Virgil Vaduva: Why is Universalism such a bad conclusion to preterist eschatology IF that indeed ends up being the conclusion?
I see a problem with the way a lot of peoples thinking happens in this context, which is kind of backwards:
1. People know universalism to be false and really really bad and scary.
2. People learn about preterism.
3. They start asking questions about redemption, and universal reconciliation.
4. They back off the questions because the conclusions about those items were already reached. (see step 1)
Shouldn't it be more like this?
1.People know universalism to be false and really really bad and scary.
2. People learn about preterism.
3. They start asking questions about redemption, and universal reconciliation.
4. Theyback off ask the questions because the conclusions about those items were already not reached and they want to learn more and explore the possibilities offered by universal atonement. (no step 1)
planetpreterist.com/news-5448.html#38370
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/03/virgil-vaduva-why-is-universalism-such.html
I see a problem with the way a lot of peoples thinking happens in this context, which is kind of backwards:
1. People know universalism to be false and really really bad and scary.
2. People learn about preterism.
3. They start asking questions about redemption, and universal reconciliation.
4. They back off the questions because the conclusions about those items were already reached. (see step 1)
Shouldn't it be more like this?
1.
2. People learn about preterism.
3. They start asking questions about redemption, and universal reconciliation.
4. They
planetpreterist.com/news-5448.html#38370
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/03/virgil-vaduva-why-is-universalism-such.html
