SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Universalism

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread
dantejones
Member



Joined: 2006/1/6
Posts: 31
Albuquerque, New Mexico

 Re:

Ormly,
Hey, dantejones here...Your position on Universalism is one that makes me ponder, and one that doesn't sound all that bad and really doesn't, to my mind, compromise the integrity of Scripture, but there are a few concerns that make it problematic....

1. As I beleive Ginnyrose said, God has supernaturally revealed himself to people in places without the Gospel

2. Many religions don't conceive God monotheistically (or even theistically) as we, the Jews, and the Muslims do, so being righteous by the code of Hinduism, where the ultimate goal is to become part of "God" - an impersonal, undifferentiated force - cannot work. Obviously, they'd have to be repentant, but that usually involves Christ beong revealed at some point.

I would like to believe in something like Universalism, but there are a few critical points where it just does not hold together with experience and common sense from a Biblical point of view


_________________
Ben Ordaz

 2006/10/13 17:07Profile









 Re:

Quote:

dantejones wrote:
Ormly,
Hey, dantejones here...Your position on Universalism is one that makes me ponder, and one that doesn't sound all that bad and really doesn't, to my mind, compromise the integrity of Scripture, but there are a few concerns that make it problematic....

1. As I beleive Ginnyrose said, God has supernaturally revealed himself to people in places without the Gospel



I said that. ginnyrose agreed with me, though she placed it in the realm of the supernatural while I kept it in the realm of the natural, which is supported by scripture. "The heaven's declare His handiwork".

Quote:
]2. Many religions don't conceive God monotheistically (or even theistically) as we, the Jews, and the Muslims do, so being righteous by the code of Hinduism, where the ultimate goal is to become part of "God" - an impersonal, undifferentiated force - cannot work.



Why not, if that is all one is offered? From God's perspective, is righteousness different because of religion? Is sin imputed to the righteous blind?

Quote:
Obviously, they'd have to be repentant, but that usually involves Christ beong revealed at some point.



Indeed. That is true. Repentance only means to change directions. The righteous will do that because of their quest for God and to be pleasing to Him. The wicked never will. Is there enough of Christ "sensitiveness" within us that we can influence such folk? Do we ever even think to speak of it in that light?

Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains." John 9:41 (NASB-U)

Quote:
I would like to believe in something like Universalism, but there are a few critical points where it just does not hold together with experience and common sense from a Biblical point of view



I am not a Universalist. I could never be one simply because of the scriptures. To be a Universalist is to ignore much of what the scriptures say to the contrary. George McDonald, one of my favorite authors who wrote much concerning our creaton in Christ, was himself a Universalist. I never knew that and it amazed me when I discovered it. C.S.Lewis, Tolkien, ... Oswald Chambers, to name a few were some of the cross section of writers who were so affected by McDonald's writings. Go figure, Chambers being one of them and yet in Chamber's writings I discovered something of the intimacy of God, desired by God and made possible to us, not revealed by most other writers aside from McDonald.
Chambers embraced a real cross section of thinkers including G.Campbell Morgan, one of his favorites, who didn't embrace the Pentecostal experience Chamber's craved and later entered into.

The conclusion to the matter can be that all writers and thinkers have some truth to be gleaned however, all don't have all the truth. The only book that does was written by 50+/- authors. It contains all the truth and even then requires the Holy Spirit to make it known to us. Univeralism isn't mentioned except as it applies to the righteous who are justified by faith in God.

Having said that, I believe the new birth experience takes the righteous into a deeper realm of knowing God as Father. That's what I believe Jesus taught and the reason He spent 3+ years speaking of it. I believe that is the thrust of evangelism given us to understand. I believe the early church, with its creeds and by then their lack of understanding, usurped the commandment, setting itself up to be the thing to be understood, leaving us with the great need of restoration to the original intent of the Father in Jesus......... and in the fullness of time, enter Martin Luther who began such restoration with it continuing to this day. "Few there be that find it." Matt7.14

Thanks for the inquiry, Dante, and I hope that explains my position and is a help to anyone who can't explain theirs.

Go here and stand amazed as I did:

http://www.lifechangers.org/docs/HeartGeoMcDonald.pdf



;-)

 2006/10/14 6:26
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7469
Mississippi

 Re:

Jordan,

Appreciate your post...you did have this poster confused: where you playing "the devil's advocate" or were you asking serious out of your own heart?

You made a very important point and that is the dependance on reason to determine what is 'Truth', which is so faulty, rooted in self which is rooted in rebellion against God.

I appreciate your article. Thanks for posting.

ginnyrose


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2006/10/16 10:34Profile









 Re: Universalism

Ormly said

Quote:
I believe the new birth experience takes the righteous into a deeper realm of knowing God as Father.

Hello Ormly,

I'm still trying to understand how a person can be righteous under the New Covenant, without being born again.... I see that one doesn't have a relationship with the Father [i]unless[/i] one is born again.

However, I also see that in the Old Testament, there were many who were 'righteous' through faith.... many of whom had very clear encounters with God, His presence or an appearance of some sort, or angels.

Is this the way you separate 'the righteous' in your thinking ..... into Old and New Covenant 'believers'?

 2006/10/17 14:50









 Re:

Quote:

dorcas wrote:
Ormly said
Quote:
I believe the new birth experience takes the righteous into a deeper realm of knowing God as Father.

Hello Ormly,

I'm still trying to understand how a person can be righteous under the New Covenant, without being born again.... I see that one doesn't have a relationship with the Father [i]unless[/i] one is born again.



So, under the new covenant everyone who does the righteous deed while never hearing of the gospel of Jesus to become His disciple, is damned?


Quote:
However, I also see that in the Old Testament, there were many who were 'righteous' through faith.... many of whom had very clear encounters with God, His presence or an appearance of some sort, or angels.



Has faith changed??

Quote:
Is this the way you separate 'the righteous' in your thinking ..... into Old and New Covenant 'believers'?



I contend, the new birth experience to be more than salvation. I believe Jesus spent three and half years explaining that which the church has since misconstrued. I am almost convinced the new birth experience to be by invitation only. If I am correct it gives me the answer for the worthless presumption that abounds. It certainly explains my own and thus my failure to have realized God in my life at an early time.

 2006/10/17 15:27









 Re: Universalism

Quote:
So, under the new covenant everyone who does the righteous deed while never hearing of the gospel of Jesus to become His disciple, is damned?

In a way, I'm sorry to answer your question with a question, but, I have to, I think, because I don't know how a person can be under the New Covenant without having believed into Jesus?

And I have no idea to what 'righteous deed' you refer which could be a substitute for faith in Jesus Christ (during the era of the New Covenant).

Please define 'the righteous deed' and how you deem it possible to be 'under the new covenant' with[EDIT] out [i]ever[/i] [EDIT end] having heard of Jesus? :-D

EDIT: Ormly - my apologies for the omission I've just corrected.

Does it alter your answer in any way?

 2006/10/17 15:49









 Re:

Quote:

dorcas wrote:
Quote:
So, under the new covenant everyone who does the righteous deed while never hearing of the gospel of Jesus to become His disciple, is damned?

In a way, I'm sorry to answer your question with a question, but, I have to, I think, because I don't know how a person can be under the New Covenant without having believed into Jesus?

And I have no idea to what 'righteous deed' you refer which could be a substitute for faith in Jesus Christ (during the era of the New Covenant).

Please define 'the righteous deed' and how you deem it possible to be 'under the new covenant' with having heard of Jesus?



No. You think about it ... given the multitudes who never will and yet live righteous lives believing there is a God who sees and rewards..

Read your Bible for a better ubderstanding of what it says..

 2006/10/17 17:34









 Re: Universalism


Hi Ormly,

You said: '...and yet live righteous lives believing there is a God who sees and rewards..

Read your Bible for a better ubderstanding of what it says..'


I believe I know what the Bible says about the righteousness which saves a soul, that's why I need your help to understand your thesis better.

I am aware of Paul's comments in Romans 2, but, those Gentiles who might thus be 'saved', would not be 'under the new covenant' as we are discussing here.


So, as I read what you've said (and my Bible), I hear this:

that because there are people who [i]believe[/i] they can be righteous - live righteously (without Christ), and do what they believe is right in God's sight (without believing in Jesus) [i][b]because[/b] they[/i] believe God 'sees and rewards', God [b][i]WILL[/i][/b] 'see and reward'.

Have I got that right? ......... in no way do they have to adjust their theology to coincide with God's...... [i]He[/i] will be understanding of their good intentions and faith towards Him, and on the basis of [i]their[/i] belief system, He will reward them accordingly?


If I've understood you, please would you give just one scripture which supports this thesis (because I don't have any.....)? Thanks. :-)

 2006/10/18 6:35









 Re:

Quote:

dorcas wrote:

Hi Ormly,

You said: '...and yet live righteous lives believing there is a God who sees and rewards..

Read your Bible for a better ubderstanding of what it says..'


I believe I know what the Bible says about the righteousness which saves a soul, that's why I need your help to understand your thesis better.

I am aware of Paul's comments in Romans 2, but, those Gentiles who might thus be 'saved', would not be 'under the new covenant' as we are discussing here.


So, as I read what you've said (and my Bible), I hear this:

that because there are people who [i]believe[/i] they can be righteous - live righteously (without Christ), and do what they believe is right in God's sight (without believing in Jesus) [i][b]because[/b] they[/i] believe God 'sees and rewards', God [b][i]WILL[/i][/b] 'see and reward'.

Have I got that right? ......... in no way do they have to adjust their theology to coincide with God's...... [i]He[/i] will be understanding of their good intentions and faith towards Him, and on the basis of [i]their[/i] belief system, He will reward them accordingly?



No, you don't have it right. That is not what I am saying. They have no theology. Why do you seem bent on mistruing what is written? You add words and thus misrepresent what is said or implied, thus accusing me of saying something wrong. These people of whom I write are humble folk who live with a hope of being considered righteous enough because they believe, what they consider, evidence of a God and [b]they don't know anytrhing about Jesus Christ because they have never heard of Him.[/b] All they know are the stars in the sky. Get my drift?

The idea of old covenant-new covenant in this is a moot issue. The Blood of Jesus saves the righteous this side of the cross and the other side, as well. God kbows the righteous, those from the beginning who would/will be His. He knows the hearts of men. Ever hear of the story of the "Rich man and Lazarus"?(cf. Rom 5.1)

If you believe God is a just and loving God, there should be no difficulty in understanding what is written, especially in the Bible.

 2006/10/18 7:10









 Re: Universalism


Dear Ormly,

I feel you are attributing more ire to me than I feel. I'm not - really not - misconstruing what you say....... I'm trying to find out where your thesis intersects with biblical theology..... which is why, when you make a very short statement of a few sentences, unsupported with a single Bible verse, your posts always leave me with many unanswered questions. And today, I am truly happy that you've answered one aspect of my confusion.

Quote:
they don't know anytrhing about Jesus Christ because they have never heard of Him. All they know are the stars in the sky. Get my drift?

I believe I do. But, according to Paul, such people are not redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ, they are judged by God on how they were guided by their consciences.

Romans 2
14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,

15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, [b]their conscience also bearing witness[/b], and between themselves [their] thoughts accusing or else excusing [them)]

16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

Acts 17
30 "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,

31 "because He has appointed a day on which [b]He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained[/b]. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead."

These two scriptures, although they mention Jesus, do not allude to a need for faith in Him by those who might be saved.


I don't have time to add a few of the many other scriptures which insist that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation...... so, in those I've mentioned above, have I found the mainstay of your thesis correctly?



 2006/10/18 7:58





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy