inquiring as to what he thinks about those things.

[Eleleth]

pardon me, carry on

[Kelp]

no problem, it's allright.

[RanRan]

Okay, so in summation, the atonement has created a situation ...

Christ bore the sins of the world. He took them away. The Moslems don't believe that, are they right?

As for the rest of your post, what the heck is a 'universalist'? Is that someone who believes that Christ took away the sins of the world?

Is it true, that God is not counting men's sins against them?

[Kelp]

Christ bore the sins of the world. He took them away.Depends on how you define that, but yes. The Moslems don't believe that, are they right?No, they aren't.

As for the rest of your post, what the heck is a 'universalist'? You should know, it's on your profile. At any rate, a universalist believes that all people who have ever lived and will ever live will eventually be saved. Is that someone who believes that Christ took away the sins of the world?RanRan, I only started this thread so that I could hear from you exactly what you think that the Bible says. I'm not hear to debate your reading of particular passages. If it helps, pretend you're talking to an unbeliever.

[RanRan]

I'm not hear to debate your reading of particular passages. If it helps, pretend you're talking to an unbeliever.

OK. God loves you and is not counting your sins against you. Christ redeemed you at the Cross and is going to resurrect you. He wants you to trust in those things and come to love Him and other people.

[Kelp]

Now, why should I? Why should I live a life of discipline and self-denial? If there is no Hell to shun, why not just put things off till later and enjoy myself now?

Would you mind answering my other questions as well?

[auggybendoggy]

ran ran is learned yet unlearned hahahahahah

[Kelp]

:huh:

[Genesius]

But what about free will? Yes, all will believe, but will some still choose to love sin, instead of God, i.e. Satan?

Is Ran Ran talking about irresistible grace?

[RanRan]

But what about free will? Yes, all will believe, but will some still choose to love sin, instead of God, i.e. Satan?

That's an old wive's tale - Christ preached to the captive disobedient dead from the flood - to free them.

Is Ran Ran talking about irresistible grace?

Of course.

[Kelp]

I think he's saying that ultimately everybody's resistance will break down before God's relentless love.

[RanRan]

Now, why should I? Why should I live a life of discipline and self-denial? Because you love God.

If you don't, you won't anyway.

If you are doing those things to get God to love you or to redeem yourself from your own sins - then you are acting out of unbelief and are no better off than a Moslem. 'Lord, Lord,..."

There's the Christ who took away the sins of the world. And many other christs who didn't, wouldn't or couldn't.

[Kelp]

Because you love God.

If you don't, you won't anyway.But supose I didn't want to love God right now. By your reconning, I can get both Heaven and Earth fairly easily seing as how God will forgive me after death no matter what. Why can't I sow my wild oats here and get the slate cleaned when I'm done?

In addition, what if I am an atheist who feels quite strongly that he is right? Since you chock faith up to belief in the face of uncertainty, why should I struggle with my doubts at all? I'm in a win-win situation, if there is no God, I feel no pain at the end. If your God is true, (something that I as an atheist highly doubt) I still get away with my sins with a relativly insignificant amount of pain.

There's the Christ who took away the sins of the world. And many other christs who didn't, wouldn't or couldn't.I think that in your case, a bit of a Pascalian Wager is in order. If you are right and your view is the Gospel, you'll be fine. But what if you're wrong? You spend so much time condemning other Christians, both here and in history. I'm sure you've heard the Arminian, Calvinist, etc. answers to your arguments. If you are wrong, you've spent quite a bit of time calling brothers and sisters in Christ unbelievers and you've added false requirments to the Gospel yourself. You could be quite disappointed if you find out that God will not save everyone.

On the other hand, if you decide to believe one of these orthodox views that you think are false Gospels and your universalism turns out to be true after all, you win. You still get to be with Jesus. Frankly RanRan, I find little in your doctrine that commends itself to others.

[RanRan]

On the other hand, if you decide to believe one of these orthodox views that you think are false Gospels and your universalism turns out to be true after all, you win. You still get to be with Jesus. Frankly RanRan, I find little in your doctrine that commends itself to others.

It's not a matter of 'winning' - but the truth about God. Is He counting men's sins against them? The Gospel says He is not. I can't make you believe that Christ took away the sins of the world. Just as I can't make you fully accept what Paul commands you to accept and teach - that God is sthe savior of all men, especially those who believe.

[Kelp]

I shouldn't have said winning. I should have said, "how confident are you that your particular reading off the Scriptures is correct that you'll go accusing Christian people of preaching a false Gospel and going about yourself implying to unbelievers that they can go on sinning if they want to?". Your view ultimately presents a universe without real consequences for human behavior. Whether I believe your view or not, I'll still be forgiven. But what if I believe your view that your universalism is a requirment for true Christianity in this life and I turn out to be wrong, eh? Do not I end up being the preacher of a false Gospel in that case?

[Genesius]

I shouldn't have said winning. I should have said, "how confident are you that your particular reading off the Scriptures is correct that you'll go accusing Christian people of preaching a false Gospel and going about yourself implying to unbelievers that they can go on sinning if they want to?". Your view ultimately presents a universe without real consequences for human behavior. Whether I believe your view or not, I'll still be forgiven. But what if I believe your view that your universalism is a requirment for true Christianity in this life and I turn out to be wrong, eh? Do not I end up being the preacher of a false Gospel in that case?


This is an excellent point. In fact one could argue the bible is aligned with this way of preaching the gospel.

[Littlejoe9763]

This is an excellent point. In fact one could argue the bible is aligned with this way of preaching the gospel.


:huh:

[Genesius]

:huh:

After reading it over... even I don't really get it...

:duh:

[Kelp]

After reading it over... even I don't really get it...

:duh:
What I said or what you said?

[Genesius]

What I said or what you said?

What I said :blush:

[Kelp]

Ah. Well, I suposse that there is some truth to that. I think of the Parable of the Dishonest Steward. Perhaps that means in part that God wants us to think shrewdly about what we put our trust in :shrug:.

The simple fact is, as a hermeneutical option (assuming that it is in fact a valid option for the texts RanRan uses), RanRan's all-saved Gospel is a bad risk. It would be far wiser to believe that unbelievers are lost because if RanRan is right, then we would not be punished for preaching a false Gospel.

If non-Universalists are right, though, RanRan would be caught heralding a false Gospel.

[Roberto]

Ah. Well, I suposse that there is some truth to that. I think of the Parable of the Dishonest Steward. Perhaps that means in part that God wants us to think shrewdly about what we put our trust in .

The simple fact is, as a hermeneutical option (assuming that it is in fact a valid option for the texts RanRan uses), RanRan's all-saved Gospel is a bad risk. It would be far wiser to believe that unbelievers are lost because if RanRan is right, then we would not be punished for preaching a false Gospel.

If non-Universalists are right, though, RanRan would be caught heralding a false Gospel.
**********************************************************************************

But what if RanRan is right (theoretically- I am not convinced that he is, but for arguments sake in response to your method of interpretation). Following your method, nobady would believe in the Truth because of fear of being wrong. Would God desire us to believe a lie?

[Kelp]

I'm saying that if RanRan is right, we will be saved at the end according to his system. If a non-Universalistic system is correct, RanRan might very well wind up in Hell.

If we come to a place where Universalism looks biblical, we need to be very careful given the stakes here with handling God's truth. In fact, I'm not sure that God would blame someone who chose to believe in torment if they thought that there was any biblical possibility to it as opposed to Universalism. It's not a matter of believing a lie but of choosing a hermeneutical option based on it's possible implications.

[Roberto]

IF that were the method of response that God wanted, how could He get men to believe in the Truth? We would always have to believe whatever was least "risky" versus what our conviction actua;lly was....

[Kelp]

Perhaps you're right. This seems like a special case to me, though. I can't think of any other view where you still go to Heaven even if you refuse to risk preaching a false Gospel.

[Genesius]

For universalism to work as Ran Ran position outlines it, the whole idea of free will gets washed away at the end because he believes there is an irresistible grace at the end. I can't say for sure, but I think I can recall some heated debates surrounding Calvinism regarding this issue.

[Kelp]

Perhaps. Remember, the idea of Irresistable Grace is not that people are forced to be saved, but that when He calls for them, the elect come to Him.

I suppose RanRan could say that it's set up so that some of the elect are not called till the end.

[Kelp]

Perhaps you're right. This seems like a special case to me, though. I can't think of any other view where you still go to Heaven even if you refuse to risk preaching a false Gospel.
Let me clarify, "a view which purports to be the Gospel, but which you can reject and you will still wind up saved."

[Roberto]

Let me clarify, "a view which purports to be the Gospel, but which you can reject and you will still wind up saved."

My point remains, though. Are you trying to be "safe" or are you trying to find the truth? Are you saying that it is therefore impossible that it is true or just that "even if it is true, it is not safe to believe in it"? So even if you are convinced that something is true, you should always "play it safe"? This reminds me of the parable of the talents. Again, universalism hasn't convinced me. In fact, I am studying the matter at present.

[Roberto]

Here's an interesting angle: if universalism is true and eternal punishment is actually blasphemy, maybe you won't get out of hell until you drop the blasphemy. Interesting.

[RanRan]

Here's an interesting angle: if universalism is true and eternal punishment is actually blasphemy, maybe you won't get out of hell until you drop the blasphemy. Interesting.

I don't think it's a matter of being 'right' about the topic. At the end of the book of Jonah, Jonah, himself, is left pouting about the extent of God's mercy. When God forgives our enemies, we get cranky.

And we have soooo many enemies for Him to burn...

While we were yet enemies....how easy to forget that.

He died FOR the ungodly.

[trent1980]

Some very interesting views ...


RanRan -- I don't think you have the only alternative to arminian and calvin positions.

It is possible for God to reconcile the world to himself and still have unreconciled men. There are 2 sides to reconciliation. The one who offers and the one who accepts it. From God's point of view, we have all been given a savior, reconciliation, and forgiveness. But there are men who refuse it. I don't believe anyone will go to hell for their sins. I believe men will go to hell for their rejection of Christ

Just offering an alternative so you don't have to bury yourself in to heresy ...

[Kelp]

Some very interesting views ...


RanRan -- I don't think you have the only alternative to arminian and calvin positions.

It is possible for God to reconcile the world to himself and still have unreconciled men. There are 2 sides to reconciliation. The one who offers and the one who accepts it. From God's point of view, we have all been given a savior, reconciliation, and forgiveness. But there are men who refuse it. I don't believe anyone will go to hell for their sins. I believe men will go to hell for their rejection of Christ

Just offering an alternative so you don't have to bury yourself in to heresy ...
I tend to agree with you. Put how is what you said differant from the Arminian/Molinst posistion?

[trent1980]

I tend to agree with you. Put how is what you said differant from the Arminian/Molinst posistion?

I don't know what the "molinst" position is ...

I don't believe salvation can be lost

[Kelp]

My point remains, though. Are you trying to be "safe" or are you trying to find the truth? Are you saying that it is therefore impossible that it is true or just that "even if it is true, it is not safe to believe in it"? So even if you are convinced that something is true, you should always "play it safe"? This reminds me of the parable of the talents. Again, universalism hasn't convinced me. In fact, I am studying the matter at present.I guess what I had in mind was a situation where the evidence for universalism is equivalite(sp?). If you're not sure which is right, I couldn't see choosing universalism because of what it involves (a rather lopsided risk of damnation). Yeah, maybe you're right. I'll have to think it over some more.

[Kelp]

I don't know what the "molinst" position is ... Sorry, Molinism is a position which in my opinion works out to be similar to Arminianism in the relevent areas to this discussion, hence the slash mark. en.wikipedia.org/Molinism

I don't believe salvation can be lostOkay. I'm pretty sure there are some modified Arminians out there who believe that salvation can't be lost.

[trent1980]

Sorry, Molinism is a position which in my opinion works out to be similar to Arminianism in the relevent areas to this discussion, hence the slash mark. en.wikipedia.org/Molinism

Okay. I'm pretty sure there are some modified Arminians out there who believe that salvation can't be lost.

I don't know what I am because I don't spend much time studying those positions. I just know the basics of them ...

but i've been called everything ... ha

[Kelp]

:cool:

[RanRan]

It is possible for God to reconcile the world to himself and still have unreconciled men. There are 2 sides to reconciliation. The one who offers and the one who accepts it. From God's point of view, we have all been given a savior, reconciliation, and forgiveness. But there are men who refuse it. I don't believe anyone will go to hell for their sins. I believe men will go to hell for their rejection of Christ

I keep hearing about these horrible people who have done that - but I have yet to meet one!

Are you sure they rejected Christ, or was it another gospel? Shoot! Even the Moslems don't 'reject' Christ!

According to the last judgment, they will suffer because they did not give one of His little ones a cup of water. Big difference.

People don't 'reject' what they don't know. They may stumble about - they don't know what they are doing, but they can't reject what they don't know.

[trent1980]

I keep hearing about these horrible people who have done that - but I have yet to meet one!

Are you sure they rejected Christ, or was it another gospel? Shoot! Even the Moslems don't 'reject' Christ!

According to the last judgment, they will suffer because they did not give one of His little ones a cup of water. Big difference.

People don't 'reject' what they don't know. They may stumble about - they don't know what they are doing, but they can't reject what they don't know.

Yes I'm sure --

Romans 1:18-

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

[RanRan]

Yes I'm sure --

Romans 1:18-

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Do you call this doing theology? God has placed all men under disobedience. Is that your point? Fine. Or is it to tell us that Christ accomplished nothing on the cross - that God hates man.

[Roberto]

I guess what I had in mind was a situation where the evidence for universalism is equivalite(sp?). If you're not sure which is right, I couldn't see choosing universalism because of what it involves (a rather lopsided risk of damnation). Yeah, maybe you're right. I'll have to think it over some more.

Why not keep searching? Is it OK to simply not know something? One thing that we do know is this: looking at the differences theologically in the Christian world concerning election (and many other issues) two out of the three options (Calvinism, Arminianism and Universalism) are not known by those that claim "to know"!
Why not just be honset to God and say "I don't know Lord, help me to know" vs. devising pragmatic methods of interpretation.

Roberto

[Roberto]

Kelp,
I do understand your position and it is one that I fall into sometimes, but I wonder if it really honors God. I don't see anyone doing such a thing in Scripture, but I am not omniscient, so it may be there somewhere.
I hope you are well today!
Roberto

[trent1980]

Do you call this doing theology? God has placed all men under disobedience. Is that your point? Fine. Or is it to tell us that Christ accomplished nothing on the cross - that God hates man.

I don't understand either of your questions. They are way out of left field

"God has placed all men under disobedience" ...
Romans 5
19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

You can't be disobedient unless there is a rule for you to disobedient to. So, really, it's the law that shows our disobedience and leads us to Christ.

Galatians 3:24
So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.

"Or is it to tell us that Christ accomplished nothing on the cross - that God hates man"

To the contrary. Christ accomplished everything on the cross because God loves the world.
- Christ took away the sins of the world
- His resurrection is our gaurantee of Life

Back to my previous post ... Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. You said "I keep hearing about these horrible people who have done that - but I have yet to meet one!" I think you are referring to the people that I said "reject Christ". I think Paul points out that a rejection of the Truth (regarding the divine nature and God's eternal power through his creation) like believing in Evolution, is a rejection of the Truth/Christ (rejecting the one who created everything).

Even with that said ... I find it hard to believe that you have never met anyone who called themselves a Christian and now no longer does.

But maybe a phone call is needed for us to get back on the same page ... I'll send you my number in a private message --

[Kelp]

Kelp,
I do understand your position and it is one that I fall into sometimes, but I wonder if it really honors God. I don't see anyone doing such a thing in Scripture, but I am not omniscient, so it may be there somewhere.
I hope you are well today!
Roberto
I'm fine, Roberto. For all I know, you're completely right and I'm bein' an idiot :lol:. All I've really been doin' is thinkin' out loud vis a vis RanRan's position, I'll keep looking into things. Thanks for carin', though, man.

[Roberto]

I'm fine, Roberto. For all I know, you're completely right and I'm bein' an idiot :lol:. All I've really been doin' is thinkin' out loud vis a vis RanRan's position, I'll keep looking into things. Thanks for carin', though, man.

I am not claiming infallibility, just some things that I have thought about the matter over the years. If a believer used that approach to decide what church to join, wouldn't he/she have to pick the most threatening option (threatening the most severe consequences for not joining), since if you chose the other options and the most threatening turned out to be true, you could end up suffering said consequenses?
What do you think?
Roberto

[Kelp]

If scriptural evidence for them was equivical, I would say that might factor into it "be wise as serpents...". It's hard to talk about this in general, though.

RanRan's version of Universalism seems unique because of the utter lack of reprecussions for not excepting it (This lack stands in contrast to RanRan's postive claim that his views are the only true Gospel. I realized that I've been falsley generalizing here, as there are several types of universalism. Sorry about that :blush: I did it inadvertantly. What I'm really trying to zero in on with these Pascalian musings is RanRan's claim that views other than his are missing out on the true Gospel. It seems to me that it's not worth risking preaching another Jesus if there is no difficulty involved in putting this Jesus on the shelf when you aren't sure if it is the true Jesus, as it were).

With other versions of Universalism that do not claim to be the true Gospel, the consequences are no more rash than having the wrong, yet orthodox, view of end times. Sorry about my screw up.


Did you have any specific examples of differant churches in mind?

It's unpopular to say this sometimes, but I think that the Gospel does really work partially on fear. There isn't much fear in RanRan's, as far as I can tell.

[RanRan]

It's unpopular to say this sometimes, but I think that the Gospel does really work partially on fear. There isn't much fear in RanRan's, as far as I can tell.

Well, it does come through the realization that one cannot redeem themself in or by any manner - faith included - since it was Christ alone who propitiated God - faith does not propitiate God, rather, faith believes that Christ redeemed them at the Cross before they believed.

It is a fearful thing to be placed under disobedience and find no remedy but to throw oneself on God's mercy. It's the utter lack of remedy (other than the Cross) that makes universalism so appealing to me. Gloating about one's faith or 'election' are smoke-screens hiding an essential unbelief driven by natural theology and ego. I will show this to be true in my opening debate statement against Little Joe.

[Yankee_Doodle]

He died FOR the ungodly.

so that they might become Godly

[Yankee_Doodle]

I shouldn't have said winning. I should have said, "how confident are you that your particular reading off the Scriptures is correct that you'll go accusing Christian people of preaching a false Gospel and going about yourself implying to unbelievers that they can go on sinning if they want to?". Your view ultimately presents a universe without real consequences for human behavior. Whether I believe your view or not, I'll still be forgiven. But what if I believe your view that your universalism is a requirment for true Christianity in this life and I turn out to be wrong, eh? Do not I end up being the preacher of a false Gospel in that case?


Indeed...I've always thought the same is true of understanding that man does have free moral agency. After all what if perseverance isn't correct & we don't actively pursue holiness to ensure our faith endures? What if we can fall into apostasy through persistent disobedience; and God decides to harden us as a consequence? On the flip side is there a point where this becomes analogous to works? This of course begs the question: what is works? Is pursuing holiness a work? Or are we to pursue it through faith (my view)? Then if we pursue it through faith don't we go back around the circle & find the safer view is to understand we do retain free moral agency?

AW

[RanRan]

so that they might become Godly

Are you Godly? Do you love your enemies? Or do you wish them harm, and let that wish drive your theology?

Here's a scary fact: God's love of His enemies includes YOU.

What are you going to do with that fact? Tell us about how worthy you are of God's love?

[Yankee_Doodle]

Are you Godly? Do you love your enemies? Or do you wish them harm, and let that wish drive your theology?

Here's a scary fact: God's love of His enemies includes YOU.

What are you going to do with that fact? Tell us about how worthy you are of God's love?

I love everybody Ran....even false preachers like you.

AW

[Kelp]

I don't wish my enemies harm, or at least I don't want to. I hope that I wouId be happy if it turned out everyone gets into Heaven. I think I have a hope of universal salvation much like the Eastern Othodoxists do.

But I'm not going to accuse others of being vindictful pigs just because they believe something that looks to be Scripturally true. That's just not fair. It's one thing to say, "I think this system ends up saying bad things about God." It's quite another to say, "You only believe this system because you have low and bad motives."

Ultimately, we need to trust God to make it all okay, whether by Calv or by Arm or whatever. "Shall not the Judge of the whole world do right?"

[RanRan]

I love everybody Ran....even false preachers like you.

AW

Sheesh, now I'm a heretic for following Paul's command.

[Yankee_Doodle]

Sheesh, now I'm a heretic for following Paul's command.

I didn't say heretic (exactly) .... but what about all the other stuff Paul said? I just don't think God meant for us to preach Universalism (even if everyone does somehow get saved). Why would anyone have faith or avoid sin based on that premise? Moreover, the Bible does call us to discern false preaching.

You guy's think the faithful on earth are like royalty in heaven. I can see the logic ... Revelation does tell us that the saints have I guess you could say a higher status in heaven. Moreover, there the "especially the faithful" phrase to bolster your view. However, there's also plenty of passages contrary to your view & I believe the Bible is meant to be taught in a certain way. It's meant to be taught in the way that both inspires faith and inspires obedience through faith. It should be understood that Christians must strive toward and attain holiness. In fact I think the only path to Christian joy is holiness & the only way to purify our hearts is walking the narrow path.

In fact I would argue that based on the Universalist view very few people wind up as royalty in heaven. Like I said even if Universalists ultimately are correct it's improper teaching; because it removes human accountability. To so many people the Scriptures are elusive. We argue about the distinction between faith & works, we argue about the meaning of grace, etc. etc. However, for me it's rather easy to sum up. Obedience through faith is simple. If we really believe in Jesus Christ what we're missing here on earth by avoiding drinking or anger or lust is but a spec as compared to the reward we know we will receive in heaven. Those who continue in a life of sin (unless it's unintentional or because of a weakness like a mental illness or genetic predisposition to addiction or something like that) don't really believe. If they did how could they continue doing the things that will assure their damnation? This is what Universalism takes away from a potential believer, which is why I think it's bad teaching. Apologies if I was overly zealous in my characterization of you ... however, here is my view clarified.

AW

[RanRan]

I didn't say heretic (exactly) .... but what about all the other stuff Paul said? I just don't think God meant for us to preach Universalism (even if everyone does somehow get saved).
AW

I agree with you, I don't think 'universalism' should be preached, either. The Orthodox don't preach it, neither do they deny it. There's some wisdom in that approach. God's love and God's mercy is not something to be trifled with, reduced, or nullified with our hateful natures.

This is a theology forum - where the deeper love of God is pursued for it's own sake. Truth about Him. Preaching to the non-theologian is another matter.

How good is the good news? i.e. The Gospel itself. Isn't that the real question?

[auggybendoggy]

AW,
thats all nice if only the blind could see. The prob with the view you hold is that you EXPECT the dead to make a descision only the living can make.

You want to justify God sending people to eternal torment by saying the man was responsible.
The obvious (at least to me now) response is why would you expect the blind to choose when they don't even know there is an A or B in front of them THEYRE BLIND.

The reason God's love is to be preaced (Universal reconciliation) is to tell people "good news" that God loves the world and came not to condemn it. I assume you think (like taoism) that he did not come to condemn it IN ONE SENSE but IN ANOTHER he did. For he will condemn "the world" after all right. I do believe people go to hell and therfore they should think about the consequences of sin. BUT ONLY A RATIONAL MAN IS FREE, and therfore can only make a true descision.

I believe the scriptures are more than just to inpire faith and obedience, MORE IMPORTANTLY (like always christians leave out) LOVE!

For the greatest of these is LOVE (greater than faith). Faith comes from love as does grace.
Love is the greatest NO DOUBT. But you seem to have forgotten this in your "simple" certain way of scripture. Funny, Pharisees did the same thing and calvinists do it as well. I'd expect Arm's to embrace "love" as supreme a bit more but for some reason I think RanRan is right,
Arms are closer to calvinism then they want to think.

Thats why Arm's don't want to say "God is trying to save all men". They RUN to "he offers salvation to all men".

John 3:16 (is not an offer of salvation) it's Gods way of (col 1) reconciling all things either in heaven or on earth unto himself and fogiving our sins, and not only our but the WHOLE WORLDS.

Still looking forward to Ran and Joe,

Aug

[RanRan]

Still looking forward to Ran and Joe, Aug

I am looking forward to our debate, as well. Little Joe thinks clearly, he is a worthy opponent and an outstanding Christian. It's going to be a great debate!

[Yankee_Doodle]

I agree with you, I don't think 'universalism' should be preached, either. The Orthodox don't preach it, neither do they deny it. There's some wisdom in that approach. God's love and God's mercy is not something to be trifled with, reduced, or nullified with our hateful natures.

This is a theology forum - where the deeper love of God is pursued for it's own sake. Truth about Him. Preaching to the non-theologian is another matter.

How good is the good news? i.e. The Gospel itself. Isn't that the real question?

yes indeed

[Yankee_Doodle]

AW,
thats all nice if only the blind could see. The prob with the view you hold is that you EXPECT the dead to make a descision only the living can make.

You want to justify God sending people to eternal torment by saying the man was responsible.
The obvious (at least to me now) response is why would you expect the blind to choose when they don't even know there is an A or B in front of them THEYRE BLIND.

The reason God's love is to be preaced (Universal reconciliation) is to tell people "good news" that God loves the world and came not to condemn it. I assume you think (like taoism) that he did not come to condemn it IN ONE SENSE but IN ANOTHER he did. For he will condemn "the world" after all right. I do believe people go to hell and therfore they should think about the consequences of sin. BUT ONLY A RATIONAL MAN IS FREE, and therfore can only make a true descision.

I believe the scriptures are more than just to inpire faith and obedience, MORE IMPORTANTLY (like always christians leave out) LOVE!

For the greatest of these is LOVE (greater than faith). Faith comes from love as does grace.
Love is the greatest NO DOUBT. But you seem to have forgotten this in your "simple" certain way of scripture. Funny, Pharisees did the same thing and calvinists do it as well. I'd expect Arm's to embrace "love" as supreme a bit more but for some reason I think RanRan is right,
Arms are closer to calvinism then they want to think.

Thats why Arm's don't want to say "God is trying to save all men". They RUN to "he offers salvation to all men".

John 3:16 (is not an offer of salvation) it's Gods way of (col 1) reconciling all things either in heaven or on earth unto himself and fogiving our sins, and not only our but the WHOLE WORLDS.

Still looking forward to Ran and Joe,

Aug

I agree that we are to Love. In fact part of faith is perfect love (see 1 John 4). However, consider these verses:

Mathew 5

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

I think these verses are pretty clear don't you? Don't you think that a position that claims faith and obedience aren't required for salvation is tantamount to what Christ said in verse 20? Therefore, like I said regardless of the veracity of Universal teachings; it's still an improper way to teach. Again, I agree perfect love is also required (however, that's part of faith).

AW

[auggybendoggy]

AW,
as a UR I endorse that indeed faith and obedience are necessary.

In fact I agree (at this point) that Christ died not to blind God from your sins so you can enter heaven as a wretched man but rather he died to change us.

As talbott says "Jesus died NOT TO RECONCILE GOD TO MAN but to reconcile man to God, for God needs no change."

As a URist it is my belief that God will bring everyone to their knees (humble the arrogant, which we all are) and break them and make them his own (in the words of Keith Green). It's his goal to make them faithful and obedient.

also,
I don't believe Love is a part of faith but VICE VERSA, Faith is a part of Love.
I don't sharply disagree with you here as I believe your desire to endorse faith, I find wonderful.
However, I believe the greatest is not part of the lesser but rather the greater is the cause of the lesser.

You will be faithful to that which you love most.
You will not love that which you are not faithful to.

Love brings about faith and grace. Because God is love, and loves man, he has grace towards them (Jesus).

As Charles Finney said,
It is impossible to not devote yourself to your most supreme affection.

That which you love most, you WILL BE FAITHFUL TO.

The greatest of these is Love, God is Love, No greater love is there than a man lays down his life for his friends (did Jesus lay down his life for ALL MEN or just elect)?
I believe he's calling "all men" freinds as I believe he died for all men, he became and will be the saviour of all men, especially of those who believe.

Aug

[Kelp]

I agree with you, I don't think 'universalism' should be preached, either. The Orthodox don't preach it, neither do they deny it. There's some wisdom in that approach. God's love and God's mercy is not something to be trifled with, reduced, or nullified with our hateful natures.

This is a theology forum - where the deeper love of God is pursued for it's own sake. Truth about Him. Preaching to the non-theologian is another matter.

How good is the good news? i.e. The Gospel itself. Isn't that the real question?
Then why are you so harsh with people like Nang and Jack Bauer? Why do you say that it is a false Jesus who will not save every person? If you aren't sure of your own beliefs, why the dogmatism?

[Roberto]

I agree that we are to Love. In fact part of faith is perfect love (see 1 John 4). However, consider these verses:

Mathew 5

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

I think these verses are pretty clear don't you? Don't you think that a position that claims faith and obedience aren't required for salvation is tantamount to what Christ said in verse 20? Therefore, like I said regardless of the veracity of Universal teachings; it's still an improper way to teach. Again, I agree perfect love is also required (however, that's part of faith).

AW



No, no, no- they believe in after death repentance, at least many do. This would posit that faith and repentance can be exercised in the "nether regions".

[RanRan]

No, no, no- they believe in after death repentance, at least many do. This would posit that faith and repentance can be exercised in the "nether regions".

"Faith' is not the right word - but Christ preached to the disobedient dead from the Flood and they did or will confess Him - these are things that we know. If we know them, then it should effect our theology.

[Yankee_Doodle]

"Faith' is not the right word - but Christ preached to the disobedient dead from the Flood and they did or will confess Him - these are things that we know. If we know them, then it should effect our theology.

Christ preached to the disobedient souls from before the flood; however, they were imprisoned before the law & the second covenant. I wonder if the same opportunity will exist for those exposed to Christ now? I even wonder if the same sort of prison exists now (I guess this might be where Catholics get purgatory from)? After all those from before the flood had neither the law nor Christ?

AW

[RanRan]

Christ preached to the disobedient souls from before the flood; however, they were imprisoned before the law & the second covenant. I wonder if the same opportunity will exist for those exposed to Christ now? I even wonder if the same sort of prison exists now (I guess this might be where Catholics get purgatory from)? After all those from before the flood had neither the law nor Christ?
AW

The dead are dead and held captive by it. Christ came to set them free. They will be resurrected from their prison - call it what you may.

[trent1980]

Christ preached to the disobedient souls from before the flood; however, they were imprisoned before the law & the second covenant. I wonder if the same opportunity will exist for those exposed to Christ now? I even wonder if the same sort of prison exists now (I guess this might be where Catholics get purgatory from)? After all those from before the flood had neither the law nor Christ?

AW

How could Noah bring clean and unclean animals on to the ark if there wasn't law before the flood?

[trent1980]

I agree that we are to Love. In fact part of faith is perfect love (see 1 John 4). However, consider these verses:

Mathew 5

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

I think these verses are pretty clear don't you? Don't you think that a position that claims faith and obedience aren't required for salvation is tantamount to what Christ said in verse 20? Therefore, like I said regardless of the veracity of Universal teachings; it's still an improper way to teach. Again, I agree perfect love is also required (however, that's part of faith).

AW

Notice they will be "least" IN the kingdom of heaven -- how then can it be a salvation issue? salvation is already assumed in that verse.

[trent1980]

Well, it does come through the realization that one cannot redeem themself in or by any manner - faith included - since it was Christ alone who propitiated God - faith does not propitiate God, rather, faith believes that Christ redeemed them at the Cross before they believed.

It is a fearful thing to be placed under disobedience and find no remedy but to throw oneself on God's mercy. It's the utter lack of remedy (other than the Cross) that makes universalism so appealing to me. Gloating about one's faith or 'election' are smoke-screens hiding an essential unbelief driven by natural theology and ego. I will show this to be true in my opening debate statement against Little Joe.

The act of throwing yourself on to God's mercy is an attributable act to that person. I understand and agree with you that gloating about faith or election is a smoke screen to disbelief... but how can you receive eternal life if you reject it?

[RanRan]

The act of throwing yourself on to God's mercy is an attributable act to that person. I understand and agree with you that gloating about faith or election is a smoke screen to disbelief... but how can you receive eternal life if you reject it?

I don't think it can be rejected when clearly known and seen. The awareness of Christ's redemption is not seen clearly on this side of the veil, even by those confessing Him. At the resurrection all will be aware of the extent of His redemption and will honor Him as they are lifted from their unbelief. Every knee shall bow. The faithful in this life are co-rulers with Christ in the next - that's our reward. Mankind was created in His image, redeemed by His Son, resurrected, and by that, is the God of the living.

Everyone whom the Father gives me will be lifted up on the last day. We learn from Paul and others, that that's everyone - all are resurrected.

[trent1980]

I don't think it can be rejected when clearly known and seen. The awareness of Christ's redemption is not seen clearly on this side of the veil, even by those confessing Him. At the resurrection all will be aware of the extent of His redemption and will honor Him as they are lifted from their unbelief. Every knee shall bow. The faithful in this life are co-rulers with Christ in the next - that's our reward. Mankind was created in His image, redeemed by His Son, resurrected, and by that, is the God of the living.

Everyone whom the Father gives me will be lifted up on the last day. We learn from Paul and others, that that's everyone - all are resurrected.

what about someone who believes there is no God?

[Yankee_Doodle]

Notice they will be "least" IN the kingdom of heaven -- how then can it be a salvation issue? salvation is already assumed in that verse.

Thank's for pointing that out. Yes I agree, verse 19 isn't a salvation issue; but verse 20 obviously is (unless you distinguish salvation from entrance into the Kingdom?). That is those guilty of false teaching will be counted among the least in heaven; but those not at least as righteous as a Pharisee will not get into heaven in the first place. So then we know that the pharisees are considered less righteous than bad ministers within Christianity (which is why I pointed out that being more righteous than a pharisee is pretty easy to do).

AW

[Yankee_Doodle]

I don't think it can be rejected when clearly known and seen. The awareness of Christ's redemption is not seen clearly on this side of the veil, even by those confessing Him. At the resurrection all will be aware of the extent of His redemption and will honor Him as they are lifted from their unbelief. Every knee shall bow. The faithful in this life are co-rulers with Christ in the next - that's our reward. Mankind was created in His image, redeemed by His Son, resurrected, and by that, is the God of the living.

Everyone whom the Father gives me will be lifted up on the last day. We learn from Paul and others, that that's everyone - all are resurrected.

but again you're conflating the resurrection of the dead with salvation. Christ stated in the Gospel that those who do not believe in Him have one who will judge them (God). It is also written that those who live by the law will be so judged. However, this doesn't mean that judgment is on subjective terms; at least insofar as there are universal truths & there is a common understanding of right & wrong. Therefore, there is judgment and there is destruction for those committed to evil. In other words ultimately God administers justice. I can agree with you insofar as we are not to judge our fellow man. This doesn't mean we don't evangelize the truth; because we are supposed to. Rather it means those who will never see the light has one who judges -- God. Christians who die with a pure heart circumvent this judgment -- we are assured our salvation; but we cannot say how God will administer His justice. Perhaps He will punish lost souls into submission of some sort -- but this isn't something that we're really supposed to ponder?

AW

[Yankee_Doodle]

How could Noah bring clean and unclean animals on to the ark if there wasn't law before the flood?

That's a good question; however, I was pointing out that Noah came before Moses (thus before the law was given to the Jews). Perhaps it was pointed out in recognition of the law (remember the OT was written after the time of Moses); in any case Noah came before the law (according to the chronology of man). How we you answer this?

AW

[trent1980]

Thank's for pointing that out. Yes I agree, verse 19 isn't a salvation issue; but verse 20 obviously is (unless you distinguish salvation from entrance into the Kingdom?). That is those guilty of false teaching will be counted among the least in heaven; but those not at least as righteous as a Pharisee will not get into heaven in the first place. So then we know that the pharisees are considered less righteous than bad ministers within Christianity (which is why I pointed out that being more righteous than a pharisee is pretty easy to do).

AW

our own righteousness is never good enough. I think Christ was pointing that out. The pharisees who follow all the strict laws still aren't righteous enough because no man's righteousness is ever enough. We enter God's presence with the righteousness of Christ.

It's impossible to enter the kingdom with your own righteousness, you're credited with the righteousness of Christ when you believe -- that's my take on that

It's kind of like when Christ said "be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect" .. you can't ever do that on your own ... ever

[trent1980]

That's a good question; however, I was pointing out that Noah came before Moses (thus before the law was given to the Jews). Perhaps it was pointed out in recognition of the law (remember the OT was written after the time of Moses); in any case Noah came before the law (according to the chronology of man). How we you answer this?

AW

I think the law / system was put in place at the fall of man. The sacrifice of an animal to cover man when he knew he was naked.

Just my conjecture, but with the clean/unclean thing and Noah being instructed ... I think it's pretty sound conjecture to say that God had given the law before moses wrote it down.

[Yankee_Doodle]

our own righteousness is never good enough. I think Christ was pointing that out. The pharisees who follow all the strict laws still aren't righteous enough because no man's righteousness is ever enough. We enter God's presence with the righteousness of Christ.

It's impossible to enter the kingdom with your own righteousness, you're credited with the righteousness of Christ when you believe -- that's my take on that

It's kind of like when Christ said "be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect" .. you can't ever do that on your own ... ever

excellent point -- I defintely agree. In fact scripture does support you (in that we're credited with Christ's righteousness when we believe). However, John also does point out (in his first epistle, fouth chap) that we need to be perfected in love. So this is I think what Christ might have been pointing to in Matt chap 5?

[RanRan]

I think the law / system was put in place at the fall of man. The sacrifice of an animal to cover man when he knew he was naked.

Just my conjecture, but with the clean/unclean thing and Noah being instructed ... I think it's pretty sound conjecture to say that God had given the law before moses wrote it down.

'Without the Law, there is no sin.' Retrospection is 20-20. i.e. I wouldn't make a case of pigs on the boat.

[Yankee_Doodle]

I think the law / system was put in place at the fall of man. The sacrifice of an animal to cover man when he knew he was naked.

Just my conjecture, but with the clean/unclean thing and Noah being instructed ... I think it's pretty sound conjecture to say that God had given the law before moses wrote it down.

that's a hard question. God did command Noah to take two of every unclean animal with him on the ark; but whether this means the law was already given to the Jews is another story? However, it is an interesting point -- probably worthy of a thread? I think there may also be middle ground (only some laws were passed through word of mouth perhaps) but I guess all we can do is make an educated guess?

AW

[Yankee_Doodle]

'Without the Law, there is no sin.' Retrospection is 20-20. i.e. I wouldn't make a case of pigs on the boat.

I think you're right to say it's not something that can be relied on to draw a theological theory; however, it's interesting conjecture?

[RanRan]

I think you're right to say it's not something that can be relied on to draw a theological theory; however, it's interesting conjecture?

Sure, it's that. But I'm not losing sleep on it. More smoke-screens than one can shake a stick at. Know what I mean? Senseless diversions from my King and yours. Focus is everything. Draw people back to the Cross and you will be a great theologian in any generation of men.

[Yankee_Doodle]

Sure, it's that. But I'm not losing sleep on it. More smoke-screens than one can shake a stick at. Know what I mean? Senseless diversions from my King and yours. Focus is everything. Draw people back to the Cross and you will be a great theologian in any generation of men.

well Ran ... this is Tweb, so we're speaking to the choir?? No need to draw those to the cross who are already there

[RanRan]

well Ran ... this is Tweb, so we're speaking to the choir?? No need to draw those to the cross who are already there

Are they? Which cross? The one upon the which the sins of the world were taken away? Or another cross on which they weren't? "Lord, Lord" doesn't change the fact - whatever it be.

[trent1980]

Are they? Which cross? The one upon the which the sins of the world were taken away? Or another cross on which they weren't? "Lord, Lord" doesn't change the fact - whatever it be.

bait, hook, and cast ...

:lol:

[trent1980]

Sure, it's that. But I'm not losing sleep on it. More smoke-screens than one can shake a stick at. Know what I mean? Senseless diversions from my King and yours. Focus is everything. Draw people back to the Cross and you will be a great theologian in any generation of men.

well I would agree that if you are using that to divert someone from the cross ... then it serves no purpose other than to divert. But if we are amongst people who believe in Christ as their saviour, I don't think it is a diversion to simply offer a conjecture on an interesting topic ...


maybe we should throw a disclaimer as to not offend or divert anyone ... "NOT A SALVATION ISSUE ... JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT"

[Littlejoe9763]

My question for RanRan is....WHERE IS YOUR OPENING?????:whip: :b_cowboy:
:huh: :shrug:

LJ

[Yankee_Doodle]

My question for RanRan is....WHERE IS YOUR OPENING?????:whip: :b_cowboy:
:huh: :shrug:

LJ


we're all waiting -- can babble be turned into logic?

:lol:

[RanRan]

My question for RanRan is....WHERE IS YOUR OPENING?????:whip: :b_cowboy:
:huh: :shrug:

LJ

OK, LJ. I PROMISE to have it posted on Monday - I just need the weekend to polish it. I've been very busy the last month - hope you understand.

[Littlejoe9763]

OK, LJ. I PROMISE to have it posted on Monday - I just need the weekend to polish it. I've been very busy the last month - hope you understand.

O.K. Ran,

I DO understand the "very busy" part! I looked forward to seeing it on Monday. Keep after it! :hehe:

[Teallaura]

Moved to Unorthodox Theology