Open Invitation to All Universalists

[Zecryphon]

Attention all universalists! I am posting this to let you all know that Ben12 has been invited to the TCL forum, that's the main Lutheran forum, to engage in an open debate about the doctrine of Universalism. You are welcome to participate as well. We will be kind and respectful during this debate and welcome the free and open exchange of ideas. Ben12 has said in this very forum that he would love to debate this topic with the Lutherans. It is NOT a violation of that forum's rules. Debate by non-Lutherans is allowed. Please read the forum guidelines before participating so there are no misunderstandings about protocol or rules. So, time to step up Ben. Wanna come debate with us? A Yes or No answer will do nicely. We hope to see you all there. :wave:

[Tavita]

Do you mean this forum?

Theologia Crucis - Lutherans (http://foru.ms/f367)

[Zecryphon]

Do you mean this forum?

Theologia Crucis - Lutherans (http://foru.ms/f367)
Yes, that's the one. I've already started a thread there for the debate. So feel free to pop on over if you wish. :)

[Tavita]

1. Everyone is welcome to post socially, and people who are not full members may ask questions and indeed even debate. However, there is a limit to how much debating people who are not full members will be allowed. They will not be allowed to use TCL for proselytizing for other faiths, nor are they to repeatedly try to make the same point after it has been answered by full members. In general, the moderators will decide when this point has been reached. Points debated should be backed up by scripture and not by another denomination's catechism or resource for information. In other words, do not come to TCL to try to "teach" the Lutherans because you feel they are wrong.

TCL members will be allowed to defend the teachings and practices of the Evangelical Lutheran Church using both the Scriptures, as the primary norm, and the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as found in the Book of Concord of 1580, as the secondary source of teaching and doctrine.

Hi Zecryphon,

The above are part of the rules for TCL.

It states that TCL members can use both the scriptures and another book of their denomination, but others can only use scripture. Is this fair?

What if, during debate, someone accuses a universalist of prosetylizing, or teaching, while debating, for surely that is how it can look at times? I get the feeling it could be a little one sided.

:)

[Zecryphon]

Hi Zecryphon,

The above are part of the rules for TCL.

It states that TCL members can use both the scriptures and another book of their denomination, but others can only use scripture. Is this fair?

What if, during debate, someone accuses a universalist of prosetylizing, or teaching, while debating, for surely that is how it can look at times? I get the feeling it could be a little one sided.

:)
"Hi Zecryphon,

The above are part of the rules for TCL.

It states that TCL members can use both the scriptures and another book of their denomination, but others can only use scripture. Is this fair?"

I think it's fair. Since it is a Lutheran forum, of course the Book of Concord would be allowed as that is the Lutheran exposition of the scriptures and the confessional statements of the Lutheran faith. Why woudln't that book be allowed? I mean if the non-denom church had a book of confessional statements that it held to or a book of scriptural expostion that they used, I would fully expect them to refeerence it all the time in their own forum. I wouldn't think it's unfair at all. But non-denoms hate things like that, so therefore they don't have one.

"What if, during debate, someone accuses a universalist of prosetylizing, or teaching, while debating, for surely that is how it can look at times? I get the feeling it could be a little one sided."

We fully understand that you are there to promote the idea of universalism and why it is legitimate. People can accuse you of whatever they want and leave the thread based upon it. But I don't see the thread itself getting shut down by a mod if you stick to the rules. You can PM one of the mods of that forum to get a real answer to your question. I'm not a mod. I'm just trying to give Ben12, what he has so clearly asked for. He said a while ago that he would love to talk about this with Lutherans. Here's his chance. A post has already been made by a Lutheran about the doctrine of universalism. The debate is starting. I sincerely hope we're not left to debate this amongst ourselves.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

You have freedom of speech Ben, so long as you dont say what they dont want you to.^_^ Although Im not a Universalist, I would want a person to be able to communicate with me. Even if I dont like or believe what they say.

[PeacaHeaven]

I think they should be able to present their case here for Universalism using the bible only. If they're worried about it being an unfair debate why not ask the Lutherans to agree to only use the bible and the problem solved.

[Nadiine]

You have freedom of speech Ben, so long as you dont say what they dont want you to.^_^ Although Im not a Universalist, I would want a person to be able to communicate with me. Even if I dont like or believe what they say.
Well Michael from the threads I see everywhere, at least Ben is the one that's itching to push this so hard, so why wouldn't he want a debate thread aimed right at the subject?
He keeps promoting it everywhere - why not here? We all use the bible and that should be sufficient for both sides I would think.
His hands aren't tied behind his back as I see the posted rules mentioned here by Tavita - all it states is that a point can be made, but once it's rebutted or addressed sufficiently, you can't keep going back to it to use it as a support to promote it over and over.

That seems pretty legit. I dunno, I don't think it's unfair; just do the same thing they were doing in other threads using the bible.

Or if that's not 'fair enough' to them, maybe it can be opened in a different section? Just thinking out loud.:scratch:

[Zecryphon]

I think they should be able to present their case here for Universalism using the bible only. If they're worried about it being an unfair debate why not ask the Lutherans to agree to only use the bible and the problem solved.
If the Book of Concord is such a threat to them, they can formally ask that the Lutherans not use it. I don't think that would be unfair. But someone has to show up in that thread from the universalist camp. As far as I know, no one has.

[Nadiine]

If the Book of Concord is such a threat to them, they can formally ask that the Lutherans not use it. I don't think that would be unfair. But someone has to show up in that thread from the universalist camp. As far as I know, no one has.
Well lucky for us, Zech, somebody opened up yet ANOTHER "i don't think hell can be true" thread.

What is going on with people? "I dislike this, and it seems like overkill, therefore, IT CAN'T BE SO". I'm truly amazed at how people just shut out what they don't understand... rather than find out why it has to be so.

It doesn't matter WHAT God says so plainly, they find reasons and ways to 'make it go away' just by saying "that's not true". POOOOOOOOOF, they're wish comes true.
I'm truly shocked that people still think adultery is actually sin! LOL That seems to be one everybody accepts - i wonder why? They have to see the harm in it? I don't know.

But I assume "the crew" will be in the theology area on that new "hell" thread. :swoon:
I should start one that says I believe hell exists and people DESERVE to be there. :idea: :tutu:

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Well Michael from the threads I see everywhere, at least Ben is the one that's itching to push this so hard, so why wouldn't he want a debate thread aimed right at the subject?
He keeps promoting it everywhere - why not here? We all use the bible and that should be sufficient for both sides I would think.
His hands aren't tied behind his back as I see the posted rules mentioned here by Tavita - all it states is that a point can be made, but once it's rebutted or addressed sufficiently, you can't keep going back to it to use it as a support to promote it over and over.

That seems pretty legit. I dunno, I don't think it's unfair; just do the same thing they were doing in other threads using the bible.

Or if that's not 'fair enough' to them, maybe it can be opened in a different section? Just thinking out loud.:scratch: Ben would be at a disadvantage because few scriptures would support his belief. Since that is true, the other party should use the bible only, and let Ben use whatever he has.

[Nadiine]

Ben would be at a disadvantage because few scriptures would support his belief. Since that is true, the other party should use the bible only, and let Ben use whatever he has.
Yes that was suggested here too, I don't see why not.

I'm not familiar with the other writings and what they say, but it's very easy for Ben to even say, "I don't accept anything offered here except what's in the bible".
That would solve it I think. I think using the bible only is very fair for both sides. :wave:

[Zecryphon]

Well lucky for us, Zech, somebody opened up yet ANOTHER "i don't think hell can be true" thread.

What is going on with people? "I dislike this, and it seems like overkill, therefore, IT CAN'T BE SO". I'm truly amazed at how people just shut out what they don't understand... rather than find out why it has to be so.

It doesn't matter WHAT God says so plainly, they find reasons and ways to 'make it go away' just by saying "that's not true". POOOOOOOOOF, they're wish comes true.
I'm truly shocked that people still think adultery is actually sin! LOL That seems to be one everybody accepts - i wonder why? They have to see the harm in it? I don't know.

But I assume "the crew" will be in the theology area on that new "hell" thread. :swoon:
I should start one that says I believe hell exists and people DESERVE to be there.
"Well lucky for us, Zech, somebody opened up yet ANOTHER "i don't think hell can be true" thread."

I love how Ray Comfort answers statements such as that, "It doesn't matter what YOU think. It only matters what God says."


"What is going on with people?"

Idolatry. People love that God has made them in His own image so much, that they want to return the favor and make God in their own image.

""I dislike this, and it seems like overkill, therefore, IT CAN'T BE SO". I'm truly amazed at how people just shut out what they don't understand... rather than find out why it has to be so."

Some people just can't humble themselves before God and accept what He has made so plainly clear. Little children understand the doctrine of Hell. As we grow older we forget that we are still children to God. He is in charge, we are not. It doesn't matter what the child thinks is true, it only matters what the parent has declared is true.

"It doesn't matter WHAT God says so plainly, they find reasons and ways to 'make it go away' just by saying "that's not true". POOOOOOOOOF, they're wish comes true.
I'm truly shocked that people still think adultery is actually sin! LOL That seems to be one everybody accepts - i wonder why? They have to see the harm in it? I don't know."

Well I guess to them it depends upon their definition of adultery. The scriptures clearly state that just thinking about a woman in a sexual way is adultery. To the world out there, they can't commit adultery if they're not married. So pre-marital sex is okay. Especially if they have no intention of getting married. Poof! Another sin bites the dust. That's how I used to think before I became a Christian.

"But I assume "the crew" will be in the theology area on that new "hell" thread. :swoon:
I should start one that says I believe hell exists and people DESERVE to be there. :idea: :tutu:"

This thread is in the theology section? That should be a fun one to watch! LOL And if you started a thread like that, you'd be called every name in the book and probably a few new ones too. LOL

[Zecryphon]

Yes that was suggested here too, I don't see why not.

I'm not familiar with the other writings and what they say, but it's very easy for Ben to even say, "I don't accept anything offered here except what's in the bible".
That would solve it I think. I think using the bible only is very fair for both sides. :wave:
Actually, I've really only seen Ben post scriptures from the Bible in support of his theology. The Tentmaker.org stuff is out, unless he can somehow convince the mods of that forum to allow him to use the Tentmaker stuff, because the Lutherans are allowed to use the Book of Concord stuff.

[Nadiine]

"Well lucky for us, Zech, somebody opened up yet ANOTHER "i don't think hell can be true" thread."

I love how Ray Comfort answers statements such as that, "It doesn't matter what YOU think. It only matters what God says."


"What is going on with people?"

Idolatry. People love that God has made them in His own image so much, that they want to return the favor and make God in their own image.

""I dislike this, and it seems like overkill, therefore, IT CAN'T BE SO". I'm truly amazed at how people just shut out what they don't understand... rather than find out why it has to be so."

Some people just can't humble themselves before God and accept what He has made so plainly clear. Little children understand the doctrine of Hell. As we grow older we forget that we are still children to God. He is in charge, we are not. It doesn't matter what the child thinks is true, it only matters what the parent has declared is true.

"It doesn't matter WHAT God says so plainly, they find reasons and ways to 'make it go away' just by saying "that's not true". POOOOOOOOOF, they're wish comes true.
I'm truly shocked that people still think adultery is actually sin! LOL That seems to be one everybody accepts - i wonder why? They have to see the harm in it? I don't know."

Well I guess to them it depends upon their definition of adultery. The scriptures clearly state that just thinking about a woman in a sexual way is adultery. To the world out there, they can't commit adultery if they're not married. So pre-marital sex is okay. Especially if they have no intention of getting married. Poof! Another sin bites the dust. That's how I used to think before I became a Christian.

"But I assume "the crew" will be in the theology area on that new "hell" thread. :swoon:
I should start one that says I believe hell exists and people DESERVE to be there. :idea: :tutu:"

This thread is in the theology section? That should be a fun one to watch! LOL And if you started a thread like that, you'd be called every name in the book and probably a few new ones too. LOL
LOL yes for sure... altho I do admit, I do deserve some things people call me - I know I can be a bit of a pitbull sometimes.
But then, I'm adamant bcuz so many are just flouting what the bible so clearly says.
I'm VERY soft on people that fall into sins and struggle w/ things. The last thing I do is judge people for it; heck, I have my own issues I fight.

My frustration comes out when I see people refuting what's open and plain or finding ways to blame GOD for being wrong or being 'unfair'.
They don't stop to look at their sinful condition - I think alot of what we see is pure SPIRITUAL APATHY. We're so used to a sin-riddled society, that God looks like an oger for punishing sin anymore.

"Good grief, all the lady did was sleep around" or "my gosh, all they did was reject Christ as their Lord... why a permanent punishment for that?"
:swoon: No biggy! :swoon: *thud*

I agree w/ your post - no doubt it's a sign of the times before His return.?

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Yes that was suggested here too, I don't see why not.

I'm not familiar with the other writings and what they say, but it's very easy for Ben to even say, "I don't accept anything offered here except what's in the bible".
That would solve it I think. I think using the bible only is very fair for both sides. :wave: I understand what your saying, but things dont always work that way. We already know what the outcome will be, so Ben should be given more than a equal chance. Zecryphon is just lying in wait, armed tooth and nail with scripture. No doubt that he even has people to back him up, and double team against Ben. He is a lion in sheeps clothing.

[Zecryphon]

I understand what your saying, but things dont always work that way. We already know what the outcome will be, so Ben should be given more than a equal chance. Zecryphon is just lying in wait, armed tooth and nail with scripture. No doubt that he even has people to back him up, and double team against Ben. He is a lion in sheeps clothing.

"I understand what your saying, but things dont always work that way. We already know what the outcome will be, so Ben should be given more than a equal chance."

What will the outcome be? Ben seemed rather optimistic about it when I suggested it. He even seemed a little disappointed that he wouldn't be able to debate this in the Lutheran forum, because he thought the forum rules prevented such a debate. They do not.

"Zecryphon is just lying in wait, armed tooth and nail with scripture. No doubt that he even has people to back him up, and double team against Ben. He is a lion in sheeps clothing."

These comments by you are totally uncalled for and I have done nothing in this thread to deserve them. You should be ashamed of yourself. Flaming me for no reason whatsoever. How pathetic. You want this thread to turn into a flame-fest and get shut down too? Then keep throwing your pathetic little personal attacks out there.

See, had you actually gone over to the debate thread in TCL and read what's going on so far, you'd know that I have said I am not going to participate in this particular debate. But you didn't do that. You didn't bother to inform yourself with the facts but have chosen to arm yourself with ignorance.

I have already had it out with Ben on this topic numerous times already. All I have done is try and give Ben what he so clearly said he wanted and in return I'm flamed by you? Ben seems to think he has a case, he is armed with the same scriptures as everyone else is. There is no unfair advantage on either side. All you have to do if you're so worried about a book written by dead church leaders, if THAT is such a threat to you, just ask that it not be used. Problem solved. I can't wait to see what the next objection will be to this.

[Nadiine]

I understand what your saying, but things dont always work that way. We already know what the outcome will be, so Ben should be given more than a equal chance. Zecryphon is just lying in wait, armed tooth and nail with scripture. No doubt that he even has people to back him up, and double team against Ben. He is a lion in sheeps clothing.
Well, Ben was invited, and he chose not to show up. He kept promoting his belief everywhere like it's the gospel itself -- all's Zech did was put it to a formal debate to be hashed out as its own topic.

If Ben has sufficient bible references, he should be more than able to prove his case (and vice versa) using the bible. Both sides could fairly agree upon the rules they'll adhere to to make a fair debate on both sides.

I don't know what the outcome would be either way, I'm biased and readily agree that I am (and not apologetic for it either on this doctrine). But I think it's interesting that he's ignored or rejected the invite.

I don't know the reason, but I will say that some people only feel comfortable teaching the ignorance or novices to hope to sway them to their beliefs - when put to a test with some knowledgable Christians, it may not be as appealing to support it.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

"I understand what your saying, but things dont always work that way. We already know what the outcome will be, so Ben should be given more than a equal chance."

What will the outcome be? Ben seemed rather optimistic about it when I suggested it. He even seemed a little disappointed that he wouldn't be able to debate this in the Lutheran forum, because he thought the forum rules prevented such a debate. They do not.

"Zecryphon is just lying in wait, armed tooth and nail with scripture. No doubt that he even has people to back him up, and double team against Ben. He is a lion in sheeps clothing."

These comments by you are totally uncalled for and I have done nothing in this thread to deserve them. You should be ashamed of yourself. Flaming me for no reason whatsoever. How pathetic. You want this thread to turn into a flame-fest and get shut down too? Then keep throwing your pathetic little personal attacks out there.

See, had you actually gone over to the debate thread in TCL and read what's going on so far, you'd know that I have said I am not going to participate in this particular debate. But you didn't do that. You didn't bother to inform yourself with the facts but have chosen to arm yourself with ignorance.

I have already had it out with Ben on this topic numerous times already. All I have done is try and give Ben what he so clearly said he wanted and in return I'm flamed by you? Ben seems to think he has a case, he is armed with the same scriptures as everyone else is. There is no unfair advantage on either side. All you have to do if you're so worried about a book written by dead church leaders, if THAT is such a threat to you, just ask that it not be used. Problem solved. I can't wait to see what the next objection will be to this. In regards to flaming: If I had intended it to be an insult I would have said: a WOLF in sheeps clothing. In symbology a wolf is symbolic of Satan.

[Zecryphon]

In regards to flaming: If I had intended it to be an insult I would have said: a WOLF in sheeps clothing. In symbology a wolf is symbolic of Satan.
Saying I am lying in wait for Ben, armed with scriptures and a bunch of supporters, like a lion in sheep's clothing is insulting. It makes me sound like I'm trying to bait Ben12 into an ambush disguised as a debate. He said he wanted a debate on it, I am giving him the opportunity to debate it. But I guess you just don't see your comments as an insult and therefore the insult doesn't exist. I've read your other posts, insulting people is just what you do and apparently so often that you don't even know when you're doing it.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Saying I am lying in wait for Ben, armed with scriptures and a bunch of supporters, like a lion in sheep's clothing is insulting. It makes me sound like I'm trying to bait Ben12 into an ambush disguised as a debate. He said he wanted a debate on it, I am giving him the opportunity to debate it. But I guess you just don't see your comments as an insult and therefore the insult doesn't exist. I've read your other posts, insulting people is just what you do and apparently so often that you don't even know when you're doing it. The people I don't get along with very well, are those who are always looking for a reason to be offended. So are you saying that you are not prepared to debate Ben with scripture already prepared, and that you don't intend to be as bold as a lion about it. If thats true, then I appologize for my error.

[Zecryphon]

The people I don't get along with very well, are those who are always looking for a reason to be offended. So are you saying that you are not prepared to debate Ben with scripture already prepared, and that you don't intend to be as bold as a lion about it. If thats true, then I appologize for my error.
"The people I don't get along with very well, are those who are always looking for a reason to be offended. So are you saying that you are not prepared to debate Ben with scripture already prepared, and that you don't intend to be as bold as a lion about it. If thats true, then I appologize for my error."

Apology accepted. As I've said, I've already debated Ben on this issue. You can read the threads if you'd like. I have no intention of going through it again. This debate is for Ben12 to present his case for universalism in the Lutheran thread. Something he seemed to want a few weeks ago, but now he's nowhere to be found. I'm staying out of this debate so as not to give Ben any reason to not participate. He's washed his hands on teaching me anything because according to him I have no spiritual insight into the scriptures or some such nonsense.

[Nadiine]

"The people I don't get along with very well, are those who are always looking for a reason to be offended. So are you saying that you are not prepared to debate Ben with scripture already prepared, and that you don't intend to be as bold as a lion about it. If thats true, then I appologize for my error."

Apology accepted. As I've said, I've already debated Ben on this issue. You can read the threads if you'd like. I have no intention of going through it again. This debate is for Ben12 to present his case for universalism in the Lutheran thread. Something he seemed to want a few weeks ago, but now he's nowhere to be found. I'm staying out of this debate so as not to give Ben any reason to not participate. He's washed his hands on teaching me anything because according to him I have no spiritual insight into the scriptures or some such nonsense.
You may have another chance yet, Ben's started yet ANOTHER thread :|.
I think it's in the Theology ethics area called "Perish"?

I often wonder if they don't view Universalism AS THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST.? :scratch: :confused:

[Tavita]

You may have another chance yet, Ben's started yet ANOTHER thread :|.
I think it's in the Theology ethics area called "Perish"?

I often wonder if they don't view Universalism AS THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST.? :scratch: :confused:



The only thread Ben has started since the other thread closed is the one in this forum called, 'Punish'.

[Nadiine]

The only thread Ben has started since the other thread closed is the one in this forum called, 'Punish'.
Thanks for the correction, I had just glanced at it earlier and didn't check back to be sure what it was or where it was.
But punish - again having to do w/ the whole bit about condemnation... imo he seems obsessively fixated with this doctrine.
His OP opening:
Punish

The Lord knows how to rescue/deliver the godly out of temptation and to reserve the unrighteous unto the day of judgement to be punished... -2 Peter 2:9-


It's also in nondenom., not theology (my bad)
http://foru.ms/t6146207-punish.html

:swoon: :help: :sigh:

[Tavita]

Thanks for the correction, I had just glanced at it earlier and didn't check back to be sure what it was or where it was.
But punish - again having to do w/ the whole bit about condemnation... imo he seems obsessively fixated with this doctrine.
His OP opening:


It's also in nondenom., not theology (my bad)
http://foru.ms/t6146207-punish.html

:swoon: :help: :sigh:


I don't see it as an obsession. Many men, in the last two thousand years have come with a single message given them concerning the Kingdom and have centered on that one message.

It is my belief Ben has a good heart in doing what he believes he is called to do.

[Zecryphon]

You may have another chance yet, Ben's started yet ANOTHER thread :|.
I think it's in the Theology ethics area called "Perish"?

I often wonder if they don't view Universalism AS THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST.? :scratch: :confused:
I don't want another chance at him. I just want him to show up for the debate with Lutherans he said he wanted. I'm not participating in this one. I've said all I have to say to him on this subject. Here is a whole forum of fresh meat for Ben. Ya gotta wonder why he isn't at least checking out the waters.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

I don't want another chance at him. I just want him to show up for the debate with Lutherans he said he wanted. I'm not participating in this one. I've said all I have to say to him on this subject. Here is a whole forum of fresh meat for Ben. Ya gotta wonder why he isn't at least checking out the waters. Perhaps he has, as a guest.

[Nadiine]

I don't want another chance at him. I just want him to show up for the debate with Lutherans he said he wanted. I'm not participating in this one. I've said all I have to say to him on this subject. Here is a whole forum of fresh meat for Ben. Ya gotta wonder why he isn't at least checking out the waters.
fair enough :angel:

[Zecryphon]

Perhaps he has, as a guest.
That's true. If he were there and didn't like what he saw, he should at least say he is not interested in a debate at this time, so we could close down the thread if it's not going to be used by him or any other Christian Universalist at this time.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

That's true. If he were there and didn't like what he saw, he should at least say he is not interested in a debate at this time, so we could close down the thread if it's not going to be used by him or any other Christian Universalist at this time. I sent him a PM saying that you have been waiting on him. My advise to Ben was, that unless he is allowed to use other books other then the bible, that he should not bother to debate.

[Nadiine]

I sent him a PM saying that you have been waiting on him. My advise to Ben was, that unless he is allowed to use other books other then the bible, that he should not bother to debate.
They should all get together on both sides and agree to the rules they'll all adhere to - I'm sure they can strike up a fair compromise; but imo it should be set by ben & the ones involved in the debate... maybe he isn't as interested as he had claimed - who knows.

[Zecryphon]

I sent him a PM saying that you have been waiting on him. My advise to Ben was, that unless he is allowed to use other books other then the bible, that he should not bother to debate.
Why should he have an unfair advantage by using other books? I know Tavita is concerned about the use of the Book of Concord by Lutherans and a few people have suggested that Ben ask that Lutherans not refer to that book in the debate. I see no reason why they would need the BoC anyway, as a great case against universalism can be shown with the Bible itself. Both sides agree to use the Bible and have a debate. That way it's fair all the way around.

But if anyone should be lodging complaints about an unfair advantage, it should be the Lutherans. See, according to Ben's own words he believes the following: we (Lutherans) all follow a dead church leader and not Jesus Christ. Ben has been given this great insight into the scriptures and has received many revelations from the Holy Spirit about their true meaning, that we just can't ever attain, because we're carnal Christians who take the word of God on a literal level, not a deeply spiritual one. He's busy dining on the meat of scriptures, while people like me and my fellow Lutherans are merely babes satisfied with the milk of scripture. So it sounds like Ben has an advantage over us, not the other way around. This would of course depend upon whether or not you believe him when he says these things. A debate is a good way to tell who has the truth in this area according to the scriptures. That's why I want him to show up. He talks a good talk in ND, let's see if he has the same excitement and enthusiasm for his interpretation of the scriptures in TCL.

[Zecryphon]

They should all get together on both sides and agree to the rules they'll all adhere to - I'm sure they can strike up a fair compromise; but imo it should be set by ben & the ones involved in the debate... maybe he isn't as interested as he had claimed - who knows.
I think Ben made his comment about wanting to debate in TCL, while banking on the fact that it wouldn't be allowed, so he'd never have to show up for said debate. Now that it is allowed, he's nowhere to be seen. Perhaps he should think twice or at least get the facts before speaking about what he'd love to do elsewhere on this forum.