"**Rowland Croucher**" <rccroucher@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:48223b55$0$30466$afc38c87@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Chuck Stamford wrote:
> <>
>> Given those two statements, and taking them as making literally true
>> statements, unless you can find Billy Graham saying he believes all
come
>> to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, what you've got here isn't
really
>> all that strong a case for him being a universalist like Rowland is;
>
> Where have I said categorically that I'm a universalist?
Where have you categorically ever said that you are anything? It takes
integrity to make a categorical statement of one's beliefs, integrity to
say, this is what I believe, and then stand and defend it against its
challengers, and integrity is something you lack; at least in my
experience
of you in this medium.
For example: in this thread, you just tried to paint Billy Graham as
questioning the exitence of hell, yet you quoted him AS a believer in
hell
in a post you wrote in July, 1997! To wit:
"Hell, whatever else it means, is separation from God. If you are out of
Christ and away from God now, in many ways you are in hell; for hell is
separation from God. Now extend your sense of guilt, your frustration,
your
self-inflicted burdens into eternity - and that is hell. In eternity, the
gulf between you and God will widen, the darkness will become more intense
and the associations more repugnant.
Billy Graham, 'Hell', Hour of Decision broadcast, 1957, p. 10. "
And although this isn't a quote of Graham, it also clearly depicts YOUR
belief that he believes hell is real:
"Billy Graham was coming to town and he had some negative opinions about
Billy Graham and mass evangelism ('emotional hype' etc.). So I asked him,
on
air: 'Ever been to one of these meetings?' 'No, but I've seen him on
television.' 'Ormsby, you're a communicator, and you know that you really
can't make a judgment about emotionalism unless you actually go to one of
Billy's meetings. If I get you a ticket, how about it?' With a couple of
hundred thousand people listening, what could he say? 'O.K.'
So he went on, I think, the Monday night, and Billy was preaching about
heaven and hell. Next day, instead of the two news commentary spots -
after
the midday and 6 pm news bulletins - he had at least six (I listened to
him
for his whole session).
To summarize his reaction: 'I went to hear Billy Graham last night, and,
yes, there was less hype than I expected. However, he was preaching about
heaven and hell, and if I heard him right, he told us that only
evangelical
Christians who received Jesus as their personal Saviour are going to
heaven,
and the rest of us are destined for hell. He seemed to indicate that if
any
of us was run over by a bus before we made that commitment, it was hell
for
eternity, with no reprieve." (posted to aus.religion.christian 12/8/04)
A Christian minister is, if he is anything, a minister of the GOSPEL,
Rowland; the teachings of Jesus Christ. Now you can go quibble all you
want
about biblical-historical criticism, and how it calls into question if
Jesus
ever actually taught that Hell exists, and is a place of eternal torment,
but if you do that, then you have to be consistent, and accept as
questionable every other utterance of Jesus these same scholars, using
this
same methodology call into question, and when you do that there is very
little left of either the NT gospels themselves, or apostolic
Christianity.
But you don't do that do you? It's only when the conversation turns to
Hell
that you even bring up is malignant biblical scholar****p.
The fact is that for YEARS whenever you were given the chance to actually
MINISTER to someone in a newsgroup what you know is as true as salvation
by
grace through faith, or the fact of the Resurrection, or the three Divine
Persons in which the Godhead consists, or the redemption from sin by the
propitiatory shed blood of the Son of God, you don't. What you did was
throw about a dozen or so quotations at them from people with a wide
variety
of opinons on the subject, and say, "You decide", or words to that effect.
That's like taking someone who's really searching for the truth, the
BIBLICAL truth, and throwing them in a room full of all sorts of
characters
who have opinions about it, some of whom may be charlatans for all you
know.
And you do this sort of thing CONSTANTLY. What is it with you? Do you
think God called you to push people in the swimming pool and just walk
away
with a cavalier, "It's really up to you"; and that's supposed to be
teaching
them to swim??? Yet you have no problem taking the same attitude as you
toss the vulnerable neophyte into an ocean of human opinions, calling out
to
them, "It's really up to you". You really think anyone needs you to point
out to them they are free to make up their own minds? You think that's
been
the underserved foundational principle in Christianity until you arrived
on
the scene?
No, Rowland, you've never "categorically" stated you are a universalist.
You've just taken every op****tunity you ever had to either argue for that
belief yourself, or provide article after article by others who either do,
or express sympathy for that belief. That makes you worse than a
universalist, Rowland, for a universalist is "either warm or cold" (they
TAKE A STAND), and you are neither.
Chuck Stamford
|
