PDA

View Full Version : Is the sin of Adam stronger than the cross and resurrection of Christ?



Selaphiel
July 23rd, 2015, 08:19 AM
That seems to be the necessary conclusion that one must draw from the doctrine of limited atonement. If the disobedience of one man lead to death and sin for all men, how is the obedience, sacrifice and resurrection of Christ not leading to the restoration and salvation of all men? Or even to the entirety of the cosmos.

That is universalism, I'm quite aware. But when reflecting upon the doctrines of God as the good and the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, universalism seems to be a logical necessity. If the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is correct, that means that nothing whatsoever can be thought to restrict or confine God as he expresses and reveals himself in the act of creation. The consequence of that is the end of creation is the self-disclosing of God. If God is not only one who does good things every now and then, but the good itself, this entails ultimate universal restoration, apokatastasis of creation.

Why? Because if the act of creation leads to the eternal damnation of even one single soul, then the moral price of God's act of self-disclosing in creation is morally bankrupt, and thus he cannot be the Good. If the eternal damnation of a soul was necessary, then the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is false, because then you are claiming that something limits or restricts God's will in the act of creation (act of creation here obviously refering to the entire act of creation from beginning to end, not just some vague cause in the past).

I do not think universalism is susceptible to the common criticisms either. It does not deny evil, but it absolutely refuses to define evil as anything more than privatio boni, a depravation of goodness. Nor does it deny moral responsibility (which is a curious objection anyway when it comes from the faith only camp), but moral responsibility is freed up to be genuinly for the sake of love of God and neighbor, not spiritual gain. What it does entail is an absolute faith in God as the good and as love.

Should add that this is inspired by a lecture by the theologian David Bentley Hart.

serpentdove
July 23rd, 2015, 08:58 AM
No (1 Jn 4:4).

Talk About It (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwNyNnB0vwo) ~Nicole C Mullen

http://i433.photobucket.com/albums/qq55/paulamartin29/Gif%20animados/cat-dance.gif

achduke
July 23rd, 2015, 09:06 AM
That seems to be the necessary conclusion that one must draw from the doctrine of limited atonement. If the disobedience of one man lead to death and sin for all men, how is the obedience, sacrifice and resurrection of Christ not leading to the restoration and salvation of all men? Or even to the entirety of the cosmos.

That is universalism, I'm quite aware. But when reflecting upon the doctrines of God as the good and the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, universalism seems to be a logical necessity. If the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is correct, that means that nothing whatsoever can be thought to restrict or confine God as he expresses and reveals himself in the act of creation. The consequence of that is the end of creation is the self-disclosing of God. If God is not only one who does good things every now and then, but the good itself, this entails ultimate universal restoration, apokatastasis of creation.

Why? Because if the act of creation leads to the eternal damnation of even one single soul, then the moral price of God's act of self-disclosing in creation is morally bankrupt, and thus he cannot be the Good. If the eternal damnation of a soul was necessary, then the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is false, because then you are claiming that something limits or restricts God's will in the act of creation (act of creation here obviously refering to the entire act of creation from beginning to end, not just some vague cause in the past).

I do not think universalism is susceptible to the common criticisms either. It does not deny evil, but it absolutely refuses to define evil as anything more than privatio boni, a depravation of goodness. Nor does it deny moral responsibility (which is a curious objection anyway when it comes from the faith only camp), but moral responsibility is freed up to be genuinly for the sake of love of God and neighbor, not spiritual gain. What it does entail is an absolute faith in God as the good and as love.

Should add that this is inspired by a lecture by the theologian David Bentley Hart.

Romans 5:15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

bybee
July 23rd, 2015, 09:34 AM
That seems to be the necessary conclusion that one must draw from the doctrine of limited atonement. If the disobedience of one man lead to death and sin for all men, how is the obedience, sacrifice and resurrection of Christ not leading to the restoration and salvation of all men? Or even to the entirety of the cosmos.

That is universalism, I'm quite aware. But when reflecting upon the doctrines of God as the good and the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, universalism seems to be a logical necessity. If the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is correct, that means that nothing whatsoever can be thought to restrict or confine God as he expresses and reveals himself in the act of creation. The consequence of that is the end of creation is the self-disclosing of God. If God is not only one who does good things every now and then, but the good itself, this entails ultimate universal restoration, apokatastasis of creation.

Why? Because if the act of creation leads to the eternal damnation of even one single soul, then the moral price of God's act of self-disclosing in creation is morally bankrupt, and thus he cannot be the Good. If the eternal damnation of a soul was necessary, then the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is false, because then you are claiming that something limits or restricts God's will in the act of creation (act of creation here obviously refering to the entire act of creation from beginning to end, not just some vague cause in the past).

I do not think universalism is susceptible to the common criticisms either. It does not deny evil, but it absolutely refuses to define evil as anything more than privatio boni, a depravation of goodness. Nor does it deny moral responsibility (which is a curious objection anyway when it comes from the faith only camp), but moral responsibility is freed up to be genuinly for the sake of love of God and neighbor, not spiritual gain. What it does entail is an absolute faith in God as the good and as love.

Should add that this is inspired by a lecture by the theologian David Bentley Hart.

I think about "Universalism" often. "God is Love! Praise Him! Praise Him all ye little children...."
God's love is never ending (I believe) therefore the opportunity for salvation is never
ending?

OCTOBER23
July 23rd, 2015, 09:44 AM
GOD IS TRYING TO CHANGE LITTLE DEVILS INTO SAINTS

By making us more like JESUS who Resisted Rebellious

and Evil thoughts and Actions.

Selaphiel
July 23rd, 2015, 02:58 PM
I think about "Universalism" often. "God is Love! Praise Him! Praise Him all ye little children...."
God's love is never ending (I believe) therefore the opportunity for salvation is never
ending?

Seems to me that this must be the conclusion one draws from Christian revelation. I like what Robert Jenson says about judgment. Judgment must be primarily be understood as the establishment of shalom, not as punishment for the sake of punishment. And God has revealed his identity as judge in Jesus Christ, the crucified Son who forgives even those who crucify him. Only forgiveness can truly restore.

I also like Hart's point about the impossibility of bliss if loved ones are suffering in damnation, I am my relationships to other people. If someone I love are damned for whatever reason, there can be no bliss for me regardless of whatever faults my relations had or have.


No (1 Jn 4:4).

But that doesn't really answer the question. If Adam's sin damned all, why will not the cross of Christ restore all? If God creates with the purpose of destroying certain souls, then you can question the moral character of that concept of God. If he is unable to create with a perfect telos/goal, where creation is finally fulfilled and the character of God is revealed to us in that act, then he is limited by something outside himself and the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is compromised.

6days
July 23rd, 2015, 05:45 PM
If the disobedience of one man lead to death and sin for all men, how is the obedience, sacrifice and resurrection of Christ not leading to the restoration and salvation of all men? Or even to the entirety of the cosmos.

That is universalism, I'm quite aware. But when reflecting upon the doctrines of God as the good and the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, universalism seems to be a logical necessity. If the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is correct, that means that nothing whatsoever can be thought to restrict or confine God as he expresses and reveals himself in the act of creation. The consequence of that is the end of creation is the self-disclosing of God. If God is not only one who does good things every now and then, but the good itself, this entails ultimate universal restoration, apokatastasis of creation.*

Why? Because if the act of creation leads to the eternal damnation of even one single soul, then the moral price of God's act of self-disclosing in creation is morally bankrupt, and thus he cannot be the Good. If the eternal damnation of a soul was necessary, then the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is false, because then you are claiming that something limits or restricts God's will in the act of creation (act of creation here obviously refering to the entire act of creation from beginning to end, not just some vague cause in the past).

I do not think universalism is susceptible to the common criticisms either. It does not deny evil, but it absolutely refuses to define evil as anything more than privatio boni, a depravation of goodness. Nor does it deny moral responsibility (which is a curious objection anyway when it comes from the faith only camp), but moral responsibility is freed up to be genuinly for the sake of love of God and neighbor, not spiritual gain. What it does entail is an absolute faith in God as the good and as love.


Perhaps I'm a bit thick, but the logic seems flawed. It seems your reasoning ignores some attributes of God (Holy and Just) and ignores scripture on the doctrine of imputation, and doctrine of justification by grace.*

The entirety of Romans 5 discusses some of our imputed sin nature. Romans 5:17 mentions righteousness in Christ as a gift...to those who receive.*

"For if, by the trespass of the one man, death*reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life*through the one man, Jesus Christ."

Totton Linnet
July 23rd, 2015, 05:55 PM
Some folk just do not want to be reconciled to God, hey Him, they hate His word, they hate His people.

They die in this state and all opportunity to be saved is gone.

6days
July 23rd, 2015, 06:01 PM
*If God creates with the purpose of destroying certain souls, then you can question the moral character of that concept of God.

God created us for the purpose of a love relationship with Himself.*



If he is unable to create with a perfect telos/goal, where creation is finally fulfilled and the character of God is revealed to us in that act, then he is limited by something outside himself and the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is compromised.
Not at all.*

Love involves choice....ALWAYS.

Creation was perfect. In order for love to exist, God had to allow for the possibility of sin / disobedience.

Selaphiel
July 24th, 2015, 02:06 AM
Some folk just do not want to be reconciled to God, hey Him, they hate His word, they hate His people.

They die in this state and all opportunity to be saved is gone.

That does not really answer the question though. The question was whether the sin of Adam is stronger than the cross and resurrection of Christ? You just implicitly answered 'yes' to that question. If Adam's sin damned all and Christ only restores some, then Adam's sin is stronger. You have implicitly granted that death is stronger than the author of life.

As far as I can see, you are left with the two options I gave:

1) God reveals himself in the act of creation (once again, that is the entirety of history, not simply the appearance of the world in the beginning) at the price of damning a large number (even one would be problematic) of souls to eternal separation from Himself. That questions Gods moral character, in the sense that it ceases to be appropriate to call God the good.

2) God is unable to reveal himself in the act of creation without damning a large number of souls to eternal separation from Himself. That questions the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, since if God is unable to do something, then His will and power are contrained and limited by something outside of Himself.


Not at all.*

Love involves choice....ALWAYS.

That is not what the doctrine of eternal damnation states though, it is exactly the opposite. Love involves a choice, for a period, is what the doctrine of eternal damnation states.

I agree that love always involves a choice. But a father or mother who gives up on his or her children after a period is not morally perfect.

Hart puts it this way: If a parent lets a sick child stick his face into the fireplace because he respects the moral autonomy of the child, that seriously calls into quetsion the moral character of that parent.


Creation was perfect. In order for love to exist, God had to allow for the possibility of sin / disobedience.

It is not a question about creation as in the first cause of existence. It is about creation as the entirety of history. If God is unable to restore creation to its goal, that is to save and restore all, then death and sin is at least as strong as life.

genuineoriginal
July 24th, 2015, 07:09 AM
If Adam's sin damned all, why will not the cross of Christ restore all?

Let me get this straight.

You start with one false doctrine (original sin / total depravity) and expect this to prove another false doctrine (universalism)?

It is time for you to go back to the Bible and find out why original sin is a false doctrine, and when you are done doing that, you can look at why universalism is a false doctrine.

Selaphiel
July 24th, 2015, 07:29 AM
Let me get this straight.

You start with one false doctrine (original sin / total depravity) and expect this to prove another false doctrine (universalism)?

It is time for you to go back to the Bible and find out why original sin is a false doctrine, and when you are done doing that, you can look at why universalism is a false doctrine.

I have not mentioned original sin in my argument. The argument does not depend upon the doctrine of original sin at all. You read original sin into the topic due to the formulation of the question. What I ask is whether sin and death is stronger than the author of life.

The argument is that creation is the act where God reveals who is to someone outside of himself. The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo states that God does this without restraint or limitation, that is: God is not limited by anything outside of God. So creation is the expression of the will of God. The end of history and the final judgment with the totality of history is thus the expression of who God is to someone else.

If creation end in the eternal separation of even one soul from God, then it is legitimate to ask whether this is due to a fault in God's moral character (God lets someone be damned and eternally separated from God). Or God is limited in power, he is unable to restore all and thus his will is constrained by something.

Nor does this universalism deny free will, it does not even deny jugdment. What it questions is the eternal nature of separation, whether God is unable to express Gods will as the good when creation reaches its goal and fulfillment.

"Go back to the Bible" is not an argument, it simply is an avoidance of the question.

Jerry Shugart
July 24th, 2015, 09:47 AM
If Adam's sin damned all, why will not the cross of Christ restore all?

In what way did Adam's sin damn all?

Selaphiel
July 24th, 2015, 09:58 AM
In what way did Adam's sin damn all?

Ro 5:17-18

How you interpret that can of course differ. I do not understand Adam as necessarily a historical person, but rather as a symbol of humanity itself and its sinfulness.

Granted, I probably would agree more with an eastern view of Adam's fall as primordial sin rather than as original and imputed guilt as in Augustine. That is, Adam's fall as a predisposition towards sin rather than as all of mankind sharing in the guilt of Adam.

My main point is simply whether God can defeat sin completely or not. And if God cannot, whether that implies a lack in the moral character of said conception of God or a lack in power or an outside constraint of God's will in the act of creation.

bling
July 24th, 2015, 03:20 PM
I have not mentioned original sin in my argument. The argument does not depend upon the doctrine of original sin at all. You read original sin into the topic due to the formulation of the question. What I ask is whether sin and death is stronger than the author of life.
Sin and death are not stronger than the author of life.

The argument is that creation is the act where God reveals who is to someone outside of himself. The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo states that God does this without restraint or limitation, that is: God is not limited by anything outside of God. So creation is the expression of the will of God. The end of history and the final judgment with the totality of history is thus the expression of who God is to someone else.
You assume: “creation is the act where God reveals…”, but that is not the reason God created.

You said: “creation is the expression of the will of God”, but not sure what you are trying to convey with that idea?

Is God doing this as some kind of “show”?

Does God have an ego that needs to be stroked so He has to “reveal Himself” to others?


If creation end in the eternal separation of even one soul from God, then it is legitimate to ask whether this is due to a fault in God's moral character (God lets someone be damned and eternally separated from God). Or God is limited in power, he is unable to restore all and thus his will is constrained by something.

Nor does this universalism deny free will, it does not even deny jugdment. What it questions is the eternal nature of separation, whether God is unable to express Gods will as the good when creation reaches its goal and fulfillment.
There are things even God cannot do, but that is not saying His power is limited, because there are things that just cannot be done.
God cannot “create” a being that has always existed, by definition of create and always existed. But that means God cannot create perfect beings (like Christ is perfect since Christ is not a created being), but God can create beings as God describes “very good”, which should mean “as good as they can be made”.
God’s Love would compel God to create being He could gift with the greatest gifts possible and the greatest of those gifts would be to become like God Himself (having Godly type Love).
The “problem” is Godly type love cannot be made instinctive to a being (that would be a robotic type love) and God cannot force this Love on a being (since that would be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun). So this “Love” has to be the result of a free will moral choice, but that choice cannot be to Love or not Love, since that would require Love initially. It would have to be just the willingness to humbly accept pure charity (Love).
You say: “God is unable to express Gods will as the good when creation reaches its goal and fulfillment.”

The “goal” of creation is played out in each mature adult individual. Every mature adult humbly accepts or rejects God’s Love in the form of accepting or rejecting God’s forgiveness. “…he that is forgiven much Loves much…” so if you have been forgiven (humbly accepted) of an unbelievable huge debt (which sin creates) you will automatically have an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love).

People who continuously refuse God’s Love to the point of never accepting His Love would not be happy in heaven where there is one huge Love Feast of only Godly type Love.

Totton Linnet
July 24th, 2015, 03:39 PM
That does not really answer the question though. The question was whether the sin of Adam is stronger than the cross and resurrection of Christ? You just implicitly answered 'yes' to that question. If Adam's sin damned all and Christ only restores some, then Adam's sin is stronger. You have implicitly granted that death is stronger than the author of life.

As far as I can see, you are left with the two options I gave:

1) God reveals himself in the act of creation (once again, that is the entirety of history, not simply the appearance of the world in the beginning) at the price of damning a large number (even one would be problematic) of souls to eternal separation from Himself. That questions Gods moral character, in the sense that it ceases to be appropriate to call God the good.

2) God is unable to reveal himself in the act of creation without damning a large number of souls to eternal separation from Himself. That questions the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, since if God is unable to do something, then His will and power are contrained and limited by something outside of Himself.



That is not what the doctrine of eternal damnation states though, it is exactly the opposite. Love involves a choice, for a period, is what the doctrine of eternal damnation states.

I agree that love always involves a choice. But a father or mother who gives up on his or her children after a period is not morally perfect.

Hart puts it this way: If a parent lets a sick child stick his face into the fireplace because he respects the moral autonomy of the child, that seriously calls into quetsion the moral character of that parent.



It is not a question about creation as in the first cause of existence. It is about creation as the entirety of history. If God is unable to restore creation to its goal, that is to save and restore all, then death and sin is at least as strong as life.

Man as a creation has rejected God, ALL mankind, nobody deserves anything but the choice they made.

God is awesome in Holiness, when Adam heard the sound of Him walking in the garden he fled in terror......

6days
July 24th, 2015, 09:35 PM
How you interpret that can of course differ. I do not understand Adam as necessarily a historical person, but rather as a symbol of humanity itself and its sinfulness.
If first Adam was not a real historical person, then there is no need for the historical "Last Adam".
If physical death was not a consequence of sin, then Christ did not need to physically die, then defeat "the final enemy" with the resurrection.
1 Cor.15:45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit."

Even many atheists understand that if they can get Christians to believe Adam was a myth, that the gospel is destroyed.
atheists.org/atheism: "if Adam and Eve and the Talking Snake are myths, then Original Sin is also a myth, right? Well, think about it."

Or,
"No Original Sin, No Saviour required
The other scenarios are even more devastating for Xtianity – if there was NO Adam at all, or that he was just a nobody who could not have had any significant impact on mankind, no matter what he did.
No Adam. No Sin. No Saviour required.
This is the absolute cornerstone of the Xtian faith. The bible says that just as one man, Adam, caused the problem, one man, Jesus, came to fix it up. The whole argument has now gone down the toilet."
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.ca/2009/12/dispelling-original-sin-in-eden.html

Sad that atheists often understand the gospel better than Christians who so willingly compromise on God's Word.

Selaphiel
July 25th, 2015, 09:29 AM
You assume: “creation is the act where God reveals…”, but that is not the reason God created.

You said: “creation is the expression of the will of God”, but not sure what you are trying to convey with that idea?

Is God doing this as some kind of “show”?

Does God have an ego that needs to be stroked so He has to “reveal Himself” to others?

You are putting a whole lot of words in my mouth here. I have not said that God needed to do anything. I do not see how that even pertains to the question I asked.

God creates out of love, of course God does not need creation. That does not change that creation (and once again, the entire creation history, not the beginning) is God's self-revelation to another, out of love.


The “problem” is Godly type love cannot be made instinctive to a being (that would be a robotic type love) and God cannot force this Love on a being (since that would be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun). So this “Love” has to be the result of a free will moral choice, but that choice cannot be to Love or not Love, since that would require Love initially. It would have to be just the willingness to humbly accept pure charity (Love)

But that does not resolve the question that I asked. Is a parent that lets his or her sick child roast his or her face in the fireplace because the parents respect the autonomy of the child a good parent? No, it is a morally bankrupt person.

That being said, what you have said here is not mutually exclusive with what I said. The point is, so many Christians view the book as closed when someone dies. If people subscribe to conscious eternal separation from God after death, then that is morally horrendous.

But a God that sums up all of creation with eternally damned souls has either failed morally and cannot be called "the good" in any meaningful sense, or that God is not free.


Man as a creation has rejected God, ALL mankind, nobody deserves anything but the choice they made.

God is awesome in Holiness, when Adam heard the sound of Him walking in the garden he fled in terror......

You simply do not seem to understand the questions at hand, so your replies makes no sense.

Is God "the good"? Did God create from nothing? That is, was God's will absolutely free in the act of creation?

If yes, how can you accept the damnation of countless souls? The eternal damnation of countless souls either invalidates God as "the good" (it is a meaningless assertion if it is not at least analogically related to what we call goodness), or you are implicitly asserting that God's unable to save all and thus his will is constrained by something outside of himself. A concept of God where God arbitrarily saves some, but not others (when no one deserves it) is satanic at best, it is a morally bankrupt character. Then the choice between worshipping the devil or God seems to be at best a matter of prudence.


Even many atheists understand that if they can get Christians to believe Adam was a myth, that the gospel is destroyed.
atheists.org/atheism: "if Adam and Eve and the Talking Snake are myths, then Original Sin is also a myth, right? Well, think about it."

Take the crypto-creationist argument somewhere else, that is not the topic here. As if a random atheist site was suddenly an authority on Christian doctrine. You modern evangelical fundamentalists are so far removed from anything even resembling historical Christianity, that I'm not even sure you should use the label.

It is becoming impossible to have an actual theological discussion on this site. Ask a question, and the best you get in return is a proof text citation from the Bible. No creed, no theological tradition, no church fathers or theological thinkers.

Jerry Shugart
July 25th, 2015, 09:36 AM
That is, Adam's fall as a predisposition towards sin rather than as all of mankind sharing in the guilt of Adam.

Adam sinned and there is no evidence that he had a predisposition towards sin. So the same can be said about all of his descendants.


My main point is simply whether God can defeat sin completely or not.

If he wanted to defeat sin then he would not have given man free will. Instead, he would have made men like robots.

But there is no love which comes from robots.

Selaphiel
July 25th, 2015, 09:53 AM
Adam sinned and there is no evidence that he had a predisposition towards sin. So the same can be said about all of his descendants.

The origin of sin in mankind is an interesting question, but I think it is not really relevant to this discussion.



But there is no love which comes from robots.

I agree, but how does this resolve the question? And if God is interested in relationship, why is the cut off point at bodily death? I'm not saying that a soul could not deny God for a very long time. I do however believe in the power of God's love to persuade everyone eventually and fully bring creation to a fulfillment that can truly be worthy as an expression of the will of God as goodness itself.

Jerry Shugart
July 25th, 2015, 10:09 AM
I do however believe in the power of God's love to persuade everyone eventually and fully bring creation to a fulfillment that can truly be worthy as an expression of the will of God as goodness itself.

The gospel speaks of the love of God and it is by the gospel, which comes in the power of the Holy Spirit, which the LORD uses to bring men to salvation. It is only those who resist the Holy Spirit who are not saved.

Therefore, everyone who hears the gospel has no excuse for not believing it. And the Lord certainly does not want to drag unbelievers kicking and screaming to a place of salvation.

The Lord cannot be faulted because those who should believe refuse to believe.

6days
July 25th, 2015, 11:03 AM
I do not understand Adam as necessarily a historical person
Even many atheists understand that if they can get Christians to believe Adam was a myth, that the gospel is destroyed.
Take the crypto-creationist argument somewhere else
You are funny. You don't want anyone to disagree with your false doctrine?




It is becoming impossible to have an actual theological discussion on this site. Ask a question, and the best you get in return is a proof text citation from the Bible.

Entire chapters such as Romans 5 &12 have been referenced showing your belief system / theology is false.

Paul refers to both Jesus and Adam as historical people.

You destroy the gospel when you pick and choose what to believe. IE that "first Adam " was mythical



No creed, no theological tradition, no church fathers or theological thinkers.

We can discuss various people ideas then weigh it against what God's Word tell us. Some of the early church fathers... some theological thinkers...some church traditions are more scriptural than others.

Angel4Truth
July 25th, 2015, 11:12 AM
That seems to be the necessary conclusion that one must draw from the doctrine of limited atonement. If the disobedience of one man lead to death and sin for all men, how is the obedience, sacrifice and resurrection of Christ not leading to the restoration and salvation of all men? .

You left off part of it:

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned

The restoration to all men doesn't come because all do not want restoration and salvation and reject it.

Selaphiel
July 25th, 2015, 11:41 AM
You are funny. You don't want anyone to disagree with your false doctrine?

Feel free to think that. More concerned that so many here are incapable of of thinking theology besides braindead proof texting. That is neglecting a great tradition of thought in favor childlike nonsense. This is not even an elitistic attitude, because people are perfectly capable of at least looking into such material. But modern evangelicalism has become shallow and infantile, abhorring any serious reflection on the faith.


You destroy the gospel when you pick and choose what to believe. IE that "first Adam " was mythical

The meaning of the text holds up just fine with an allegorical understanding of Adam. Myth and allegory are not the same thing.


We can discuss various people ideas then weigh it against what God's Word tell us. Some of the early church fathers... some theological thinkers...some church traditions are more scriptural than others.

That is simply nonsense. The church lived without an established NT canon for over 300 years. The canonization of the NT happened in interaction with establishment of the creeds, liturgy and teachings of the church. Scripture may have special status, but reducing Christianity to scripture is biblicism, which is idolatry.

Also, any honest study of scripture using historical methods developed in academic biblical studies reveals that scripture alone absent guides, hermeneutical keys and regulating creeds and liturgy is easily reduced to a mish mash of nonsense.


The restoration to all men doesn't come because all do not want restoration and salvation and reject it.

This has been adressed several times. Why the arbitrary cut off point at death if souls remains in torment due to eternal separation from God?

Selaphiel
July 25th, 2015, 11:46 AM
.
The Lord cannot be faulted because those who should believe refuse to believe.

Do you believe the offer ends at death? If so, why? Is it perfect goodness to holding back the invitation at a certain point if you are claiming to "love itself"?

Angel4Truth
July 25th, 2015, 11:49 AM
This has been adressed several times. Why the arbitrary cut off point at death if souls remains in torment due to eternal separation from God?

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

whitestone
July 25th, 2015, 12:08 PM
In the order of creation Colossians 1:15 KJV Christ is the firstborn of very creature,,,so the one who is the forgiveness is created before the one who is to be forgiven...so Adam, whom we descend from, is preceded in creation by the very one who would later die on that cross for the forgiveness of sin.

6days
July 25th, 2015, 12:32 PM
The meaning of the text holds up just fine with an allegorical understanding of Adam. Myth and allegory are not the same thing.

If Adam is allegorical (or mythical) the gospel is destroyed. Various Bible authors, and even Christ refer to Genesis as historical events and real people. If Adams sin and punishment of death is allegorical then Christs physical death and resurrection only need to be allegorical.

“Since the doctrines of Creation, the Fall and Redemption stand in an absolute historical continuum, we get a distorted worldview when we play games with Genesis.

“The apologist seeks to present biblical truth with coherence. In my experience, one cannot even formulate a compelling response to classic questions like the problem of evil and pain without a clear stand with Scripture on the creation issue.

“I have never been able to see how anyone who wants to defend the faith and proclaim the Gospel can compromise the foundation stones of that defence and then expect clear-thinking people to find a proclamation of salvation in Christ compelling.”
Joe Boot, President of Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

Dr Georgia Purdom, biologist says "many Christians have compromised on the historical and theological importance of Genesis. If Adam and Eve aren’t real people who sinned in the Garden of Eden, and as a result we are all not sinners, then Jesus Christ’s death on the cross was useless. ...the literal truth of Genesis is so important to the authority and truthfulness of Scripture. It is the very foundation of the Gospel."

JESUS speaking "Haven't you read the Scriptures? They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.'"



That is simply nonsense. The church lived without an established NT canon for over 300 years. The canonization of the NT happened in interaction with establishment of the creeds, liturgy and teachings of the church. Scripture may have special status, but reducing Christianity to scripture is biblicism, which is idolatry.

Notice when Christ is questioned He uses scripture as the absolute authority... not teachings of the church.

Re NT canon... Most if not all NT Books were accepted as God's Word long before 300AD.

bling
July 25th, 2015, 12:50 PM
You are putting a whole lot of words in my mouth here. I have not said that God needed to do anything. I do not see how that even pertains to the question I asked.

God creates out of love, of course God does not need creation. That does not change that creation (and once again, the entire creation history, not the beginning) is God's self-revelation to another, out of love.
When you talks about “God's self-revelation to another”, it sounds very intellectual and an exchange of “knowledge”. You give the “reason” for God creation to be “Love”, but what is the objective doing it the way God did do it? Why does God have to go through the trouble of making man and putting man on earth? Would it not be more “reveling” for God to make us spiritual beings that could see Him in heaven?




But that does not resolve the question that I asked. Is a parent that lets his or her sick child roast his or her face in the fireplace because the parents respect the autonomy of the child a good parent? No, it is a morally bankrupt person.
The Bible is not addressing mentally challenged individuals that cannot come to their own senses and make a free will choice, so your analogy does not apply but this does:

the Father (God) in the prodigal son story (Luke 15: 11-32) gave the son the money even after the son virtually told the Father: “I wish you were dead so I could get my inheritance” (and with the Father knowing the son well enough to know what he would do with it ). The Father did not send servants after the son but allowed the son to stay in the foreign land waste all his money and end up starving to death in a pigsty.

Our earthly objective is not to be “happy” here on earth, but for us to reach the point of humbly accepting God’s charity.


That being said, what you have said here is not mutually exclusive with what I said. The point is, so many Christians view the book as closed when someone dies. If people subscribe to conscious eternal separation from God after death, then that is morally horrendous.
Annihilation is another topic.

But a God that sums up all of creation with eternally damned souls has either failed morally and cannot be called "the good" in any meaningful sense, or that God is not free.
Quit blaming God for man failing. Man was made as good as man can be made, but he does not start out with Godly type Love. All mature adults have the best place and situation for obtaining Godly type love, by simply humbly accepting the Creator’s help (charity), but most seem to prefer being macho, accepting the punishment they fully deserve, not willing to surrender to their enemy (God) and thus will not humbly accept charity.

Shasta
July 25th, 2015, 01:16 PM
I have not mentioned original sin in my argument. The argument does not depend upon the doctrine of original sin at all. You read original sin into the topic due to the formulation of the question. What I ask is whether sin and death is stronger than the author of life.

The argument is that creation is the act where God reveals who is to someone outside of himself. The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo states that God does this without restraint or limitation, that is: God is not limited by anything outside of God. So creation is the expression of the will of God. The end of history and the final judgment with the totality of history is thus the expression of who God is to someone else.

If creation end in the eternal separation of even one soul from God, then it is legitimate to ask whether this is due to a fault in God's moral character (God lets someone be damned and eternally separated from God). Or God is limited in power, he is unable to restore all and thus his will is constrained by something.

Nor does this universalism deny free will, it does not even deny jugdment. What it questions is the eternal nature of separation, whether God is unable to express Gods will as the good when creation reaches its goal and fulfillment.

"Go back to the Bible" is not an argument, it simply is an avoidance of the question.

You mistake the issue here to be one of God's power. For instance you compare God's omnipotence shown in His ability to bring the cosmos into existence to His ability to save whomever He wills. This does not take into account man's moral nature which he possesses by virtue of his being made "in the image of God." Like God, man, in the much narrower field of sovereignty can make choices, even when those decisions are opposed to the will of His maker. Does this discretionary delegation of authority compete with God's omnipotence? Certainly not, for it is God Himself Who gave us that ability.

It is God's will to bring about the highest good for all men. The caveat is that man must freely choose Him over themselves. It is the willing surrender of our drive to fulfill and serve ourselves that makes it possible for us to enjoy God's good will throughout the ages. The most obvious reading of scripture demonstrates that we can refuse or consent to His good pleasure. The will of God is not merely that all men come to Him but that all men FREELY choose to do so.

Now we can ask the question "if such is the case is Project Humanity worth? Another way of asking this is: would a merciful God invent a race that can be lost? Is the final end is worth the price of suffering? Many say no but now even many (thinking) Atheists admit that (theoretically) all earthly suffering might be worth it if it brought about some greater good. The problem is we may not be in a position to be able to calculate the balance of good and the suffering. I believe that ultimately the project is worth it. The fact that some choose misery cannot dampen the Joy to come for those who do not. As Lewis said "hell cannot blackmail heaven"

serpentdove
July 25th, 2015, 01:45 PM
He must punish the wicked or he is a corrupt judge (Ac 17:30). https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS0oJGj_MfCrM6TAwh_kNlepxZxm0z_G WlD_L5mwBkEdbiXqDHGMw

Zeke
July 25th, 2015, 06:17 PM
6days;4395759]If first Adam was not a real historical person, then there is no need for the historical "Last Adam".
If physical death was not a consequence of sin, then Christ did not need to physically die, then defeat "the final enemy" with the resurrection.

The seed as in one that falls to the ground and dies represent the Divine part of each man played by Jesus who was all spiritual, like the prodigal son who was considered dead to his Divine parentage awakens from that state while tolling in the flesh, the spirit, Jesus, said let the dead bury the dead. Paul restates this inward process of death and resurrection inwardly Romans 5 through 7, also 1Cor 15:35-58 which takes place in Gods kingdom which is in mans conscience imprisoned in flesh and isn't observed by the natural eye Luke 17:20-21.


1 Cor.15:45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit."

If you take this literally being history of two separated bodies of flesh then your in observation mode, and one of those two is a phantom of tradition that can't be observed.

Same concept as the allegory taught in Galatians 4:24-26, the first of the flesh born into the world of matter, also carries the Divine seed from above that is born in man, that seed is in a state of death like a seed that lies fallow until the right time and season comes along for that type of seed.


Even many atheists understand that if they can get Christians to believe Adam was a myth, that the gospel is destroyed.
atheists.org/atheism: "if Adam and Eve and the Talking Snake are myths, then Original Sin is also a myth, right? Well, think about it."


Yet what is sin really? like death it relates a state of mind of the natural man being ignorant of his own Divine inward heritage, religion and theology taken literally help keep man in bondage to the first Adam who represents a state that would be observed as great among men but the least in heaven Matt 11:11, same with the story of Moses who was great but couldn't enter the promised land of the Divine Seed. The teaching of the snake is a myth/metaphoric that teaches a inward journey of the Divine soul/Jonah depicted in dramatic fashion through each culture since time begin for the Divine Seed that falls from heaven and dies in flesh.

Plus there is no Jew, Gentile, Male or Female in Christ because they are mental states of Conscience, trapped in this time lock which is ticking away the on the personality created by this worlds temporal kingdom for Divine children of light , Galatians 4:26.

Loss the tradition and literal interpretation 2Cor 3:6.

6days
July 26th, 2015, 09:38 AM
The seed as in one that falls to the ground and dies represent the Divine part of each man played by Jesus who was all spiritual...
Only in your mumbo jumbo new age philosophy.



If you take this literally being history of two separated bodies of flesh then your in observation mode, and one of those two is a phantom of tradition that can't be observed.
Of course we can't observe Adam. We also can't observe Napoleon. But we do have the historical accounts of them.



Yet what is sin really?
Disobedience

Jerry Shugart
July 26th, 2015, 10:38 AM
Do you believe the offer ends at death?


"And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence" (Lk.16:22-26).


Is it perfect goodness to holding back the invitation at a certain point if you are claiming to "love itself"?

The LORD knows that those who turn their eyes away from the light will continue to do that:


"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved" (Jn.3:17-20).

Selaphiel
July 26th, 2015, 10:55 AM
"And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot" (Lk.16:22-26).

Fine, we have this story, but let us reflect on it. Simply citing a story doesn't really resolve the issue as far as I am concerned. Is this just? Is this what you associate with a person who is not only said to be good and loving, but goodness and love itself? I say no.


The LORD knows that those who turn their eyes away from the light will continue to do that:


"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved" (Jn.3:17-20).

If God knows that, then they are not really free, are they? Seems to me that is absurd to say that a being knows what a free being X will do or not do for all eternity unless he knows that they cannot. If all my concrete future steps are knowable, then I am not really free. So by this approach, your freedom argument from before crumbles. It also questions the power of God's love. Is his goodness and love not strong enough to eventually win everyone over?


It is God's will to bring about the highest good for all men. The caveat is that man must freely choose Him over themselves. It is the willing surrender of our drive to fulfill and serve ourselves that makes it possible for us to enjoy God's good will throughout the ages. The most obvious reading of scripture demonstrates that we can refuse or consent to His good pleasure. The will of God is not merely that all men come to Him but that all men FREELY choose to do so.

There is no "obvious reading of scripture". Those who claim that tends to do it on the expense of actually seriously and honestly studying the texts and being willing to critically engage with the texts. The texts of scripture themselves are not obvious in pretty much any respect, there are various theologies and opinions in the various works of scripture. And there certainly are passages in scripture that are not very optimistic about the freedom of men to choose God. We hear about people whose hearts have been hardened by God, whose ears and eyes have been closed. We hear about vessels of wrath created for destruction.

Sorry, but appealing to the clear sense of scripture is not very convincing to me. It is not convincing to pretty much anyone who has taken the trouble to study these texts with anything that even resemebles a critical and academic methodology.


Quit blaming God for man failing. Man was made as good as man can be made, but he does not start out with Godly type Love. All mature adults have the best place and situation for obtaining Godly type love, by simply humbly accepting the Creator’s help (charity), but most seem to prefer being macho, accepting the punishment they fully deserve, not willing to surrender to their enemy (God) and thus will not humbly accept charity.

All well and good, but it doesn't really answer the topic. Is there a final cut off for accepting this? If so, why? Why would a being that is goodness and love give up on certain souls for all eternity? Such an act makes the attributes of goodness and love meaningless, many human parents don't even ever give up on their loved ones.

Selaphiel
July 26th, 2015, 10:59 AM
I'm not really interested in scripture citations unless you can back it up with reasoning. Proof texting absent reasoning and blind acceptance of isolated text fragments in a collection of scriptures is empty fideism.

Jerry Shugart
July 26th, 2015, 11:22 AM
I'm not really interested in scripture citations unless you can back it up with reasoning. Proof texting absent reasoning and blind acceptance of isolated text fragments in a collection of scriptures is empty fideism.

OK, two can play that game.


Do you believe the offer ends at death?

What reasoning can you employ to prove that one's existence continues after physical death?


Is it perfect goodness to holding back the invitation at a certain point if you are claiming to "love itself"?

Again, what reasoning can you employ to prove that one's existence continues after physical death?

You want to stack the deck by using what the Christians say about what the Bible reveals and then you forbid Christians to use the same source which you yourself use.

kmoney
July 26th, 2015, 12:32 PM
That seems to be the necessary conclusion that one must draw from the doctrine of limited atonement. If the disobedience of one man lead to death and sin for all men, how is the obedience, sacrifice and resurrection of Christ not leading to the restoration and salvation of all men? Or even to the entirety of the cosmos.

That is universalism, I'm quite aware. But when reflecting upon the doctrines of God as the good and the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, universalism seems to be a logical necessity. If the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is correct, that means that nothing whatsoever can be thought to restrict or confine God as he expresses and reveals himself in the act of creation. The consequence of that is the end of creation is the self-disclosing of God. If God is not only one who does good things every now and then, but the good itself, this entails ultimate universal restoration, apokatastasis of creation.

Why? Because if the act of creation leads to the eternal damnation of even one single soul, then the moral price of God's act of self-disclosing in creation is morally bankrupt, and thus he cannot be the Good. If the eternal damnation of a soul was necessary, then the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is false, because then you are claiming that something limits or restricts God's will in the act of creation (act of creation here obviously refering to the entire act of creation from beginning to end, not just some vague cause in the past).

I do not think universalism is susceptible to the common criticisms either. It does not deny evil, but it absolutely refuses to define evil as anything more than privatio boni, a depravation of goodness. Nor does it deny moral responsibility (which is a curious objection anyway when it comes from the faith only camp), but moral responsibility is freed up to be genuinly for the sake of love of God and neighbor, not spiritual gain. What it does entail is an absolute faith in God as the good and as love.

Should add that this is inspired by a lecture by the theologian David Bentley Hart.

Is your use of 'limited atonement' here supposed to include a view that says Christ's sacrifice is available to all but only until their physical death?

I agree with you that extending the offer only until physical death seems somewhat arbitrary and doesn't seem that harmonious with the idea that God is love. However, I think you can take a middle ground between universalism and not allowing any salvation after physical death. The middle ground being that God continues to offer life after death but that people are still free to reject it. So, in theory, it's possible someone would be forever damned by their own choice and universalism is never realized.

Based on the options you're giving I guess I'd say that God is limited by giving his Creation free will.

I agree with your last paragraph about common criticisms of universalism. I think the best argument against it is the lack of scriptural support, nor much support in the history of orthodox Christianity.

One parable that came to mind while thinking about this is the parable of the workers in the vineyard. And I think this could spawn other questions about Romans 5 and in what way exactly Adam's sin affected mankind. Which you and Jerry briefly got into.

6days
July 26th, 2015, 03:49 PM
You (Selaphiel)want to stack the deck by using what the Christians say about what the Bible reveals and then you forbid Christians to use the same source which you yourself use.
:) yes.... It seems odd someone wants to promote a certain theology, but doesn't want people to use scripture against his beliefs.

6days
July 26th, 2015, 03:57 PM
Based on the options you're giving I guess I'd say that God is limited by giving his Creation free will.

Sure... I agree.

God is 'limited' by His charater to what is perfect. For Ex. God can not lie.

bling
July 26th, 2015, 07:05 PM
All well and good, but it doesn't really answer the topic. Is there a final cut off for accepting this? If so, why? Why would a being that is goodness and love give up on certain souls for all eternity? Such an act makes the attributes of goodness and love meaningless, many human parents don't even ever give up on their loved ones.

We cannot know so we cannot “give up”, but God could know when a person reaches the point at which they will never change, everything possible has been done that could cause that person to accept God’s help, but they will never do it. You could say: “If God puts a gun to their head than they will be willing to accept His help”, but God is offering pure charity of Love and if you do not accept His charity as pure charity, you will not be getting the Charity (Love).

Look at the story of the Rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), here you have at great person cost to God a rich man provided with the very best opportunity to experience pure Godly type Love with Lazarus being tripped over every day. The Rich man never ceases this easy opportunity, so what better opportunity could God provide?

You “assume” that God is at fault in some way because a mature adult has repeatedly refused God’s Charity (Love) and thus would accept it under some other conditions? But God has set up every individual that will reach maturity with the best opportunity for them to accept His charity. God cannot force them to accept it or it would not be Love.

Zeke
July 26th, 2015, 09:09 PM
Only in your mumbo jumbo new age philosophy.


Of course we can't observe Adam. We also can't observe Napoleon. But we do have the historical accounts of them.


Disobedience

Nothing new age about the Esoteric interpretation of scripture, the Johnny come lately of the Roman historic version is the new age mumbo jumbo you have swallowed hook line and sinker.

Ktoyou
July 26th, 2015, 09:17 PM
That seems to be the necessary conclusion that one must draw from the doctrine of limited atonement. If the disobedience of one man lead to death and sin for all men, how is the obedience, sacrifice and resurrection of Christ not leading to the restoration and salvation of all men? Or even to the entirety of the cosmos.

That is universalism, I'm quite aware. But when reflecting upon the doctrines of God as the good and the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, universalism seems to be a logical necessity. If the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is correct, that means that nothing whatsoever can be thought to restrict or confine God as he expresses and reveals himself in the act of creation. The consequence of that is the end of creation is the self-disclosing of God. If God is not only one who does good things every now and then, but the good itself, this entails ultimate universal restoration, apokatastasis of creation.

Why? Because if the act of creation leads to the eternal damnation of even one single soul, then the moral price of God's act of self-disclosing in creation is morally bankrupt,
creatio ex nihilo to you too:mmph:

Ktoyou
July 26th, 2015, 09:28 PM
I'm not really interested in scripture citations unless you can back it up with reasoning. Proof texting absent reasoning and blind acceptance of isolated text fragments in a collection of scriptures is empty fideism.

Nor do i and i have pointed this out many times. What you are espousing as reasoning is not exegesis, rather it is baloney shaded in words many may not know the meaning. This makes you less apt at explaining your reasoning.

This is not a college class, so speak in simple terms about what you believe!

6days
July 26th, 2015, 09:55 PM
Nothing new age about the Esoteric interpretation of scripture, the Johnny come lately of the Roman historic version is the new age mumbo jumbo you have swallowed hook line and sinker.
Exegesis interpretation of scripture helps us see how various Bible authors, and even how Christ interpreted and relied on scripture as the plain truth,,,and the absolute authority. Jesus was not a Johnny come lately as He taught about a literal Hell... and a literal human at the beginning of creation. Moses was also not a Johnny come come lately as he recorded the geneaologies from Adam onwards.
Neither were any of the early church fathers Johnny come lately such as .....

Ephrem the Syrian (306-373): "‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,' that is, the substance of the heavens and the substance of the earth. So let no one think that there is anything allegorical in the works of the six days. No one can rightly say that the things that pertain to these days were symbolic."

Theophilus (c. 185): “On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth came from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it.”

Origen (c. 200): “the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that.”

Clement of Alexandria (150-216): "From Adam to the deluge are comprised two thousand one hundred and forty-eight years, four days"

glorydaz
July 26th, 2015, 11:46 PM
All well and good, but it doesn't really answer the topic. Is there a final cut off for accepting this? If so, why? Why would a being that is goodness and love give up on certain souls for all eternity? Such an act makes the attributes of goodness and love meaningless, many human parents don't even ever give up on their loved ones.

This is an interesting thread. I don't really believe in universal salvation, but have to admit that I sometimes wonder. How is it that every knee will bow and every tongue confess God? It almost sounds too good to be true. Evil people bowing and confessing God? Why would they if they knew they were hell bound? :think:


Isaiah 45:22-23 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

Romans 14:7-12 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Ben Masada
July 27th, 2015, 02:19 AM
Are you implying that the cross and "resurrection" of Jesus were sinful events? By the way, what was the sin of Adam? I have read about the so called "sin of Adam" but every time I review it, it sounds to me as a Catch-22. You know, the command that must be obeyed by doing the opposite. But never mind about that for now. What was the sin of Adam in your understanding?

bling
July 27th, 2015, 08:29 AM
This is an interesting thread. I don't really believe in universal salvation, but have to admit that I sometimes wonder. How is it that every knee will bow and every tongue confess God? It almost sounds too good to be true. Evil people bowing and confessing God? Why would they if they knew they were hell bound? :think:



At some point there is no other one to turn to but God: your money will not help you, your walls are worthless, your army has fallen, and the sword is at your neck, so certainly you will bow your knees and say truly God is God. The problem is if you reach that point you have gone too far to have your “acceptance” be a humble free will choice, since there is no real “choice” (with likely alternatives).

You could say: “If God puts a gun to their head than they will be willing to accept His help”, but God is offering pure charity of Love and if you do not accept His charity as pure charity, you will not be getting the Charity (Love).

kmoney
July 29th, 2015, 02:59 PM
Are you implying that the cross and "resurrection" of Jesus were sinful events?
I'm not sure who you are responding to but why do you ask that?

Bright Raven
July 29th, 2015, 03:01 PM
No!

John 19:30 Modern English Version (MEV)

30 When Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished.” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.

kmoney
July 29th, 2015, 03:39 PM
No!

John 19:30 Modern English Version (MEV)

30 When Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished.” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.

What was finished?

Bright Raven
July 29th, 2015, 03:44 PM
What was finished?http://www.gotquestions.org/it-is-finished.html

oatmeal
July 29th, 2015, 04:45 PM
That seems to be the necessary conclusion that one must draw from the doctrine of limited atonement. If the disobedience of one man lead to death and sin for all men, how is the obedience, sacrifice and resurrection of Christ not leading to the restoration and salvation of all men? Or even to the entirety of the cosmos.

That is universalism, I'm quite aware. But when reflecting upon the doctrines of God as the good and the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, universalism seems to be a logical necessity. If the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is correct, that means that nothing whatsoever can be thought to restrict or confine God as he expresses and reveals himself in the act of creation. The consequence of that is the end of creation is the self-disclosing of God. If God is not only one who does good things every now and then, but the good itself, this entails ultimate universal restoration, apokatastasis of creation.

Why? Because if the act of creation leads to the eternal damnation of even one single soul, then the moral price of God's act of self-disclosing in creation is morally bankrupt, and thus he cannot be the Good. If the eternal damnation of a soul was necessary, then the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is false, because then you are claiming that something limits or restricts God's will in the act of creation (act of creation here obviously refering to the entire act of creation from beginning to end, not just some vague cause in the past).

I do not think universalism is susceptible to the common criticisms either. It does not deny evil, but it absolutely refuses to define evil as anything more than privatio boni, a depravation of goodness. Nor does it deny moral responsibility (which is a curious objection anyway when it comes from the faith only camp), but moral responsibility is freed up to be genuinly for the sake of love of God and neighbor, not spiritual gain. What it does entail is an absolute faith in God as the good and as love.

Should add that this is inspired by a lecture by the theologian David Bentley Hart.

For those who choose to believe God, the cross and resurrection is stronger.

Totton Linnet
July 30th, 2015, 03:58 AM
Do you believe the offer ends at death? If so, why? Is it perfect goodness to holding back the invitation at a certain point if you are claiming to "love itself"?

Your message to the slayer of children is then "Go in peace, it will be well with you"

...I think the wicked will be punished.

kmoney
July 30th, 2015, 03:10 PM
Your message to the slayer of children is then "Go in peace, it will be well with you"

...I think the wicked will be punished.

Not really. How does the possibility or repentance and salvation after physical death mean that Sela and/or God is telling murderers to go in peace and it's well with them? How does it invalidate the possibility of any punishment?

kmoney
July 30th, 2015, 03:17 PM
Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.


Does the sin of Adam 'touch' every person?
Does the sacrifice of Christ 'touch' every person?

If the answer to Adam is yes and the answer to Christ is no then it would seem on some level Adam's sin was more powerful. Or is there a way in which Christ's sacrifice touches every person but doesn't necessarily lead to universal salvation?

Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Cons&Spires
July 30th, 2015, 04:27 PM
Is the sin of Adam stronger than the cross and resurrection of Christ?

A very good question to one who believes in the doctrine of Infused Righteousness (an almost entirely catholic belief)

Sin boldly, but hold God higher, because the gift of the crucifixion is higher than your own sin.

Ben Masada
July 31st, 2015, 08:06 AM
Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Does the sin of Adam 'touch' every person?
Does the sacrifice of Christ 'touch' every person?

If the answer to Adam is yes and the answer to Christ is no then it would seem on some level Adam's sin was more powerful. Or is there a way in which Christ's sacrifice touches every person but doesn't necessarily lead to universal salvation?

Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

I don't know what you mean by "the sin of Adam" because, sin by definition is the transgression of the Law and the Law aka the command of God not to eat of the tree of knowledge was obeyed within the concept of the Catch-22. Then, I see no connection between the "sin-not-sin" of Adam and the crucifixion of Jesus.

Ben Masada
July 31st, 2015, 08:09 AM
I'm not sure who you are responding to but why do you ask that?

Because, somehow, I see no connection between one thing and the other. Where on earth has any thing that happened in the Garden of Eden with what happened in the Calvary?