Chuck Stamford wrote:
> "Chris Bell" <cbell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:OYtVj.37$IK1.15@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>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? 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,
>>
>>Nonsense. Anyone can parrot off a statement of beliefs, without actually
>>believing a word of it. Integrity is the living out of those beliefs,
even
>>while not necessarily believing them.
>
>
> Integrity is acting on beliefs you don't have??? Have you gone 'round
the
> bend, Chris?
>
Possibly. But I have a different take on beliefs to you. Where is it in
the gospels that someone says to Jesus "Help me in my unbelief"?
What we actually need is faith, even without belief. Have faith in
Jesus, even in unbelief, and you are acting with integrity. Notice that
the operative word is "acting".
> Besides, who said anything about "parroting" a statement of beliefs. I
said
> it takes integrity to make one's TRUE beliefs KNOWN, and then defend
them
> against all comers.
>
And I repeat my point is that it is only when you are tested in action
that you discover what you truly believe, or at least that is my
experience. Hence the power of almost all good literature and movies.
When have you had to pit your life or home or friends or family against
what you believe? The book of Job is in the bible for a good reason.
>
>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>See above. Rowland takes many "stands" as you call them, and I would
never
>>call him either warm or cold. He is definitely in the "hot" category!
>
>
> Easy to say, Chris. Give me an example of Rowland making a firm, clear
> expression of a belief he has, and then justifying it against its
> challengers.
>
I will let Rowland speak for himself, but in my experience he has done
pretty well in going into bat for those who cannot do it themselves. Two
examples here in arc - Dawn and Ninere (?).
> I can cite you example after example where he has simply thrown a
panoply of
> differing beliefs at people who were truly seeking guidance in their
search
> for truth. Is that your idea of what a minister of the Gospel is
supposed
> to do?
>
Yes. Absolutely. How can you find truth if it is hidden under a bushel,
as the fundamentalists do? Don't you read your bible? (Rhetorical
question - I know you do, but have trouble with the interpretation! For
truth to be revealed, you must open every bushel, even if you don't like
what you find under it!)
>
>
>>
>>>Chuck Stamford
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Chris
>
>
>
Chris
|
