It’s not that you’re too stupid to get it. It’s that I’m so stupid that I thought it was sufficient for someone who agrees with the belief. Why should I see a need to give a reasonable argument when you agree that there IS a future judgment, etc.? I dunno… my bad.

And you DON’T bring your convictions to the Bible? Yeah… right! Did you believe in “Hell” before you ever read the Bible?

“…no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” is talking about those who wrote the scriptures. It wasn’t of THEIR own interpretation. Keep reading through v. 21 “for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy spirit.” You err if using those passages to support how to interpret scripture.

I don’t have so much a problem with creeds as much as I have a problem with someone using a creed that I disagree with to show where I’m wrong.

If you care to learn what UR really teaches (at least the version I believe in) then there’s a myriad of sites. I’d like to suggest http://www.martinzender.com Lots of good info.

Saying “I would have thought it was pretty easy to understand what I meant” is very demeaning. It’s like saying “you’re too stupid to get it”. I get it that you mean the opposite, but why? You’ve given no reasonable argument. Can you imagine a politician standing up in a debate and saying “WRONG” and expecting to win anyones confidence.

Regarding Biblical interpretation, there are rules for understanding scripture. It’s not as willy nilly as you suggest. If we can’t have a reasonable system for interpretation then there will be lots of different systems. And that’s just what we have. When people bring their convictions TO the Bible, they can use any verse to prove anything they want. This is not a good hermeneutic.

“And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” 2 Peter 1:19,20

There are some basic rules for interpreting scripture that are really based on common sense. Like Definition; what does the word mean? Common usage; what does it mean in other places in the scripture? Context; how is it used in this place and what is surrounding the usage? Historical background; what was life like when the word was used? Logic; use common logical reasoning. Precedent; if the word is used one way in the past, why change it now? Unity; is the interpretation in sync with the rest of scripture? Inference; is the meaning a fact reasonably implied from another fact?

The reason for denominations has as much to do with non-essentials as anything. I can worship in several different denominations and have done so. I’ve been a member of Bible, Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Brethren and non-denominational churches. They all hold to slightly different positions on different areas but I can fellowship with them. If I attend a Baptist church, I don’t have to believe that all Lutherans are wrong.

The things pointed out by the author above have to do with essentials of the faith, not areas of polity and other non-essentials.

I don’t know why you don’t like Creeds. The Nicene Creed is still used today and I don’t think a Baptist would have a problem with it. It is usually associated with the Council of Constantinople. This is the creed recited in churches. The council met to refute Apollinarianism. Apollinarius taught that Jesus was a combination of the divine Logos spirit, a sensitive human soul and a human body. He taught that Jesus did not have a human spirit. The council condemned this view in order to show that Christ, as truly human, could redeem the whole person.

Nicene Creed -
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The word “catholic” is with a small “c”, meaning universal, not the Catholic church. Where is the problem with this creed for a Baptist, or other denomination?

I could care less about Dan’s supposed “worthy arguments against UR.” All I was doing was showing that the author of that article doesn’t understand UR. Ask any Baptist if an article showing the weakness’s of Catholicism’s creeds proves Christianity is wrong.

Yell and call names? Care to point that out?

Why do you guy’s keep saying words to the effect that ‘biblical truth is clear’? Clear to who (again, or is it whom?). If it IS so clear, why are there thousands of different denominations that all use the same Bible? Obviously people differ on what they think the Bible is saying. I understand you believe it ‘clearly’ say’s many people (if not most) will be tortured forever in a literal fire. I believe it ‘clearly’ say’s God will redeem all.

No, I don’t have to reconsider my belief in UR. The more I understand the Bible as a whole, the stronger my belief in UR.

I’m not running away from doctrine. But, if the ‘UR creeds of 1899′ are going to be used as the authority on what I believe, and if the author did properly represent what they teach, then I certainly do wish to distance myself from that document. Again, like holding a Baptist to the creed’s of Catholicism. Catholic creeds do represent Baptist beliefs any more than the UR creeds of 1899 represent mine (or anybody I know).

Dan has cited several worthy arguments against UR and there has been no credible defense to date. You can yell and call names, but the facts are clear.

Biblical truth is clear, it’s application can vary, but if you consider the whole council of God and not just a few verses, you have to reconsider, as the author of The Shack did, your understanding and belief in UR.

How can you say that you understand your own Doctrines if you don’t even know that it has Creeds? What are creeds but statements of doctrine. Doctrine is just a statement of what you believe. I’m weary of people running away from “doctrine” like it’s some kind of plague. And then they don’t even know, nor can they clearly state, what they believe.

UR, to me, seems to play on the “anti-establishment” feelings that many people have today. Some are against the government (which I join in on) and some are against the Church. Excuse me, the “institution” of the Church. But isn’t that even made up of members of the church?

Too much scripture, as Dan has shown above, goes completely ignored and too many questions go unanswered by UR proponents for it to even be considered as a legitimate doctrine. It is truly “pie in the sky” belief.

While there may be several different applications, in the original languages, there is always only one interpretation. And, the applications stemming from a particular interpretation cannot violate other interpretations. It’s very simple really. God spoke with a single meaning, not several to be determined as we see fit.

One thing I’ve noticed recently is that those are promoting this heresy seem to be “born again” believers. How dumb is that? However, that’s actually very reassuring to me, because I know that “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:44)

“And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?” (Romans 8:28-31)

“Those who are called,” are those He foreknew and also predestined, justified, and glorified. So, the “called” will be saved regardless of the false teaching from those who are to be accursed. And, “God’s elect” are distinguished from those who are not.

It’s God’s Word, not mine. The saddest thing about this whole “movement” of universalism is the miserable and feeble attempts by those who are wasting their time and efforts, but perhaps it only goes to show how much greater God’s plan is than our own, which is superficially and unsubstantially fabricated.

“What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?” It’s almost not even worth discussing!

“Either it is in your heart to wish unbelievers suffer eternal torment, or it is not.” So, it’s up to how we feel? Come on Bryan, that’s just lame.

Jesus is the propitiation made available to the whole world, but like the bronze serpent Moses lifted up for the people in the wilderness, everyone must decide for themselves if they will look to Him in faith as their Savior.

Again, the bottom line is in John 3:36: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” “For ‘WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.’” (Romans 10:13)

The teaching of universal salvation violates clearly interpreted Scripture in context and can only be supported by twisting and distorting God’s Word as Bryan has demonstrated here.

Bryan, your talents can be used much more effectively…for good, and I hope that changes soon.

In fact, it’s so off the wall, I think we don’t need to be overly concerned, because the Spirit of God will penetrate the hearts of the predestined in spite of those who are to be accursed. To God be the glory!