BRXII Battle talk

[Aimiel]

Universalism vs. Sound Doctrine

Universalism vs. Sound Doctrine

I believe (as most Christians do) that universalism is a fable, and those who like to pet one another are only doing so to try to re-inforce the fable in their own heart. Kevin didn't have to quote many outside sources, because what he believes is endorsed by The Word of God. He doesn't need a heap of teachers to try to build a defense. The Word of God actually stands on It's own.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

 

[bigbang123]

i said

Originally Posted by bigbang123

no way the majority of the inhabitants of this planet throughout
history will believe it's message that supposedly serves as the basis of their eternal destination after they leave this life.

you said

Are you sure? The catholic church ruled for a long long time. While they were not perfect, they did present the Bible to an awful lot of humanity. Not all, but a lot. As to the rest of the world, God has not told us. So how do I handle that? I trust God. It is His creation. He knows ALL the rules. I know what He wants me to know. I do not need to know how the whole of humanity through history will be judged to trust God to do the right thing.

let's throw other opinions into the mix

"it is evident that in 99% of the cases, the religion which an individual professes and to which he or she adheres depend upon accidents of birth. someone born to buddhist parents in thailand is very likely to be buddhist, someone born to muslim parents in saudi arabia to be muslim, someone born to christian parents in mexico to be a christian, and so on"

(interpretation of religion: human responses to the transcendent by john hicks, yale press 1991)

according to voltaire "every man is a creature of the age in which he lives and a few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of the time"

my .02

the above statements describe the RULE. are there exceptions to the RULE? yes. but the exceptions to the RULE don't refute the RULE. exceptions to the RULE, by the fact that they are exceptions, confirm the RULE.

are you a christian because christianity is true
or because there are more christians in your surroundings than their are buddhist or muslims or whatever?

if you were born in saudi arabia instead - would you be a christian now? tell the truth.

According to the Joshua Project http://www.joshuaproject.net/index.php there are 6505 Unreached People Groups. That¢s 41.1% of all people groups have never heard the gospel and are exposed to another belief system(s).

 

[bigbang123]

you said

Bigbang, the mistake you made is in quoting a person who utterly rejected the Bible as the inspired inerrant Word of God and using him as your example of a Christian on this website. He was also banned for rude behavior if memory serves me right. Seems you would find a bit of a stronger source to base your entire views of the Bible and Christianity, sir (with all due respect).
God bless.

in response to my quoting Echo who calls himself a christian but has been banned

Originally Posted by Echo

..I believe the apostles did probably write inspired words....but those writings don't exist anymore.

Problem is...He DIDN'T protect those writings. He allowed ALL the original writings of the Apostles to be destroyed. None still exist today....and the earliest COPY of the NT that we have dates to the 3rd century...and since we have no originals to compare it to...we have no way of knowing if it is anywhere close to what was originally penned. Alot of errors and corruptions can creep into an ancient text in 100 years.

Why didn't God protect the original writings of the apostles if He wanted to actually preserve His "word"? Why did He allow ALL of them to be destroyed?
----------------------------

even though that's an old quote and i don't recall him being banned at the time. my point was to quote an "insider" knowledgeable of the bible.

I am a retired Southern Baptist pastor. I preached and taught for over 30 years. I took koine greek in seminary. I studied the Septuagint extensively.

banned or not - his position is not the basis for my views on the bible and christianity - he is just one example of the divergence of views among christians.

my point is - if even christians are not united in their position on the bible why should skeptics and nonchritians consent to "drink the kool-aid" and join the doctrinal chaos called christianity?

besides, is there anything factually incorrect in the Echo quote?

 

[CabinetMaker]

i always love talking to you cm and i love your illustrations.

the above illustration speaks of a finite penalty for a finite offense but your noble both flawed book speaks of an infinite penalty for finite offenses.

disagree if you must but i'm sure you can see why some would be
hesitant in "drinking the kool-aid" and subscribing to that way of thinking.

Is rejecting God a finite offense?

 

[CabinetMaker]

i said

Originally Posted by bigbang123

no way the majority of the inhabitants of this planet throughout
history will believe it's message that supposedly serves as the basis of their eternal destination after they leave this life.

you said

Are you sure? The catholic church ruled for a long long time. While they were not perfect, they did present the Bible to an awful lot of humanity. Not all, but a lot. As to the rest of the world, God has not told us. So how do I handle that? I trust God. It is His creation. He knows ALL the rules. I know what He wants me to know. I do not need to know how the whole of humanity through history will be judged to trust God to do the right thing.

let's throw other opinions into the mix

"it is evident that in 99% of the cases, the religion which an individual professes and to which he or she adheres depend upon accidents of birth. someone born to buddhist parents in thailand is very likely to be buddhist, someone born to muslim parents in saudi arabia to be muslim, someone born to christian parents in mexico to be a christian, and so on"

(interpretation of religion: human responses to the transcendent by john hicks, yale press 1991)

according to voltaire "every man is a creature of the age in which he lives and a few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of the time"

my .02

the above statements describe the RULE. are there exceptions to the RULE? yes. but the exceptions to the RULE don't refute the RULE. exceptions to the RULE, by the fact that they are exceptions, confirm the RULE.

are you a christian because christianity is true
or because there are more christians in your surroundings than their are buddhist or muslims or whatever?

if you were born in saudi arabia instead - would you be a christian now? tell the truth.

According to the Joshua Project http://www.joshuaproject.net/index.php there are 6505 Unreached People Groups. That¢s 41.1% of all people groups have never heard the gospel and are exposed to another belief system(s).

The rules you add to the mix are rules of men, not God. There may be some truth in them but they are not absolute. Again, they are the wisdom of man.

I am a Christian because God has revealed His heart to me. I see Gods hand upon the world and feel His presence in my heart. While I am far from perfect, I am forgiven and I know the Jesus has prepared a place for me.

Were I born in Saudi Arabia would I be muslum? Probably I would have started out that way. Would I have remained one after hearing the Gospel? No way to answer that but I would like to think yes. Consider this. In many muslum countries it is a capitol crime to witness for Jesus. Why are muslum countries so afraid of letting the Gospel be preached? If their religion is the one true religion and their Allah the right Allah, why do they feel they must kill people wh challenge it? Wont truth win out? There it is, the truth will win out and the muslum religion has not the truth of God (Creator of the Univers) in it.

 

[Aimiel]

I believe that rejecting the urgings and promptings of The Holy Spirit one too many times is the un-pardonable sin. It's rejecting good in favor of evil, to the point of becoming evil.

 

[Stripe]

i love battle royales ... the home side always wins and a whole bunch of people who disagree get banned. awesome stuff.

i didnt realise this would turn into a debate between universalism and the bible ... i would have thought universalism was far too untenable a position to hold and that Logos would have rejected the tag ..

i reject the notion, but have come from a place where, without sound guidance, i could easily have embraced and spread the concept. as it stands i could only ever justify universalism as an entirely private notion. there seemed little to gain from promoting it and everything to lose.

the verses i was expecting Kevin to respond to in his last post were the ones about "nothing is impossible for God" which appear to leave the door open. i dont wish to share further my doubts associated with these words because, as i say, the only foothold universalism has with me is as an entirely private thought. i would prefer it gone and will never share it.

thanks Pastor Kevin .. that was brilliant .. and thanks Poly for managing things and Knight.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

i love battle royales ... the home side always wins and a whole bunch of people who disagree get banned. awesome stuff.

Now... now... lets be more accurate.... nobody gets banned for disagreeing, if that were true there wouldn't be any debate on this thread right now. People do however get banned for posting material that they didn't write and acting as if it was their own. People do get banned for posting 36 links directing our users to other websites and web-forums. People do get banned for acting like immature jerks etc.

 

[Stripe]

Now... now... lets be more accurate.... nobody gets banned for disagreeing, if that were true there wouldn't be any debate on this thread right now. People do however get banned for posting material that they didn't write and acting as if it was their own. People do get banned for posting 36 links directing our users to other websites and web-forums. People do get banned for acting like immature jerks etc.

noted, though i would like to apply some of my university training to do a regression analysis of the hypothesis ...

or i would if i didnt think it would make me look like a jerk ..

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It was unintentional, but I still am at fault and deserve everything that was said because of it. I really have no excuse...I was careless...it was stupid and I regret doing it, but it was a violartion of the rules...and even worse, it compromised my own integrity. I regret it...and when they called me on it when I first saw it I honestly didn't know what happened...I edited the links in, and apparently failed to save the links when I closed my editor. When I pasted it into TOL's editor later (hours later), I didn't notice they weren't there when I previewed it. Once you post in a Battle Royale, you have a limited time to edit your post...but I still didn't notice the oversight of the links not being there.

It was stupid...and they are right to point it all out. They are also right that Kevin did very little citing of outside resources compared to me, and my argument relyed on them heavily...but this was due to the nature of my argument. How could I make the case without producing the evidence?

They have a right to say everything they've said, and be angry over my not citing the outside scource. But..nobody is more angry at me than I am. This is one of the stupidest things I've ever done. But...it's because I thought I did something right...and didn't...and didn't make sure I did it right, and so people will think I did it on purpose.

I'm going to be kicking myself over this for a very long time. And there is no way to make it right or correct the darn thing. I even had second thoughts about posting this because it sounds like I'm making excuses. It was inexcusable. It's just one of those things that I have to take and learn from, and suffer the consequences for. And apologise for.

Hey Logos_x, I don't want to beat a dead horse but I want to make it crystal clear for everyone reading that your failure to quote your sources really isn't what was so disappointing. The disappointing thing was that your third round post was almost entirely written by other sources.

Even if you have cited your sources your third round post would have been in violation of the spirit of the debate (since it wasn't you debating).

OK, ok... now everyone is going to think I am piling on Logos_x, but I am not. It's just that everytime this comes up logos seems to miss the point of why were disappointed in his third round post. Logos you say it was an mistake and an oversight but when you say that you are only referring to the fact you forgot to cite your sources. Posting a post that is predominantly not your own words could not be a mistake or an oversight.

Logos_x could you acknowledge for me that you have read this post and you understand that it wasn't just the fact that you forgot to cite your sources that violated the spirit of the debate?

 

[logos_x]

Hey Logos_x, I don't want to beat a dead horse but I want to make it crystal clear for everyone reading that your failure to quote your sources really isn't what was so disappointing. The disappointing thing was that your third round post was almost entirely written by other sources.

Even if you have cited your sources your third round post would have been in violation of the spirit of the debate (since it wasn't you debating).

OK, ok... now everyone is going to think I am piling on Logos_x, but I am not. It's just that everytime this comes up logos seems to miss the point of why were disappointed in his third round post. Logos you say it was an mistake and an oversight but when you say that you are only referring to the fact you forgot to cite your sources. Posting a post that is predominantly not your own words could not be a mistake or an oversight.

Logos_x could you acknowledge for me that you have read this post and you understand that it wasn't just the fact that you forgot to cite your sources that violated the spirit of the debate?

Yes.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yes.

:thumb:

 

[Ecumenicist]

Hey Logos_x, I don't want to beat a dead horse but I want to make it crystal clear for everyone reading that your failure to quote your sources really isn't what was so disappointing. The disappointing thing was that your third round post was almost entirely written by other sources.

Even if you have cited your sources your third round post would have been in violation of the spirit of the debate (since it wasn't you debating).

OK, ok... now everyone is going to think I am piling on Logos_x, but I am not. It's just that everytime this comes up logos seems to miss the point of why were disappointed in his third round post. Logos you say it was an mistake and an oversight but when you say that you are only referring to the fact you forgot to cite your sources. Posting a post that is predominantly not your own words could not be a mistake or an oversight.

Logos_x could you acknowledge for me that you have read this post and you understand that it wasn't just the fact that you forgot to cite your sources that violated the spirit of the debate?

Now, back to the list of quotes you made criticizing him for using his own
thinking, using words like "I think, I feel, I believe." Apparently, using his own
words was wrong, and quoting others was wrong, with or without reference.
What's left? Oh yeah, I remember, damnationist thoughts, those were OK, be they
quoted or original.

And, by the way, your response, or lack thereof to Logos' sincere and heartfelt
and even self debasing apologies clearly reflect the core values which seperate
damnationalists from universalists. Grace does not extend to the the sinner, the
unbeliever, nor the disagree-er. Damn them all to eternal torment, apology is just
an attempt to escape the torment they truly deserve!

This response sounds harsher than I feel, just trying to make a point. The Holiday Spirit is bouying me ever upwards!

Merry Christmas!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Now, back to the list of quotes you made criticizing him for using his own
thinking, using words like "I think, I feel, I believe." Apparently, using his own
words was wrong, and quoting others was wrong, with or without reference.
What's left? Oh yeah, I remember, damnationist thoughts, those were OK, be they
quoted or original.

Dave turn your brain on! I think there is a switch somewhere on the back of your neck.

There are two different types of wrong here.

1. Wrong: logos_x and Universalism are wrong because Universalism is feelings based. This is one of my criticisms of the Universalist world-view and I therefore pointed it out (and gave examples).

2. Wrong: logos_x was wrong to not write his own material in round #3.

Lets see how intellectually honest you are ok? Do you agree with logos_x that it was wrong of him to not compose his own round #3 post in Battle Royale XII?

 

[Kimberlyann]

Yes I remember him saying that. I think it is reprehensible that the Bible College he went to didn't teach him sound apologetics, when one of his big arguments against Biblical innerancy were the differing accounts of the thieves on the cross.
This is one of the basic things they teach you in Bible college. (before you ever even get to seminary!)

Since Echo is unable to respond himself......

"You may tell Kevin that the school I went to was DTS and I was well schooled in apologetics. But I am also willing to be intellectually honest, as he is not. He is not willing to admit the errors and contradictions that are found in the bible, I am. He demonizes me for my honesty......"

 

[PKevman]

My entire point was missed. There is nothing in Echo's comments there that indicate why an unbeliever or an agnostic should use him as an example of a Christian on this website and thus base his opinion on God's Word based upon that.

As to what Echo said:
So now a person is not being intellectually honest if he believes in the inerrancy of Scripture?

How much further down can Universalism go? I did not demonize him, and I did not ban him. I am not an administrator. He got himself banned and if I remember right he was acting like a rude jerk. Why would Christian people want to follow someone's teaching who

a. Denies the Scriptures.
b. Insults the honesty and intelligence of someone who believes wholeheartedly in the inerrancy of the Scriptures. (Simply BECAUSE they believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures)
c. Is banned from a Christian website run and operated by Christian people who love the Lord?

 

[Kimberlyann]

My entire point was missed. There is nothing in Echo's comments there that indicate why an unbeliever or an agnostic should use him as an example of a Christian on this website and thus base his opinion on God's Word based upon that.

As to what Echo said:
So now a person is not being intellectually honest if he believes in the inerrancy of Scripture?

How much further down can Universalism go? I did not demonize him, and I did not ban him. I am not an administrator. He got himself banned and if I remember right he was acting like a rude jerk. Why would Christian people want to follow someone's teaching who

a. Denies the Scriptures.
b. Insults the honesty and intelligence of someone who believes wholeheartedly in the inerrancy of the Scriptures. (Simply BECAUSE they believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures)
c. Is banned from a Christian website run and operated by Christian people who love the Lord?

I admire Echo's honesty and I respect him a great deal, but I think for myself and I am not a follower of Echo. I am a follower of Jesus Christ and I am quite capable of interpreting the Scriptures for myself, I don't need him or anyone else to teach me I have a teacher and He is the one who promised to lead me into all truth.

 

[Ecumenicist]

Dave turn your brain on! I think there is a switch somewhere on the back of your neck.

There are two different types of wrong here.

1. Wrong: logos_x and Universalism are wrong because Universalism is feelings based. This is one of my criticisms of the Universalist world-view and I therefore pointed it out (and gave examples).

2. Wrong: logos_x was wrong to not write his own material in round #3.

Lets see how intellectually honest you are ok? Do you agree with logos_x that it was wrong of him to not compose his own round #3 post in Battle Royale XII?

1. You are wrong because there is a great deal of scriptural evidence supporting
universalism. You choose to ignore it, or say its application is "contextual" and
therefore not worth considering.

2. Logos has acknowledged this REPEATEDLY You were right in pointing it
out, he was right in apologizing, now it would be right of you to show a little GRACE
in a situation which has obviously been very embarrasing for him. 'Tis the season, after
all. Otherwise those ghosts that visited BillyBob last night may have to visit you
as well

3. I have seen some excellent works composed completely as scholarly collections
of referenced quotes. Usually this is in the context of comparing the thoughts of one
historic figure against another, so its not out of the question to have a properly
referenced excellent work composed almost completely of others' thoughts, creatively
woven to illustrate a point.

I think the lack of reference was the larger fault here, and I think
that Logos' focus on that aspect in his apology was most appropriate. But I also agree
that the use of wholesale lengthy verbatim material in the response was outside
the bounds of the rules of this debate, as Poly so aptly pointed out, and Kevin
GRACIOUSLY allowed.

 

[Nineveh]

off the top of my head and without a Bible to hand at this minute no, you have heard this though right?

First time was when you uttered it. Verse please?

you dont believe that God is the saviour of all men though,

Wow... ok, for the second time, that isn't even close to what I have ever said. I know, doesn't do much for your argument, but hey...

you cant to believe in ET

: sings : there goes peter cottontail hoppin' down the bunny trail... : / sings :

then we're all condemned at some point in our lives, we dont believe from birth.....

Have you bothered to read anything Paul says? "I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died."

W...

Watching you bump blindly into walls went from mild amusement, to pity, to sadness.

i saw the whole BR, nothing was destroyed....

Like you said earlier... there are none so blind...

some love doctrines more also....

I know, and some of those docrines, like universalism, offer false hope and comfort to sinners who really need to repent and accept Christ while they still have that opportunity.

universalists dont believe God 'kidnaps' anyone anyway but rather everyone will have a knowledge of the truth and willingly want to be with God - so this is all moot

Paul and John state differently. There really are people who do not want to be with God. I'm really sorry you don't like that fact, but that is just how it is.

You still cant address the verse...

You still want to ignore I've addressed it twice already. You just don't like the answer.

 

[bigbang123]

Were I born in Saudi Arabia would I be muslum? Probably I would have started out that way. Would I have remained one after hearing the Gospel? No way to answer that but I would like to think yes. Consider this. In many muslum countries it is a capitol crime to witness for Jesus. Why are muslum countries so afraid of letting the Gospel be preached? If their religion is the one true religion and their Allah the right Allah, why do they feel they must kill people wh challenge it? Wont truth win out? There it is, the truth will win out and the muslum religion has not the truth of God (Creator of the Univers) in it.

the muslims now are behaving just like the obedient israelites of the old testament times.

Numbers 15

The Sabbath-Breaker Put to Death

32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.

disobedience to their god was a crime punishable by stoning.