ECT Our triune God

[Nang]

What Christ accomplished in the atonement is true whether you accept it or not. Your acceptance brings you into consistency with its inclusion. Your refusal of it does not effect its efficacy. It only sets you against it, as one swimming upstream against a strong current. Your labors will not be over until you relent and go with the flow.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who redeemed them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed.

These are not believers, never have been, most likely never will be, yet they are redeemed.

No such thing as a (supposedly) "redeemed" soul that will never believe. There is no such oxymoron to be found in the Holy Scriptures of God.

 

[TFTn5280]

No such thing as a (supposedly) "redeemed" soul that will never believe. There is no such oxymoron to be found in the Holy Scriptures of God.

I didn't say 'supposedly.' That is your word.

 

[TFTn5280]

No such thing as a (supposedly) "redeemed" soul that will never believe. There is no such oxymoron to be found in the Holy Scriptures of God.

You are arguing this thing as if a nonbeliever. If you want to be certain of its efficacy believe, whereby you will receive the Holy Spirit of promise.

 

[patrick jane]

QUOTE=N[ang;4238659]I am sorry, but this is does not come to my ears, as ringing true, but rather as an illogical fallacy. You are abandoning the law of non-contradiction. There is no such thing as a divine atonement that does not efficaciously atone. There is no such thing as man existing, when and if he can willfully choose to deny the provision of life.[/QUOTE]

maybe you'd like to think so - atrol:

 

[patrick jane]

2 Corinthians 5.14-21

Okay, I will be using the NKJV and addressing only certain Greek words.

14 For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died;

The word for "compels" literally means "to seize without release": "For the love of Christ seizes us and won't let go."

This verse and the passage as a whole speaks to humanity’s ontology in Christ, our existent status as human beings in him. Hence in this verse "all" means all and not some, as in some who are elect. And "died" means dead. As dead as Christ was dead in the tomb, that is how dead all humans were in his death. He died for all; thus in his death, all died with him.

15 and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.

"Those who live" is likewise a reference to all humanity and not to certain individuals who have put their faith in Christ and have thus been born again (This is not an argument against faith in Christ or regeneration; it's just that faith is not in view here). We may know that “those who live” is inclusive of the all of v 14 by simple deduction: If everyone died in Christ's death, but only the faithful are alive in his resurrection, then with whom should the living share the Gospel? The dead are as dead as Christ was dead in the grave, that’s the point of this passage ~ not spiritually dead but dead as in no breath in them whatsoever. Again, they are as dead as Christ was when he died. Thus, the "those who live" is a reference to everyone who has breath in his or her lungs. Everyone died in Christ, and everyone rose with him in his resurrection; therefore the living should live no longer for themselves but for him who died for them and rose again.

And here the word "for" should better be translated as "on behalf of": He died on behalf of all, their ontological status contained in him, "in order that" those who live, literally, "the living ones" should live no longer for themselves…

The important thing to take away from this verse is that all humanity died in Christ's death, and all humanity rose in Christ's resurrection. All humans are alive right now on Christ's side of the resurrection ~ and are included in him.

16 Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer.

"Flesh" in this verse is a loaded term. It speaks to the entirety of human ontology. It is the flesh that the Word became in the incarnation. It is humanity on the fallen side of Adam. It entails every aspect of our personhood, even our fallen state of being. And Paul says that we are to evaluate no one on these terms any longer ~ because dead on the fallen side of Adam means alive on Christ's side of resurrection. We regard no one as dead in Adam's flesh but everyone alive in Christ, in his resurrection.

And I will expand more on this in a bit but Paul says that Christ was once known according to this same flesh but not any longer. What happened? Christ took that fallen humanity to the cross with him and into the grave with him ~ and there he left it! In resurrection, Christ is victorious over everything that set itself against life in him: sin, death, the devil, even flesh, everything. In his resurrection we no longer regard him or anyone else according to that former humanity.

17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

My translation: "For this reason, if even one person is in Christ, a new creation he is; the old flesh (sin, sinful nature, sickness and psychosis, hence the entire range of human being) has passed away; behold, the new has come."

In this translation I turn to the UBS text rather than the TR because in this instance it fits better with the context of the rest of this passage.

"In Christ" is again a reference to ontological status in him in his incarnate person, in resurrection. The old flesh died in Christ; a new creation has come with him in resurrection.

This verse does not narrow the preceding verses down to a select few; instead it narrows it down to one. This is Paul's way of addressing “the many in the one" or said another way, "the all in the one." This is a common construct in the Mediterranean social world of his day: the one and the many; the many in the one. Here Paul is including all in his reference to the one.

18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation,

Here "all" is neuter and is inclusive of all creation, humanity included.

The word for "has reconciled" is an aorist participle and should be translated thus: "... God, who reconciled us..." The Gr aorist tense conveys the certainty of a past event but does not take time into consideration. Therefore, no matter where we are in our walk of life, the aorist is always active: we are reconciled to God in Christ.

And again, "us" here is inclusive of all humanity because, as we learned above, we are to regard no one according to the flesh because all died in Christ and rose again with him in resurrection.

19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

This is our ministry as believers, the Gospel we should declare to those who do not yet believe: that it was in the flesh or "incarnation" of Christ (again from verse 16) that God reconciled the entire world to himself, and that includes all who hear our voice, not crediting to them the sins they committed.

20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.

"Therefore, be reconciled to God!" Here is the second half of the Gospel, the first half being: you died in Christ; you rose again with him; you are alive in him and are no longer to be considered as someone who is yet dead in the flesh, because Christ came in that same flesh, died to it and rose victorious over it; you are now included in his resurrection, just as you were in his death, and you are therefore a new creation. You stand now as one who is completely reconciled to God because of what Christ did in your place ~ Therefore, drop your enmity against God, befriend him and be reconciled to him!

21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Two things about this verse, the second first: "might become" here does not convey possibility; instead it denotes certainty. The death Christ died was a righteous death. Sin had no hold on him; thus nor did death. His was a resurrection of righteousness. We died that death with him, in him, in his incarnate Person; thus the grave he took us to could not hold us either. Hence ours as well is a resurrection of righteousness, the righteousness of God in Christ.

Second point: this verse speaks plainly as to how that happened. The early Church Father’s had a saying that speaks profoundly to the incarnation of Jesus Christ: That which Christ did not assume, he could not heal. Christians live predominately today under a Doctrine of Christ that teaches them that Jesus came in a new kind of humanity, unrelated to our sin fallen flesh, and that he lived out his life in that perfect humanity, never giving credence to the outward temptations that he faced. He went to his death in the perfect state in which he came, but on the cross God imputed our sin to him, whereby he died in estrangement. In resurrection his righteousness is imputed back to those who believe. This is called the double move of God or the double decree.

This I see as legal fiction. Legally God decrees Christ a sinner. But he’s not. Legally God declares believers righteous. But we’re not. Both sides are legal but neither side is true. It is a legal fiction.

What Christ did not assume, he could not heal means that he assumed our entire flesh in his incarnation: sin, sickness, psychosis and all. That’s what it means that he became sin. Yet he fought back the proclivities of humanity in his flesh his entire life, beating and bending our self-sickened desires back to his Father. The temptations he felt were real temptations, internal temptations, because they were our temptations. Beating and pounding his way forward with blows, defeating the tyrants at every juncture ~ sin, sickness, psychosis, the devil, even the Law ~ so that when he went to the cross to face the final enemy, that enemy could not hold him there. There he took us with him in his flesh, and with him there we rose in righteousness, his real and true righteousness, his genuine ontological righteousness, not the kind that God blinks and winks at, but the real righteousness of God in Christ: Christ in us and we in him that we might become the righteousness of God in Christ. Amen

T

EDIT: Just as this was not a passage that takes into view humanity's faith response to the evangel's call, neither does it speak to the consequence of rejecting that call. And so, to make it clear that the above is not my lone standing argument for universalism, I am not a universalist, nor do I believe that this passage should stand alone in any such discussion. In spite of the wonderful assurance that this passage should give Christians and the world alike, there will be those who hear its simple call and still reject the good news contained therein. However, their rejection will not have the power to nullify any of these truths, because here we are discussing ontology and not experience; our existence, not what we believe about or how we experience that existence. Everything contained in these verses will remain true in spite of their rejection. Apart from believing the Gospel content, however, they cut themselves off from participating in its truth. They destine themselves to live a lie while the truth passes them by.

good post, i didn't finish but first half great. i gotta go 4 the night. it is amazing, how few words Paul and other Bible authors used, that contains this wisdom. if folks don't read it as God intended, truly seeking God, not allowing external influences, we can lose focus. so far, i like your posts and writing style - God Bless

 

[patrick jane]

yes, we cannot fathom that Christ FELT our sins. what that means. the ones that don't know

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

You are arguing this thing as if a nonbeliever. If you want to be certain of its efficacy believe, whereby you will receive the Holy Spirit of promise.

Sorry man.

But, would somebody please change this dude's diaper?

Jude 1:23 KJV

23 And others save with fear, pulling [them] out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

 

[TFTn5280]

Sorry man.

But, would somebody please change this dude's diaper?

Jude 1:23 KJV

23 And others save with fear, pulling [them] out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

Thanks for sharing this, 1Mind. It speaks strongly to my case. IF the Good News of their salvation is not enough to scare the hell out of Christ haters, nothing will. I had a professor once, who said that hell is banging on the backside of Grace. Can you imagine such disdain?

 

[Nang]

QUOTE=N[ang;4238659]I am sorry, but this is does not come to my ears, as ringing true, but rather as an illogical fallacy. You are abandoning the law of non-contradiction. There is no such thing as a divine atonement that does not efficaciously atone. There is no such thing as man existing, when and if he can willfully choose to deny the provision of life.

maybe you'd like to think so - atrol:

There is no such thing as having life, and not believing in the Provider of Life at the same time. Such are walking dead men, consigned to hellfire.

Thus, there is no such thing as being justified by Christ, and never receiving faith to believe in His Redemption.

The teaching of a universal atonement is a fallacy that does not accord with whole of Scriptures at all.

 

[Nang]

You are arguing this thing as if a nonbeliever. If you want to be certain of its efficacy believe, whereby you will receive the Holy Spirit of promise.

You are presenting a view that unbelievers enjoy, but by so doing, you are deny the efficacy of the cross work of Jesus Christ, which only regenerated believers enjoy.

 

[Nang]

Thanks for sharing this, 1Mind. It speaks strongly to my case. IF the Good News of their salvation is not enough to scare the hell out of Christ haters, nothing will. I had a professor once, who said that hell is banging on the backside of Grace. Can you imagine such disdain?

There is no such thing as "good news of their salvation" given to Christ haters.

Jesus Christ did not die for reprobates. That is the very definition of being "reprobate of God."

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Thanks for sharing this, 1Mind. It speaks strongly to my case. IF the Good News of their salvation is not enough to scare the hell out of Christ haters, nothing will. I had a professor once, who said that hell is banging on the backside of Grace. Can you imagine such disdain?

Fear-based "salvation".

Not a fan.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Fear-based "salvation".

Not a fan.

Nor I.

The good news is, God the Father has concluded all in unbelief, so that he may have mercy upon all.

Jesus his son came to save all those the Father gives him.

It was quite apparent, when he said Father forgive them for they know not what they do, he was hoping it was everyone.

The aspect that Father and son are the same, is a most dangerous outcome of the Trinity doctrine.

Even though the Father has put all things under his Son, he did not put Himself or His will under him.

Jesus and his God are both to be feared, for even though the Son came for everyone, he will not disobey his Father.

Those who do not believe that God sent his son and raised him from the dead have their consolation now only.

Those who believe, have tribulation & consolation now but in the world to come drop the tribulation.

We love him for he first loved us.

Fear is for staying on track.

 

[jsjohnnt]

There is no such thing as "good news of their salvation" given to Christ haters.

Jesus Christ did not die for reprobates. That is the very definition of being "reprobate of God."

Of course he did. "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do" is Christ's attitude toward those who hated him at the moment. The were reprobate to max. A rather silly statement from a biblical centered point of view.

Paul made it clear that Christ did not die just for his friends. but for those who were enemies of God (Rom 5:6).

 

[TFTn5280]

Fear-based "salvation".

Not a fan.

I think you misunderstood me. The Good News is not to be compromised for Christ haters. To the contrary, let them go to sleep at night knowing that Christ's atoning work is every bit as efficacious for them as it is for believers. Let them stew on the truth that God loves to the point that he will not let them go. If the power of God unto salvation will not stir them to repentance, preaching hell to them surely won't. It's the "heap burning coals effect"; in fact, it's from whence the concept came.

 

[Nang]

You misunderstand, the Good News is not to be compromised for Christ haters. To the contrary, let them go to sleep at night knowing that Christ's atoning work is every bit as efficacious for them as it is for believers. Let them stew on the truth that God loves to the point that he will not let them go. If the power of God unto salvation will not stir them to repentance, preaching hell to them surely won't.

I do not recognize this as gospel Truth at all.

 

[TFTn5280]

There is no such thing as "good news of their salvation" given to Christ haters.

Jesus Christ did not die for reprobates. That is the very definition of being "reprobate of God."

Let me get this straight. We are commanded to love our enemies, when God himself does not? From where does such love come?

 

[TFTn5280]

I do not recognize this as gospel Truth at all.

Sure it's Gospel truth. It's the Gospel of Jesus Christ, his apostles, Irenaeus, Cecil, Athanasius, the Gregories, not to mention Origen (whom I'm not crazy about), pretty much all of early orthodoxy; that is until Augustine came and helped split the Church from east to west. Ask your puppet master. He knows.

 

[TFTn5280]

[/YELLOW]



There is no such thing as having life, and not believing in the Provider of Life at the same time.

Oh? Who then is their life source? Surely not some other god. Are they themselves their own ontology? Better work on that one, sister.

Edit: You are ascribing to Deism. It's a clock-maker mentality: God wound them up and walked away.

 

[Nang]

Let me get this straight. We are commanded to love our enemies, when God himself does not? From where does such love come?

There is no such thing as Godly love, apart from Godly truth.