Chuck Stamford wrote:
> "**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?
LOL! Trust you to call it right Chuck.
> 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.
>
Right. We don't need him to tell us we can make up our mind about
anything. His 'ministry' seems to be just supplying various views.
> And you do this sort of thing CONSTANTLY.
He does!
> 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
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'I'm not young enough to know everything' -Oscar Wilde
|
