Universal salvation is a humanist idea, it is contrary to the holistic Biblical testimony. Like same sex practice it shouldnt be promoted on a Christian forum as though its a Christian belief.

Jesus Christ's NT teaching makes it quite clear God wants all to come to repentance and that none should perish but some will.  

As to some of the suggestions made:

I dont believe the wheat and the tares, as often suggested for the church is about the church as the rest of the NT addresses believers as no longer wanting to wilfully sin through faith in Christ. Its in line with all the other separations such as John 14-17 and Matthew 25 in the gospels alone. 

Similarly the idea that the lost sheep parable is somehow universalist is not reconciable holistically even from John 10 alone, as John 10 verse 26- says 

²⁶but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. ²⁷My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. ²⁸I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 

So the sheep are those who know Jesus and His voice and there are sheep that are not His and do not belong to Jesus. 

A superb post by David Baker, explaining extremely well why this issue is of such major disbelief. ... trying to explain away all the negative references to homosexual practice in the Bible, trying to explain the absence of positive countenance, and why all the historical references are supposedly wrong.

But I would go further than this and point out that David and Jonathan couldn’t even be an example of the sort of homosexual relationship the pro-gay community are proposing, it wasn’t monogamous and it wasn’t homosexual as both David and Jonathan were married.

The other obvious observation about this false teaching is the incredible detailed analysis used to try and cast doubt concerning every single aspect of the negative verses, the translation, interpretation, hermeneutics and context, contrasted with the lack of any apparent doubt of any other verses. Anyone with any sensitivity can see its just an agenda that is simply not open to receiving the true revelation of God that God so longs for us.

David Baker also makes a valuable observation about some of the tactics which spins the idea that when the individual poster is speaking about 2000 odd years of historic apostolic Christian belief its somehow just the individuals idea or a few crazy evangelicals. No, this is the Christian view, same sex sexual relations are error, there is no other Christian view. 

To Pluralist,

I can appreciate how you as a non-Christian can speculate on who Jesus might have been, but you should perhaps reflect on writing ‘so little is known about the historical Jesus that it has to be reconstruction’ as of course what Christians know and believe is the Biblical Testimony. This explains why you speculate the way you do.  

Someone may suggest Jesus was a paedophile as He seemed very interested in children. However that would also be a similar falsehood.

To Roger Harding,

Sorry but what exactly is there is listen to except you denying what the Bible says. There are no OT and NT scriptures presented  to countenance same sex relationships and the concepts of love which are used to justify it are not following God’s word and thus not love as God’s word describes it. There is every reason not to listen.

According to Galatians 6, 1 Corinthians 5, 1 Tim 6, 2 Peter 1, one can see a Christian should not listen to such falsehood which presents itself as ‘faithful exposition’ but is directly contrary to what the scriptures say.  

So no, according to scripture we do not need to be speaking and listening. Galatians 6 shows us that those who are brothers will be restored gently, 1 Corinthians 5 shows us that those who refuse to and persist is wilful sexual immorality merely call themselves brothers.

To L Roberts,

You say ‘what must God be like’ I would suggest that until one accepts the truth about His Biblical testimony one will not know what God is like. Jesus said for those who have seen Him have seen the Father, the words He spoke were what He heard the Father saying and what He did was what He saw the Father doing. Ho can you say 'what must God be like'?

To David,

To Pluralist,

No-one ’invented’ the doctrine of original sin, it is a doctrine derived from what the Biblical testimony says. Remove the doctrine of original sin and one then has to explain how all in Adam die and all in Christ may live.

As for what you call Jesus’s farewell sermon, this isn’t an invention of the early Church, if you cant trust that you cant trust Jesus said anything, and in fact I can see you don’t as any such standpoint of yours is in fact humanism deciding what through human understanding is and isn’t true.

I do not read the book in the literalist way you suggest, I read it holistically and in context, what you appear to do is decide how to use the Bible to fit your religion.

To Mark Bennett,

You said I made a distinction between reason and experience on the one hand, and the Bible on the other. This is of course the opposite of what I said. I said I do recognise experience and reason, but it becomes merely human reason and experience when it is contrary to the holistic Biblical revelation, rather than reason and experience of what God has done and who He is.

To Pluralist,

You say you choose reason and experience, yet the Bible testimony shows if that is human reason and experience it is the enemy of God’s purposes as the world is under the influence of evil. Its about not leaning on ones own understanding. If however you are referring to reason and experience based on God’s word then fair enough but liberalism doesn’t do that.

When you say there isn’t a truth to be read off the pages of a book that’s obviously where you miss God, as Jesus Christ says He is the truth the way and the life, tells us what He teaches is the truth and says His words are spirit and life. When you talk about liberal churches seeking an individual search for truth, that’s humanism, we believers know who and what the truth is, Jesus Christ and seek to obey His teaching. Liberal Christianity as you describe it is actually not Christianity but humanism disguised as Christianity.

L Roberts,

Well I wish to assure you its absolutely nothing personal my friend. With respect it may be an unhelpful thing to say for you, but not for me, nor is it surprising seeing as there seems to be such a divide in so many ways between the views expressed here.

Just as an example, it is such attitudes which are outright disbelief and false teachings introduced that  do untold damage.. see Galatians 1 and 2 Peter 2.

To Clare,

Your last posts seem to be commentary on other posts without addressing any questions.

Believers dont have a relationship with the Bible but with the One whose testimony is the Bible. But not forgetting that God spoke into being creation and Jesus Christ said His words are spirit and life.

We come to know God through hearing the message so we know who it is we have the relationship with. Much of liberal Christianity suggests to me that it being influenced by something that is not of God.

Clare,

And I also believe the passage is figurative, but how then would the passage not be literal, one has to start with something to be able to interpret it. So in this way all scripture is God breathed and literally true so that the correct revelation God wants can be imparted.

As to handling snakes and drinking poison, well I suggest it is both literal and figurative, after all it wasn’t long after Jesus said this that Paul was bitten by a poisonous snake. All things are possible with God.