If I may answer that one Caroleem:
-they’re on my TV every night. Do you think that, just because they make the right noises and shout ‘Halelujah’ that they REALLY believe?
Jesus said He NEVER knew them.
Of course Jesus knew who they were, knew their works etc, Jesus didn’t deny that they casted out devils and performed miracles in his name, but Jesus didn’t know them intimately like a bride does his groom. If you don’t spend time with someone and turn your back on them to do your own thing…would you know them? These are believers who started out born again and got way off on their doctrine and did their own thing. ( example Jim Jones, Carlton Pearson)
Thats because they were never born again to begin with.
Jim Jones and Carlton Pearson had at one time a powerful ministry where the power of God moved and miracle after miracle happen until they got way off in their doctrine and went their own way. These two men were born again, Caroleem. How does this have anything to do with my OP? Your belief in once saved always saved is wrong and not the topic of this discussion. So can we please move this convo back to the OP. Thank you. 
You have no authority to say if Jim Jones was really born again. His actions certainly wasn’t that of someone who is truly born again. That would be sheer ignorance to say he was truly saved and i don’t believe you have hat kind of knowledge. Same with Carlton Pearson. Jim Jones was the leader of a satanic cult. That right there should tell you something.
You didn’t really answer me, Caroleem.
I’ve spoken to devout ETC believing evangelicals about Carlton Pearson. Many of them believe that concentrating on Hell as the point of the Gospel is actually rather wrong and basically said Carlton missed the point both in the past and now about the same (I believe this, as well, since Carlton currently appears to deny the Lake of Fire, while I don’t). We’re not supposed to devote our life to saving people from Hell, ETC or not. We’re supposed to preach the Truth.
I would generally consider born again a person who has changed due to the influence of God. I am not aware of either Jim or Carlton underwent such change, tbh. Fortunately, this doesn’t necessitate 100% correct theology, otherwise we’d all be screwed, since we’re all somewhat wrong.
Hi Revival
Sorry I haven’t replied sooner, but have been a bit busy of late.
As you might expect 
I disagree entirely with your interpretation of Romans. And I’m sorry to say that you are doing precisely what you accuse others, including me, of - ie quoting scripture out of context to support your interpretation.
As Thomas Talbott explains so well in his book The Inescapable Love of God and other published essays freely available on the internet, Romans 9 to 11 is a sustained and careful treatise on how God’s love and His wrath are both expressions of his mercy, and that He saves some people (as exemplified by “the faithful remnant” of Israel) in a different way to how He saves others (the “non-remnant”) - and He does that by hardening them, making them vessels of wrath.
As Talbott puts it: “For here Paul explicitly states that God’s severity towards the disobedient, his judgment of sin, even his willingness to blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the disobedient, are expressions of a more fundamental quality, that of mercy, which is itself an expression of his purifying love.”
When you quote invividual verses from Romans 9-11, you completely miss the ‘big picture’, which is that God has saving mercy on ALL Israel. And anyway, the scriptures couldn’t be more explicit than this, Romans 11 vv7-11:
"What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, 8 as it is written:
“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that could not see
and ears that could not hear,
to this very day.”
9 And David says:
“May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10 May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever.”
11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!
As for the words in Romans 9 vv6-8 about not all which are of Israel actually being Israel, that poses no problem for Paul’s universalism. Says Talbott: “Within the nation Israel there has always been a distinction between the true Israel and those who remain disobedient (Romans 9:6-8). But now, says Paul, God is fashioning from the one lump of Israel two vessels: One will be a vessel that brings honor unto himself, and it will consist of the vessels of mercy, the true Israel; the other will be a vessel that brings no honor unto himself, and it will consist of the vessels of wrath.”
Simples!
Paul was explicitly a universalist. Had he not been, how could he *possibly *have written the following:
"Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5 vv18-19)
Or this:
“For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Cor 15 v22)
That, my friend, is as plain as the nose on your face. Paul was a universalist. QED! 
And another thing, Revival
Sorry, I missed that. Where does it say that please?
And by the way, lumping an obviously Godly and loving man like Carlton Pearson in with a psychopathic atheist nutcase like Jim Jones is deeply offensive. 
That, my friend, is a clear example of one ignoring the context given you in Rom 9:2-3; 27 and making Rom 5:18-19 and 1 Cor 15:22 say what they don’t say. Explain to me why Paul wished to be accursed for his brethren if he believed in UR? If you understand what the Greek definition of **accursed **means Paul had no need to use it if he believed in UR. Also Paul said only a remnant will be saved not every Jew who has ever lived. There is no way to tap dance around this unless you flat out deny the truth.
Hi Revival
Revival, did you actually read my post? I made the point, quoting Thomas Talbott, that chapters 9, 10 and 11 of Romans constitute a sustained argument leading to a universalistic conclusion. You need to read the whole argument carefully right through to the end to understand what Paul is saying. His statement about being accursed for the sake of his unbelieving brethren in verses 2-3 is merely an introductory remark to indicate the strength of his feeling on this matter. And by quoting verse 27 out of context, outside of the overarching universalistic framework – one in which, remember, some Israelites are vessels of wrath destined for destruction – as a means of their eventual salvation, you render Paul’s carefully constructed argument nonsensical.
Paul never “wished to be accursed” for his brethren. What he actually said was “I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people”. This is eastern hyperbole expressing the strength of his feelings.
And I know what anathema means. As Paidion has eloquently pointed out in an earlier post, you stretch it way beyond its actual meaning. But its meaning is beside the point anyway, because what Paul is anguishing over is the fact that while the Jews persist in their unbelief they are cut off from the blessings of salvation in Christ.
Which is the state all of us are in until we come to saving faith in Christ. Some of us do not come to that saving faith at all in this life. Some of us, including, no doubt, some of Paul’s own unbelieving brethren, may need to undergo severe and prolonged chastisement in “hell’ before they do come to saving faith. And that is what Paul wished to save them from – save all of us from, in fact.
Huh? Those two texts are explicit endorsements of UR. They speak for themselves (and for Paul, of course). How, pray, does quoting them “make them say what they don’t say”? Surely it’s the other way around, they say what they do say. Plainly. Clearly. In an easy to understand but utterly convincing grammatical construction.
I’m not sure why you’re having such trouble understanding the plain English here, but I’ll spell it out for you if you like:
Romans 5 v18: “Just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all men, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all men.” All means all. Not one single person who has ever lived (except Jesus, obviously) is free from the condemnation that came on the human race through Adam’s sin. In exactly the same way, every single person who has ever lived (except Jesus) receives “justification and life” as a result of Jesus’ sacrifice. Universalism, plain and simple. Any other reading of this text is pure, theologically biased eisegesis.
And just in case we didn’t get the message the first time around, Paul rams it home again in the next verse: “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many (ie all human beings except Adam and Christ) were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man (Christ) the many (all human beings except Christ) will be made righteous.” Again, universalism, plain and simple.
1 Cor 15 is, if anything, even plainer: “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Call me stupid, but what’s not to understand here? We all die in Adam –– every last man, woman and child of us – and we will all be made alive in Christ – every last man, woman and child of us. Plain, unvarnished truth.
Sorry, but Paul tap dances directly into the conclusion that all Jews – and by extension all people – will be saved, at the end of his argument at the end of Romans 11:
Romans 11 vv30-32: “Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God (ie all Christians) have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. For God has bound everyone (and that means every person who has ever lived, because surely you agree we were all once unconverted sinners) over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all (which means what it says – all).
The summation of the argument, as I posted originally, is that God binds sinners over to disobedience so that He may have mercy on them! And that, my friend, is Pauline universalism.
I would suggest you download and read chapter 5 of Thomas Talbott’s *The Inescapable Love of God *(free) from his website. It is a philosophically, logically and entirely scripturally rigorous – watertight, even – exposition of Paul’s universalism in Romans. Indeed, Dr Talbott makes a far, far better job of this than I could ever do on this forum.
Shalom
Johnny
PS I ask you again, where in the Bible does it say that the grafting in of the branches happens in this life?
Excellent points, Johnny! It’s funny, I always thought the idea of Paul “wishing himself accursed” worked against ECT because I don’t think anyone would be able to wish themselves eternally damned in the Lake of Fire for a fellow countryman (maybe for my wife or kids, but not my fellow countrymen, and even that would be hard because you are talking about eternity). It makes much more coherent sense to say that Paul wished that he could take their punishment for them, that he could stand in their place so that they wouldn’t have to be punished. The picture of the punishment is, no doubt, painful, and Paul is wishing that they could take the less painful road to life, rather than one that passes through the fire. I don’t think anyone would be able to wish eternal damnation on themselves, but they could take on an age of punishment **since it has an end. ** Revival forgets that most of us do believe that there will be harsh punishment, though not eternal, just “aionion” “age enduring”.
This thread, having been started by Aaron Curry (aka “Revival” among other pseudonyms and nicknames on the board), is being locked down pursuant to review of Aaron’s banning from the board. Other threads started by Aaron (and possibly some threads with his majority participation) will also be locked down at the convenience of the ad/mods, in order to protect Aaron from receiving critiques while he is unable to defend himself.