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 http://www.ccel.org/forum. 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 dfugett2010@gmail.com 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?

CAUTION/WARNING - I DONT KNOW YOU ROGER SO I AM NOT SAYING YOU WOULD DO THIS BUT DONT BEGIN POSTING THESE SNIPPETS ANYWHERE ELSE ON CCEL EXCEPT THIS FORUM THREAD IF I DECIDE TO REOPEN IT.
-------------------------------------------------------------

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.”

dialoguewith.us's picture

Destruction is not Eternal

Jesus knew that John 3:16 was not the end of the story…that’s why He continued to John 3:17 and talked about the salvation of all mankind!!!
3. Jesus makes no attempt to use verse 16 to negate or qualify verse 17. He simply makes both statements side by side as if both are completely true. The reason He does this is that both ARE completely true.
We see this over and over in Scripture, especially in the writings of Paul – a statement about people who have faith now (maybe a warning or exhortation or encouragement about the benefits of taking part in the kingdom of God a.k.a. the next two ages of life on earth) right next to a statement about how Christ accomplished the justification of all men. See Romans 3:23-24 and 5:18 and their contexts for example. This is no big deal; none of these statements negate, qualify (change), or contradict each other, because both concepts are 100% true. Some will be saved from death early and take part in the kingdom of God, and everyone else will be saved from death later.
To attempt to use some statements (about those who get saved early) to negate the others statements (about the eventual salvation of all) is to butcher the common sense rules of language and communication. We would never do this to each other in everyday communication; the only reason people try to do it to Jesus and Paul is because they cannot bring themselves to believe the plain statements about the eventual salvation of all mankind.
If I said to my kids, “Those of you who help me clean the yard today will get to go to a movie with me tomorrow, and next week I will take the rest of you to a movie,” I have made it very clear that all the kids will eventually go to the movies. My two statements do not contradict each other or negate each other in any way. This is the exact same thing Jesus does in John 3:16 and 17 – He makes two equally true statements. Yet “hell mindset” Christians try to make one statement negate the other in order to fit their preconceived pagan/Catholic-inherited ideas.
http://www.bible-questions-and-answers.com/Erasing-Hell-book.html




Advertisements