cool, what you said was reasonable and understandable 
so we’re all friends again?
Allan, I’ve read a number of your posts and you seem like an intelligent enough guy, but there’s an attitude of flippancy that also comes across that does a lot more to undermine whatever good points or questions you have. I consider your question about not having a clue beneath you. Of course we have a clue. The Bible DOES have a unified message. The various stories are reconcilable, although tension certainly exists with some statements and historical / cultural references.
Nature itself reveals God and the grace of God reveals more knowledge of God. Having right doctrine does not guarantee salvation by any means, but it most certainly can indicate that a man might be saved than a man who has twisted doctrine. Do you agree? The Holy Spirit leads His people into truth. Tensions existed amongst the early church just like they do now-because the saints still struggle with sin. I love God-though quite imperfectly-because He has caused me to be born of the Spirit and He first loved me. If the UR God is real, why then do so many still reject Him?
Matt
Yup! Mmmm…you mean there was a time when we weren’t?! 
Matt
of course not! i exaggerate 
Who had the best clue during the Reformation? Was it Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Knox, Erasmus or the Pope? If you can judge between them, you’re a better man than I. Which of the 20000 Christian denominations is closest to the truth in our own time? If the Bible is unified and perspicacious, and if the Holy Spirit is really, really interested in getting our doctrines correct, how can you explain the fact that every man and his dog keep seeing things differently?
Again, are we Gnostic or are we Christian? Are we saved by the purity of our belief, or are we saved by the grace of God?
There’s nothing flippant about my solution to this impasse. I begin with my intuition of the good. I can only love a God whom I find lovable. I only can respect a sacred text that reveals a God who is lovable. The Calvinist God might well be real, but I could not love him, and I’m always surprised by people who say they can. Certainly, if my human father acted in a similar way, I would find it very hard indeed to love him, and if I did, it would only be by first forgiving his manifest, eccentric and destructive faults.
I speak from long experience here. My mother is a staunch Calvinist who believes God picks and chooses, and discards whomsoever he will. It’s all our fault anyway, you see, and it’s a mercy that He condescends to save anyone etc. Yet she herself is the sweetest of souls who literally wouldn’t hurt a fly. The contrast between God and worshiper is both comic and tragic. It has brought us all much grief over the years. Were she more godly, she would act like her God, electing some of her children to her favor, rejecting others for no reason etc. But she doesn’t act like her God. In her heart, by the true God’s grace, she intuitively knows better.
The fruit isn’t ripe.
I think we’re kind-of getting off the point of this thread; it would be better to start up a thread on relative godly behavior or the question of unified vs. disunified testimony of the scriptures.
Which also reminds me I want to get back to the relative assurance levels thread. 
I’ve been holding back to let things cool down a bit for a while first, though.
Jaxxen/Matt – apologies for less than adequate moderation on my part. I haven’t been present much at all in the last several months for various reasons. I hope you’ll feel free to send a private note to moderators if you feel something requires attention.
Sonia
Hey AllanS,
I can relate to you as my family are quite staunch in their beliefs.
Questioning God and his ways is not an option. My Uncle who is very intellectual finds my belief “illogical”.
He believes anyone with any logic, and intelligence can simply dismiss UR.
This is not the case at all. There are many, many UR believers that do in-depth study, that ask the hard questions and find answers for them, while respecting God and his attributes. I believe in harmonizing the bible, rather then agreeing with something I could never understand or believe.
I’m seen as a “foolish little girl” who only seeks sensationalism, when really I’m just trying to figure out why my heart goes into dismay when I think that the only true God out there would actually burn his people forever.
Some time ago, a friend gave me an A-Z dictionary of theology. I was astounded. How could good-hearted, smart, informed people come up with so many different ways of looking at things? It was immediately clear that my own theology was as likely to be wrong as anyone’s, in which case there was little point defending it too earnestly. Since then, it’s been my policy (very imperfectly executed) to state my position as clearly as I can, and if someone finds it helpful, I’m glad. In return, I listen to their position politely. I also may find something helpful. The alternative to a friendly exchange of views (I’ve found from long experience) is to risk the conversation degenerating into a chest-thumping match between alpha males (or alpha male wannabees), usually in the presence of adoring females. It all becomes pretty basic, banal, boring and biological.
One great benefit of universalism is to relieve the urgency and reduce the temperature of theological discourse. We’re saved by God, not by doctrinal purity or the quality of our belief, and God really does have all the time in the world. It’s not our job to judge His servants (even ones we find odious), ridicule their thinking or call them rude names. God will give us correction and clarity as we grow large enough to receive them, and from what I’ve seen, he often changes the heart before he changes the head.
I find myself in whole-hearted agreement, Allan. Thank you!
Sonia
If God can save us all (but won’t), he is not good.
If God wants to save us all (by can’t), he is not sovereign.
If God is both good and sovereign, he will want to save us all, and he will.
Seems pretty logical to me.
Ditto!
Jaxxen dittoed that in principle, too, btw–and has typically done so in practice. It’s one of the good sides of Calvinism, from our standpoint. 
Calvinists of a different temperament are busy looking for the non-elect, of course (and/or don’t believe any kind of regeneration of the elect can begin before certain doctrinal positions are affirmed by the person, in practice if not in principle), which leads to many of the problems anti-Calvs feel it’s important to denounce vocally: the unregenerate have no good in them at all except for deceitful dangerous appearances of good, and they should be treated accordingly until when-if-ever God begins regenerating them.
But other Calvs in practice (not only in principle) keep in mind that, according to their theology, regeneration begins before conversion (which is something I agree with in principle, by the way–I just regard the process as starting at the moment of rationality, or at least at the moment of the first rational sin), consequently people who aren’t yet formally Christians in any sense may already be becoming (and doing) truly good things. Christians ought to keep an eye out for any apparent good in someone, no matter how faint it seems, and act to foster it, hopefully cooperating with God thereby in ministering to the elect (even when they’re pre-Christian elect). And if the Christian turns out to be wrong about that (assuming some kind of principly Calv soteriology is true), the Christian still acted in good faith.
Which naturally leads to the difficulty of investing emotionally and spiritually in people who may after all turn out to be non-elect (and several related problems); but the point is that such Calvinists would strenuously agree that we should at least be very careful about denouncing other people as servants of Moloch etc. We ought to be concentrating more on what (we believe) they’re doing right, and working with them along those lines, moderating the negative criticism for special occasions where the criticism can be presented in light of agreements with each other.
There is no reason why Arminians can’t do the same thing, of course, and many do. The salient difference is that in principle they look for the good of God’s calling in everyone, but don’t have assurance He will persist in saving them from sin; whereas Calvinists may look for the good of God’s calling in everyone, but can’t expect to find it in everyone. But unlike Arminians they can be assured no real good in anyone will ever be void or hopelessly lost: any real good is God’s pledge of persistence to salvation.
Kaths believe both assurances – so we ought to act even better than Arms and Calvs in this regard!
[tag]jaxxen[/tag] I apologise for the timing of the posting of the thesis. I hadn’t read the thread where there was tensions & posted just posted it at that time because Keith DeRose & a few others were discussing it on FaceBook.
No problem, Alex! I agree that no one can be aware of all the different topics-let alone posts-going on. I was a little prickly but I vented and feel like I got what was on my chest off of it…Now, where are these adoring females that Allan has spoken of?
I was hoping no one would notice that comment 
What have you started, Allan! 
Wait, what did Allan say about females? With all the fuss I had to look back. I was expecting something way more juicy! You can’t get one over on any of us, I guess. Just when you think no one is looking, everyone is.
I’d be happy with just one adoring female I could adore and chest-thump for.
In that regard, Jaxxen is certainly far ahead of where I am!