When I read something in my daily readings that excites me, I just want to post it. Simple as that.

Today from my daily reading from Matthew's Gospel:

25:40-46

And the king will answer them, 'Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.' Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?' Then he will answer them, 'Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

dermdoc said:

---

When I read something in my daily readings that excites me, I just want to post it. Simple as that.

---

Are you saying that it doesn't excite you EVERY day?

It was pre-ordained that he would only get excited about daily readings that could be misconstrued into annihilationism

10andBOUNCE said:

---

---

Sure they do. Read the first verse of my Scripture post.

Ah yes, a letter to Titus reminding him that God's grace is not only for the Jew but also the Gentile. Quite applicable to Titus, a Gentile himself, leading a Gentile church. He also reminds Titus that the Lord gave Himself for "a people".

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Ah yes, a letter to Titus reminding him that God's grace is not only for the Jew but also the Gentile. Quite applicable to Titus, a Gentile himself, leading a Gentile church. He also reminds Titus that the Lord gave Himself for "a people".

---

My translation says all people. Is it wrong? I checked and it is "all" in the KJv, NiV, and ESV. What am I missing?
And I really just meant for people to enjoy a Scripture in my readings today.

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Ah yes, a letter to Titus reminding him that God's grace is not only for the Jew but also the Gentile. Quite applicable to Titus, a Gentile himself, leading a Gentile church. He also reminds Titus that the Lord gave Himself for "a people".

---

My translation says all people. Is it wrong? I checked and it is "all" in the KJv, NiV, and ESV. What am I missing?
And I really just meant for people to enjoy a Scripture in my readings today.

---

The first "all" - Jew and Gentile. But gave Himself for A people.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Ah yes, a letter to Titus reminding him that God's grace is not only for the Jew but also the Gentile. Quite applicable to Titus, a Gentile himself, leading a Gentile church. He also reminds Titus that the Lord gave Himself for "a people".

---

My translation says all people. Is it wrong? I checked and it is "all" in the KJv, NiV, and ESV. What am I missing?
And I really just meant for people to enjoy a Scripture in my readings today.

---

The first "all" - Jew and Gentile. But gave Himself for A people.

---

Where is that in Scripture?

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Ah yes, a letter to Titus reminding him that God's grace is not only for the Jew but also the Gentile. Quite applicable to Titus, a Gentile himself, leading a Gentile church. He also reminds Titus that the Lord gave Himself for "a people".

---

My translation says all people. Is it wrong? I checked and it is "all" in the KJv, NiV, and ESV. What am I missing?
And I really just meant for people to enjoy a Scripture in my readings today.

---

The first "all" - Jew and Gentile. But gave Himself for A people.

---

Where is that in Scripture?

---

It's the context of the letter and the NT letters in general.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Ah yes, a letter to Titus reminding him that God's grace is not only for the Jew but also the Gentile. Quite applicable to Titus, a Gentile himself, leading a Gentile church. He also reminds Titus that the Lord gave Himself for "a people".

---

My translation says all people. Is it wrong? I checked and it is "all" in the KJv, NiV, and ESV. What am I missing?
And I really just meant for people to enjoy a Scripture in my readings today.

---

The first "all" - Jew and Gentile. But gave Himself for A people.

---

Where is that in Scripture?

---

It's the context of the letter and the NT letters in general.

---

I would bet the only people who translate that verse that way are Calvinist which is about 1-3% of Christians. And no idea how it came to this argument. I am bowing out. Shalom.

Derm, I respect you greatly, but why are you bashing Calvinism because it's the viewpoint of only 1-3% of Christians? That critique seems unfair seeing that your position/viewpoint of Christianity is also held by a vast minority.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Ah yes, a letter to Titus reminding him that God's grace is not only for the Jew but also the Gentile. Quite applicable to Titus, a Gentile himself, leading a Gentile church. He also reminds Titus that the Lord gave Himself for "a people".

---

My translation says all people. Is it wrong? I checked and it is "all" in the KJv, NiV, and ESV. What am I missing?
And I really just meant for people to enjoy a Scripture in my readings today.

---

The first "all" - Jew and Gentile. But gave Himself for A people.

---

Where is that in Scripture?

---

It's the context of the letter and the NT letters in general.

---

I would bet the only people who translate that verse that way are Calvinist which is about 1-3% of Christians. And no idea how it came to this argument. I am bowing out. Shalom.

---

And I'd bet you're the only Christian on this board that translates it the way you do because you seem to be the only universalist.

The invitation is for all people, Jew and Gentile, but not every single person will be saved.

(I don't know what that has to do with Calvinism)

---

Because Calvinism says only the elect will be saved, correct? So salvation is not available to all people?

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Ah yes, a letter to Titus reminding him that God's grace is not only for the Jew but also the Gentile. Quite applicable to Titus, a Gentile himself, leading a Gentile church. He also reminds Titus that the Lord gave Himself for "a people".

---

My translation says all people. Is it wrong? I checked and it is "all" in the KJv, NiV, and ESV. What am I missing?
And I really just meant for people to enjoy a Scripture in my readings today.

---

The first "all" - Jew and Gentile. But gave Himself for A people.

---

Where is that in Scripture?

---

It's the context of the letter and the NT letters in general.

---

I would bet the only people who translate that verse that way are Calvinist which is about 1-3% of Christians. And no idea how it came to this argument. I am bowing out. Shalom.

---

And I'd bet you're the only Christian on this board that translates it the way you do because you seem to be the only universalist.

The invitation is for all people, Jew and Gentile, but not every single person will be saved.

(I don't know what that has to do with Calvinism)

---

Because Calvinism says only the elect Wilber saved, correct? So salvation is not available to all people?

---

I didn't say anything about election.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Ah yes, a letter to Titus reminding him that God's grace is not only for the Jew but also the Gentile. Quite applicable to Titus, a Gentile himself, leading a Gentile church. He also reminds Titus that the Lord gave Himself for "a people".

---

My translation says all people. Is it wrong? I checked and it is "all" in the KJv, NiV, and ESV. What am I missing?
And I really just meant for people to enjoy a Scripture in my readings today.

---

The first "all" - Jew and Gentile. But gave Himself for A people.

---

Where is that in Scripture?

---

It's the context of the letter and the NT letters in general.

---

I would bet the only people who translate that verse that way are Calvinist which is about 1-3% of Christians. And no idea how it came to this argument. I am bowing out. Shalom.

---

And I'd bet you're the only Christian on this board that translates it the way you do because you seem to be the only universalist.

The invitation is for all people, Jew and Gentile, but not every single person will be saved.

(I don't know what that has to do with Calvinism)

---

Because Calvinism says only the elect Wilber saved, correct? So salvation is not available to all people?

---

I didn't say anything about election.

---

Okay. So do you agree with the Scripture that salvation is offered to all people?

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Ah yes, a letter to Titus reminding him that God's grace is not only for the Jew but also the Gentile. Quite applicable to Titus, a Gentile himself, leading a Gentile church. He also reminds Titus that the Lord gave Himself for "a people".

---

My translation says all people. Is it wrong? I checked and it is "all" in the KJv, NiV, and ESV. What am I missing?
And I really just meant for people to enjoy a Scripture in my readings today.

---

The first "all" - Jew and Gentile. But gave Himself for A people.

---

Where is that in Scripture?

---

It's the context of the letter and the NT letters in general.

---

I would bet the only people who translate that verse that way are Calvinist which is about 1-3% of Christians. And no idea how it came to this argument. I am bowing out. Shalom.

---

And I'd bet you're the only Christian on this board that translates it the way you do because you seem to be the only universalist.

The invitation is for all people, Jew and Gentile, but not every single person will be saved.

(I don't know what that has to do with Calvinism)

---

Because Calvinism says only the elect Wilber saved, correct? So salvation is not available to all people?

---

I didn't say anything about election.

---

Okay. So do you agree with the Scripture that salvation is offered to all people?

---

There is a general sharing of the gospel to all people, Jew AND Gentile. Not everyone will accept the gospel as truth, however.

TeddyAg0422 said:

---

Derm, I respect you greatly, but why are you bashing Calvinism because it's the viewpoint of only 1-3% of Christians? That critique seems unfair seeing that your position/viewpoint of Christianity is also held by a vast minority.

---

25-50% is a lot more than 1-3%. Just Google what % of Christians are universalists. Not Unitarian Universalists. Christian Universalists. And there a lot more links than AI. I do disagree with the people who think all roads lead to God or that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. I am talking about Christian Universalism which has always comprised a pretty significant percentage of Christian theology.

And a list of Christian saints who believed in ultimate reconciliation.https://www.google.com/search?q=christian+saints+who+believed+in+universalism&client=safari&hs=EYFW&sca_esv=6375638c50974878&channel=iphone_bm&sxsrf=AKL5yDg4Y1MMvb6VkhDqOnAhbIKLAjq8HQ%3A1793468488917

That's an incredibly small number compared to the Saints that do believe in it. Probably far less than 1-3%. So if your argument holds, maybe they're saved in spite of their false belief in ultimate reconciliation? As the Churches canonizing them don't believe these things themselves

Also, I just want to make one thing clear, though I think you already know this. I, and I think all Catholics, desire for everyone to be saved. I don't want anyone to suffer in hell. But my submission of will and intellect to a higher authority binds me to believe people do go to hell and will suffer in perpetuity.

TeddyAg0422 said:

---

Also, I just want to make one thing clear, though I think you already know this. I, and I think all Catholics, desire for everyone to be saved. I don't want anyone to suffer in hell. But my submission of will and intellect to a higher authority binds me to believe people do go to hell and will suffer in perpetuity.

---

I understand and respect that about Catholics.

Guys guys guys y'all all need to calm down.

Obviously the Calvinist and the Universalist are both wrong….

dermdoc said:

---

TeddyAg0422 said:

---

Derm, I respect you greatly, but why are you bashing Calvinism because it's the viewpoint of only 1-3% of Christians? That critique seems unfair seeing that your position/viewpoint of Christianity is also held by a vast minority.

---

25-50% is a lot more than 1-3%. Just Google what % of Christians are universalists. Not Unitarian Universalists. Christian Universalists. And there a lot more links than AI. I do disagree with the people who think all roads lead to God or that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. I am talking about Christian Universalism which has always comprised a pretty significant percentage of Christian theology.

---

Come on Dermdoc that poll doesn't even make any sense.

Surveys like the Barna Group and Ligonier's State of Theology repeatedly show that ordinary Protestant American lay churchgoers have notoriously poor theological literacy.

When polled, 25% to 40% will casually check "yes" to statements like "all religions basically lead to God" or "good people go to heaven" simply because they have absorbed modern, secular American pluralism ("be nice, don't judge"), not because they have studied or embraced universalist theology.

Those poll numbers aren't measuring a robust theological movement. They're measuring the complete doctrinal collapse and theological illiteracy of modern American Protestantism.

When 25% to 50% of "born-again" Christians tell pollsters that all religions teach the same core truths or that everyone goes to heaven, they aren't quoting Origen or reading academic Patristics. They're demonstrating what happens when you reduce Christianity to individual private interpretation detached from the historic Creeds, Councils, and Church authority. People just conform to the secular pluralism of the culture around them.

I have argued pretty vehemently that the average protestant has no clue what it is that their belief system holds.

I run into this pretty much weekly with potential protestant to Christian Orthodox converts.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TeddyAg0422 said:

---

Derm, I respect you greatly, but why are you bashing Calvinism because it's the viewpoint of only 1-3% of Christians? That critique seems unfair seeing that your position/viewpoint of Christianity is also held by a vast minority.

---

25-50% is a lot more than 1-3%. Just Google what % of Christians are universalists. Not Unitarian Universalists. Christian Universalists. And there a lot more links than AI. I do disagree with the people who think all roads lead to God or that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. I am talking about Christian Universalism which has always comprised a pretty significant percentage of Christian theology.

---

Come on Dermdoc that poll doesn't even make any sense.

Surveys like the Barna Group and Ligonier's State of Theology repeatedly show that ordinary Protestant American lay churchgoers have notoriously poor theological literacy.

When polled, 25% to 40% will casually check "yes" to statements like "all religions basically lead to God" or "good people go to heaven" simply because they have absorbed modern, secular American pluralism ("be nice, don't judge"), not because they have studied or embraced universalist theology.

Those poll numbers aren't measuring a robust theological movement. They're measuring the complete doctrinal collapse and theological illiteracy of modern American Protestantism.

When 25% to 50% of "born-again" Christians tell pollsters that all religions teach the same core truths or that everyone goes to heaven, they aren't quoting Origen or reading academic Patristics. They're demonstrating what happens when you reduce Christianity to individual private interpretation detached from the historic Creeds, Councils, and Church authority. People just conform to the secular pluralism of the culture around them.

I have argued pretty vehemently that the average protestant has no clue what it is that their belief system holds.

I run into this pretty much weekly with potential protestant to Christian Orthodox converts.

---

I posted the link after I was told that Christian universalists were a minuscule percentage of Christianity. I do not think historically that is true. And I certainly believe it is larger percentage than the 1-3% who claim to be Calvinists.

Not that we could ever know but always sobering to think on how many people who label themselves Christians that are actually saved.

It makes logical sense that Calvinism once dominated the Protestant landscape and as time has gone on, religion has only become more liberal over time.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TeddyAg0422 said:

---

Derm, I respect you greatly, but why are you bashing Calvinism because it's the viewpoint of only 1-3% of Christians? That critique seems unfair seeing that your position/viewpoint of Christianity is also held by a vast minority.

---

25-50% is a lot more than 1-3%. Just Google what % of Christians are universalists. Not Unitarian Universalists. Christian Universalists. And there a lot more links than AI. I do disagree with the people who think all roads lead to God or that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. I am talking about Christian Universalism which has always comprised a pretty significant percentage of Christian theology.

---

Come on Dermdoc that poll doesn't even make any sense.

Surveys like the Barna Group and Ligonier's State of Theology repeatedly show that ordinary Protestant American lay churchgoers have notoriously poor theological literacy.

When polled, 25% to 40% will casually check "yes" to statements like "all religions basically lead to God" or "good people go to heaven" simply because they have absorbed modern, secular American pluralism ("be nice, don't judge"), not because they have studied or embraced universalist theology.

Those poll numbers aren't measuring a robust theological movement. They're measuring the complete doctrinal collapse and theological illiteracy of modern American Protestantism.

When 25% to 50% of "born-again" Christians tell pollsters that all religions teach the same core truths or that everyone goes to heaven, they aren't quoting Origen or reading academic Patristics. They're demonstrating what happens when you reduce Christianity to individual private interpretation detached from the historic Creeds, Councils, and Church authority. People just conform to the secular pluralism of the culture around them.

I have argued pretty vehemently that the average protestant has no clue what it is that their belief system holds.

I run into this pretty much weekly with potential protestant to Christian Orthodox converts.

---

A Protestant in agreement. Was one myself for most of my life, sadly. Truly, sadly. So much wasted time.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Not that we could ever know but always sobering to think on how many people who label themselves Christians that are actually saved.

It makes logical sense that Calvinism once dominated the Protestant landscape and as time has gone on, religion has only become more liberal over time.

---

Maybe we should burn a new Servatus at the stake? Or hang or burn "witches? Or preach sermons like "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" that leads to suicides? I do not think that is how Christ revealed God's character. And I am as conservative politically as they come.
And Catholics were just as bad but had better theology. Don't believe the Orthodox were as blood thirsty. And I believe the Orthodox consider Calvinism a heresy. Kind of like my universalism

Or do you want to go back more recently to when the Evangelicals stated slavery was Scriptural and women were second class citizens? What exactly do you want to go back to? None of that is Christ like. Dadgum "religious liberals". By their fruits ye shall know them.

I'm not talking about political conservatism. I know I have mentioned this before, but at the outset of the 18th century the majority of Baptist churches were Calvinistic with a large portion even subscribing to the Westminster standards.

The first and second Great Awakenings and revival movements certainly played a role in the personal conversion of people that could often be focused mainly on an a type of encounter or experience and ultimately public invitations to accept Christ. Changes to missions also had an impact, and ultimately the southern Baptists embraced human responsibility in lieu of the growing revivalistic nature of churches in that period.

As far as Liberalism, it ultimately boils down to replacing Biblical doctrine with experience, and this obviously happens today as it did basically throughout human history, with my example of the 18th century applicable to a downward trend in Calvinistic theology. So a fair question to keep in mind for us today with this question of who a true believer actually is, is how well a church is developing and teaching doctrine of who God is, versus an emphasis on programming and overall experience.

The apostle John hits on this important of "knowing" God and it being the root of it all. We can't love God if we don't know him. We can't know him without doctrine. 1 John 2 would be a good reference point.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I'm not talking about political conservatism. I know I have mentioned this before, but at the outset of the 18th century the majority of Baptist churches were Calvinistic with a large portion even subscribing to the Westminster standards.

The first and second Great Awakenings and revival movements certainly played a role in the personal conversion of people that could often be focused mainly on an a type of encounter or experience and ultimately public invitations to accept Christ. Changes to missions also had an impact, and ultimately the southern Baptists embraced human responsibility in lieu of the growing revivalistic nature of churches in that period.

As far as Liberalism, it ultimately boils down to replacing Biblical doctrine with experience, and this obviously happens today as it did basically throughout human history, with my example of the 18th century applicable to a downward trend in Calvinistic theology. So a fair question to keep in mind for us today with this question of who a true believer actually is, is how well a church is developing and teaching doctrine of who God is, versus an emphasis on programming and overall experience.

The apostle John hits on this important of "knowing" God and it being the root of it all. We can't love God if we don't know him. We can't know him without doctrine. 1 John 2 would be a good reference point.

---

Agree. The problem is which doctrine is followed. And different doctrines teach very different "characters" of God. Each has Scripture to back up their doctrine. How we view the character of God basically defines who we are, how we act, everything.