Snippets from the hard copy Universal Reconciliation library of Rodger Tutt TEMP CLOSED BY MODERATOR

rodgertutt's picture

Thread temporarily set to read only by Moderator.
After dialogue with everyone intersted in this thread, I will decide whether not later than this Saturday to reinstate the thread for contributions or delete it entirely.

Two points:
1. The purpose of the Interdenominational Discussions room is to provide a moderated place for comparisons between Christian belief systems where that "discussion" is held to the posting guidelines. The posting guidelines are summed up in "love your neighbor as yourself" and I am the final decision maker as to who is and is not doing that. Please see the room description at I get the impression that the purpose here is really about Roger pasting posts here as he has in numerous other websites, without ownership or explanation supporting his own position on the subject he introduced. That isnt a discussion. A discussion requires some ownership of the subject material and the ability to cogently articulate it, not just paste what others have said. Hence there is no discussion but rather mere pasting of other people's thoughts, carefully and appreciatively cited. If you look at the discussions on Seventh Day Adventist and Reformed Theology, tough dialogue took place and those who did not concur with those belief systems discussed them; but there was far more there than just pasting from a book. That isnt a dialogue but rather using ccel to advertise one's belief system. It becomes impossible for anyone to respond/refute/discuss all the assertions made when the person is merely pasting other people's works in shotgun fashion. Roger and all participants - I can be reached at for further discussion so I understand where you all stand.

2. Munga and Lee - take a litte time to cool off. The topics addressed are belief you each care about in your heart and beliefs you view the other to hold in disdain. Step back and prayerfully contemplate the fruitfulness or futility of continued discussion of belief systems worlds apart, literally and spiritually. While seeking to be understood are you spending as much time seeking to understand what the other person is saying?? I am not saying blindly agree for the sake of some compromising ecumenical peace BUT are you asking enough questions to understand what the other is saying before responding positive or negatively. While an active poster here, Michael Legna and I spent hours discussing and debating and clarifying what we thought the other believed and what they actually believed. Having a setting where some dispute with careful listening occurred sharpened what and why I believe what I believe, and showed me those of Michael's faith can and often do love the same Jesus as I do. Such careful seeking to understand also allowed us to see where we were worlds apart, and precisely on what points having laid aside all the myths we believed about each other. I can and do call Michael friend and brother while disagreeing with the major points of his theology at the same time. The proponents and opponents of the view under discussion, like dozens of others, need to stop trying to save the world from the other belief system and talk to each other.

Some thoughts how the discussion might go from here. How do those of us who believe in eternal punishment reconcile that with God who claims He is love? How do those of us who dont believe in eternal punishment reconcile that with a God who claims He is Holy? What is a or the biblical definition of holiness and love and how do those attributes in God interface with those of us in the human realm? Where does biblical teachings of man's nature and sin condition fit in with the idea of universalism? Is there a difference in universal atonement, universal reconcilation and universal salvation; and does man's sinful nature impact what God has said He will do? To what extent, if any, has God limited his desire to save those who reject Jesus Christ? If God can save those who accept a "Messiah" but reject Jesus as that Messiah, as some hold, then can he not also just save all people? What is the biblical doctrine of election and does univesalism reconcile or negate that doctrine as we understand it and is there a logically and scripturally consistent way to reconcile the two doctrines?


Hi everyone. I'm Rodger Tutt in Toronto, Canada. Every day or so I would like to post a snippet from a different hard copy book in my Universal Reconciliation library. I hope you enjoy them.

#1 - A SNIPPET FROM REDEMPTION ALL IN ALL - RAY PRINZING (my earthly hero and mentor)

“Aionian punishment means of the age, or age during. It is a period of time designated by God for the bringing to naught that which is wrong. God will mete out exactly the amount of time necessary for correction, but it will not be prolonged beyond that which is needed. All of God’s punishments are corrective in nature, motivated by His love, and used to work into our good and His praise.”

JeffLogan's picture

The real quality of love

A reply to: Snippets from the hard copy Universal Reconciliation library of
Submitted by rodgertutt on Sun, 2011-12-18 10:22.

Rodger, hope you don't mind some commentary and perhaps a brief analogy.

You meet a lovely lady that you would like to date. So you approach her one afternoon. As the two of you meet you draw a gun from your vest and point it directly at her head. You proceed to command her to love you. Will she love you? Can she love you given the circumstances? Oh, she may tell you she loves you to save her life but she is trying very hard not to let you see through her facade. In truth she only says she loves you because she fears you. She doesn't love you at all.

Now if you had commanded her to stand on her head she would certainly give it her best with a willing heart albeit in fear. But she would not be able to get her heart behind an "I love you." You see, love, the very nature of love, demands that it be freely given. And that also allows for it to be freely withheld. I hope you understand. A love that is forced from someone else is called rape and would most likely include kidnapping charges. Humanity has a keen sense of what constitutes true love and what constitutes rape. Both parties involved must be consenting.

Now, can you imagine God demanding His subjects love Him with the threat of violence if we refuse? Sure, everyone of us would profess to love Him but only to save our skins. And that would not be love. So God must grant us the freedom to choose to give or withhold our love.

God does love even His enemies. But love demands freedom and does not exist without it. The moment God demands our love whatever we render ceases to be love. So in truth love must allow some to refuse to give a reciprocal love. It is because God loves us that He allows us to leave Him if that is our desire. And so there will be some who choose not to love God and thus God must destroy them because there will be no place left for them when this world of sin is burned up by fire.

But perhaps the main reason people struggle with this universal reconciliation doctrine is because of the doctrine of eternal hell fire. Because they find witness in scripture of a loving God they cannot fathom Him committing such an atrocious act as burning His children in hell fire for all eternity. But scripture says that the wicked are burned up, they perish, they are consumed. That is their punishment. And that punishment is eternal. The eternal destiny is forever and ever. But that does not involve eternally burning in hell's fire. Scripture may suggest that Satan burns forever, but it doesn't say that sinners burn forever. It says that "fire came down from God out of heaven and consumed them." Some translations say that the fire "devoured them." Others say it "burned them up." Either way their punishment is finite and they will die and be no more. And that will last for ever and ever.

_______ _______ ______ ______ ______

“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you."