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

Print Thread (PDF)

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









 Re:

Quote:
3) What meaning did I ADD to Romans 5:1?



Meaning??? Notwithstanding changing my words, you changed the words of the scripture!!! which changes the meaning!!!!

Quote:
I can either go on believing you don't understand scripture in the way you would like me (us) to believe....



Us? Who is "us"? I have no problem being understood by others. You must mean just "you".
Quote:
.... and you're just bluffing .... or, I will continue to press you for the exact answers which you imply are unmistakable, but which cannot be.... or there would be no discussion at all.....



Bluffing?? about what? Press ahead but you can expect liitle from me when I see your misrepresentations.

Quote:
Lastly, I could conclude that you don't have anything to say which would enlighten me, and that's why you're changing the subject again.



#1. I never changed the subject. It's always been about your dishonesty. I've only given you enough that you now know it. .. [i]maybe[/i].



 2006/10/18 17:26









 Re: Univesalism

Dear Ormly,

I don't know what you're talking about....

I have heard numerous Bible expositions where the preacher reads a verse and then successfully or unsuccessfully tries to put it into other words to communicate more clearly its meaning to the congregation. He is never accused of adding to the word of God. Everyone knows he is not [i]changing[/i] scripture.... is not suggesting that folks should go home and use his words instead of God's.

So the question remains, in my mind, as to whether you acknowledge Romans 1, 2, 3 and 4, (which chapter divisions and verses are, as you know, man-made additions to the original text) and accept that the 'Therefore' of Romans 5:1 is a [b]direct[/b] reference to [b]us who believe in Jesus Christ.[/b]

Romans 5:1 cannot be taken out of context, for instance, to say that people who believe in God, but who have never [i]heard[/i] of Jesus Christ, are 'justified by faith'.

Even faith in God only, has a name..... Deism. Deists are not going to be in heaven. These are people who justify to themselves their capacity to know God and what pleases Him, [i]very specifically [b]without[/b] reference to Christ[/i].

The passage in Romans 2, v14 particularly, refers to people who have [u]never[/u] heard of [b][i]God[/i][/b], but who have been guided by an innate desire for righteousness.

I do agree with you that the death of Jesus Christ accomplished many things in the invisible realm which are not elucidated clearly in scripture..... More, those of us who know Him, find out how far-reaching was the influence of His death, as we navigate our time in this world as pilgrims.

However, there is a world of difference - a real world of difference - between what Paul said in Acts 17:31 -

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,

and Romans 2:14, 15, 16

... [Gentiles] are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves [their] thoughts accusing or else excusing [them)] in the day when [b]God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ[/b], according to my gospel.

and your thesis that [i][b]therefore[/b][/i] people who only believe in what you call (without defining it) 'the righteous deed', or who have heard that God 'rewards' believers in Him somehow, will be saved (or are saved or are being saved) by their faith in their personal doctrine.

I believe I have understood your thesis correctly, and that my questions which you have not answered, are good questions, intended to bring to your attention a fuller display of Bible verses which are unsupportive of your thesis.

It is not a problem to me, that you hold to this variety of Universalism, as I believe you yourself know the Lord, but, if you are [i]teaching[/i] that people who have access to the truth about Jesus, (whether through Bible reading, hearing the gospel preached or attending church in a limited way but doing 'good works' when they can), do [i]not[/i] have to bring themselves under His Lordship and saving grace, then I believe that is dangerous both to theirs and your salvation.

To a much earlier post, in which I asked what you meant by 'under the new covenant' and you replied that it was 'a moot point' since everyone who is saved is saved because of Jesus death (NOTE: I am [u]not[/u] attempting to quote exactly; that was the meaning I picked up from your choice of words), I hear this, which you have said in other threads, and disagree, mainly because the Old Testament saints were saved by faith [i]before[/i] His death, and the important thing was their obedience within their [i]relationship with God[/i] whom they knew personally and acknowledged completely.

In my understanding, this puts those to whom Paul refers in Romans 2:14 in a very unique category within the New Covenant era, and one which he personally set out to obliterate as much as he could, by preaching the gospel to the Gentile.

 2006/10/19 6:06
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

Locking this thread. The combative nature has turned once again between two contestants, something the both of you need to recognize as this is not the first of the disputing with each other.

Lay down the swords of contention and try something truly incredible, pray for each other.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2006/10/19 9:05Profile





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