ECT This should start a decent discussion: Universal Atonement

jsjohnnt

New member
As to how reconciliation works, let's not forget that before Christ drew all men to himself, via the cross, he first humbled himself, and became like us in every way . . . . . in other words, God reconciled Himself to our humanity and all that this means, before he began Part II of the reconciliation "process."

If Gramps goes to visit the grandkids, enters the house and says, "Come sit on my knees and I will tell you a story," who was drawing who into fellowship, the very existence of the kids drawing Gramps to thier home, or Gramps invitation to "Come, sit on my knee." Soooooo, maybe both sides of this question are right, no?
 

Totton Linnet

New member
Silver Subscriber
As to how reconciliation works, let's not forget that before Christ drew all men to himself, via the cross, he first humbled himself, and became like us in every way . . . . . in other words, God reconciled Himself to our humanity and all that this means, before he began Part II of the reconciliation "process."

If Gramps goes to visit the grandkids, enters the house and says, "Come sit on my knees and I will tell you a story," who was drawing who into fellowship, the very existence of the kids drawing Gramps to thier home, or Gramps invitation to "Come, sit on my knee." Soooooo, maybe both sides of this question are right, no?

God will not have the devil's kids playing on His knees, we must adhere to scripture.

"....these will depart into eternal punishment" They are the children of the devil his lusts they will do.
 

jsjohnnt

New member
God will not have the devil's kids playing on His knees, we must adhere to scripture.

"....these will depart into eternal punishment" They are the children of the devil his lusts they will do.
Tell me young lady, are you sinless? Is your character above reproach as in "perfect?" Were you included in the statement, "Christ died for us while we were YET sinners?" And what does that mean, "while we were yet sinners" if not that Gramps had the evil children sitting in his lap? Or John's statement: If you say you are having no sin, you lie," what about that passage of scripture.

Look, I am not trying to put you down, but WE ARE ALL SINNERS, even now as I wrtie, and in need of the CONTINUAL FLOW OF THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB," right?
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
I do not believe you are hypocritical, but I do believe you are sincerely wrong. I have no war against Catholics [and so Orthodox christians] I do have war against their teachings, the church was usurped at the turn of the century. The gospel preached by Ignatias and co is as different from the apostles as night is from day. Their doctrines are according to the human mind.

Well, the time involved in this "turning" as you call it from TRUE Christianity, has lasted to this day and hour... And was only "CORRECTED" by the MAN Luther and the MAN Calvin and the MEN of the Reformation... And after all that, it was "CORRECTED" only in the last hundred years by the MAD's...

And I do not see how you can avoid thereby saying that Christ FAILED for the first 1500 years of his Body on Earth, and maybe as much as the first 1900 years... Ignatius was taught by an Apostle, as you know, and if you are right, the Apostle Christ commissioned to teach him FAILED to do so according to the Commandments of Christ and the pastoral epistles of Paul...

And the problem with this is that the teaching of the Apostolic Churches is extraordinarily uniform throughout the world, whereas the teachings of the reformation immediately went viral in their diversity... So that your own experience argues against your understanding and convicts it...

What I have against the doctrines is that it makes the Christian way so onerous and unattractive only a mad person would follow it, and it's EASY to be a Catholic or Orthodox. I was brought up Catholic I know.

There is a world of difference between the Latin and the Greek Churches... You do NOT know based on being reared Catholic...

As long as you do the minimum in terms of sacraments you can live like the devil [and a great many do] but you will be accepted...people will even admire you. A great many of the clergy do. So they live laxity but preach for doctrine severity. Yes that is hypocritical.

Ah but there is penance.

You are indicting the Latin Church, not the Greek...

Arsenios
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
As to how reconciliation works...

God cursed the serpent, the woman, and Adam in the Garden at the Fall, and then he cursed the very ground itself... So ALL creation fell, in that sin, and Christ redeemed it all in His ascent upon the Cross, nullifying the power of death over those in Him...

So yes, we all will be drawn into Christ at the Last Judgement, and for some it will be heaven, but for others it will be hell, and it is the ontological condition of one's soul that will determine which is which...

Arsenios
 

jsjohnnt

New member
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsjohnnt View Post
As to how reconciliation works...

Arsenious wrote: God cursed the serpent, the woman, and Adam in the Garden at the Fall, and then he cursed the very ground itself... So ALL creation fell, in that sin, and Christ redeemed it all in His ascent upon the Cross, nullifying the power of death over those in Him...

So yes, we all will be drawn into Christ at the Last Judgement, and for some it will be heaven, but for others it will be hell, and it is the ontological condition of one's soul that will determine which is which...

Arsenios

_____________________________

Serious question: So God humbling himself to become like us in every way, is not God, first, reconciling Himself to our humanity?

I do not deny that he draws us. I am only saying that his act of reconciliation began when God approached us in our circumstance, when He, first, reconciled himself to our finiteness, to our humanity, to our weaknesses and sufferings. And why is that important? For the profoundly simple reason that reconciliation works best when it happens within family, amongst brothers, between father and son.

While "Father," in a familia sort of way, is not a pronounced Old Testament teaching, it certainly is in-and-throughout the New Covenant dispensation.

Man's sinful nature was obvious, before the "fall," btw. He challenged the truthfulness of God before the fall. He lusted for the fruit, before the fall. The thought of being like God was appealing, before the fall. His capability for sin was ever present, before the fall. His willingness to serve or respect Satan was present, before the fall. And Romans 5:12, as I read that passage, tells us that the Adamic sin's consequence has force in our lives, "because we have all sinned."

Because of our own complicity, there is nothing "original" in Adam's sin, except, of course, that his was the first violation of stated law. Babies, for example, are not born in sin and in need of salvation from sin. If you agree that sin, in our personal lives, is a deliberate departure from God's revealed will (which was the reality in the Adamic sin circumstance), then you might agree.

In fact, sin and the sheer weakness of our insoluble, human condition, is that very thing that invited God into our suffering.

Today, Resurrection Sunday, is when we remember that God, the Father, had not forsaken his Son. And when Jesus of Nazareth uttered those words, "Why hast thou forsaken me," he was only declaring the whole truth of the 22nd Psalm. TFTn5280 has something to say about this, but I could not find it, last week, when I went looking. It was a great point and included what I am saying, now . . . . . . . . that those Jews who heard him say, "Why hast thou forsaken me," knew, full well, the reality of Psalm 22, that it is not a declaration of defeat, or a question as to God's desertion of the sinner, but the beginning of the proclamation that is found in Ps 22:24, "For he has not despised or disdained the suffering of the Afflicted One; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help."

Again, this is not my idea, but 5280 is currently in hidding, so you will have to suffer with my wording.

The fact remains, that God's reconciliation began with the humility of Christ as described in Philip 2, extended to his human suffering on the cross and, finally, in the vindication of Christ in the Resurrection. In Christ, it is "God to man" and "Man to God."
 
Last edited:

Omniskeptical

BANNED
Banned
Arsenios said:
Ignatius was taught by an Apostle,
O Latin Catholic, he was taught by Polycarp. Thou likes to suffer everday like a Roman Catholic. Scripture doesn't say, "carry his cross everday.", but I bet it is one of your favorite interpolations. Remember to tell everyone how, "suffering it divine" from now on.
 

Simon Baker

BANNED
Banned
O Latin Catholic, he was taught by Polycarp. Thou likes to suffer everday like a Roman Catholic. Scripture doesn't say, "carry his cross everday.", but I bet it is one of your favorite interpolations. Remember to tell everyone how, "suffering it divine" from now on.


Originally Posted by Arsenios
Ignatius was taught by an Apostle,

Hebrews 6:4-6
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsjohnnt View Post
As to how reconciliation works...

Arsenious wrote: God cursed the serpent, the woman, and Adam in the Garden at the Fall, and then he cursed the very ground itself... So ALL creation fell, in that sin, and Christ redeemed it all in His ascent upon the Cross, nullifying the power of death over those in Him...

So yes, we all will be drawn into Christ at the Last Judgement, and for some it will be heaven, but for others it will be hell, and it is the ontological condition of one's soul that will determine which is which...

Far from reconciling God to our falleness, Christ elevated our falleness to the Most High...

Arsenios

_____________________________

Serious question: So God humbling himself to become like us in every way, is not God, first, reconciling Himself to our humanity?

You think that by taking upon Himself fallen human flesh that He was reconciling Himself to fallen human flesh? That is simply not true, and verifiably so, because IF He HAD reconciled Himself to human flesh, then He would have sinned, "...for all have sinned, and come short of the Glory of God..." But this He did not do... He did not sin at all...

Instead of reconciling Himself to humanity, he took on our humanity DIFFERENTLY from how we take it on, and lived a human life without sin, and gave up His Life upon the Cross - It was NOT taken from Him... He had NO death in Him... Nor did the WORLD have anything in Him... "...for I have overcome the world..."

He took our humanity and elevated it in Himself to the Right Hand of the Most High, and in that action, elevated us who are in Him, who abide in Him by living repentant lives... It was, you see, ONLY in Himself that humanity, human nature, was transformed, and not in us, [for all have sinned]... This is why entry into Christ is so important, for His Body on earth IS the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, for that is WHERE the heavenly King finds His faithful obedient to their King... Ananias, the baptizer of Paul, is a good study in what this looks like...

Christ did not conform God to man when He became man...

He instead TRANSFORMED human nature in Himself...

It is WITHIN this transformed human nature that WE find our Salvation in Christ... Within the Promised Land of the Body of Christ is the Kingdom of Heaven on earth... The SKIN of this body is the Jordan River, which had to be crossed in order to enter the Promised Land of the Jews... That is why Christ was baptized in the Jordan... And that is why Paul writes that WE are Baptized INTO Christ, and every Baptism is done by HUMAN hands, even the HANDS that baptized Christ Himself at that very boundary...

Arsenios
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
O Latin Catholic...
Scripture doesn't say,
"carry his cross everday.",

Luke 9:23
And He said to them all,
"If any man will come after me,
let him deny himself,
and take up his cross daily,
and follow me. "


QUID...

..........ERAT...

.....................!! SPLAT !!...

There!

I have given you all my Latin!

Arsenios
 
Last edited:

Totton Linnet

New member
Silver Subscriber
Tell me young lady, are you sinless? Is your character above reproach as in "perfect?" Were you included in the statement, "Christ died for us while we were YET sinners?" And what does that mean, "while we were yet sinners" if not that Gramps had the evil children sitting in his lap? Or John's statement: If you say you are having no sin, you lie," what about that passage of scripture.

Look, I am not trying to put you down, but WE ARE ALL SINNERS, even now as I wrtie, and in need of the CONTINUAL FLOW OF THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB," right?

God consigned all men under sin. He did this in the way He has created us all under the federal headship of Adam, i.e. Cain was born from the same womb that bore Abel. I do not know why people find it hard to see that God purposely placed the righteous and the unrighteous together in this way. One was always going to reject Christ the other be saved.

One is the seed of the woman the other the seed of Serpent, The bible charts the history of the seed of the woman, the seed of the serpent only so far as they affect the church.

Is there a third crowd? beside the elect and the unelect. Controversially I believe there is a third crowd but that is a whole new topic...I believe in a BILLIONfold wider mercy and I think I can prove it from scripture.
 

Totton Linnet

New member
Silver Subscriber
Well, the time involved in this "turning" as you call it from TRUE Christianity, has lasted to this day and hour... And was only "CORRECTED" by the MAN Luther and the MAN Calvin and the MEN of the Reformation... And after all that, it was "CORRECTED" only in the last hundred years by the MAD's...

And I do not see how you can avoid thereby saying that Christ FAILED for the first 1500 years of his Body on Earth, and maybe as much as the first 1900 years... Ignatius was taught by an Apostle, as you know, and if you are right, the Apostle Christ commissioned to teach him FAILED to do so according to the Commandments of Christ and the pastoral epistles of Paul...

And the problem with this is that the teaching of the Apostolic Churches is extraordinarily uniform throughout the world, whereas the teachings of the reformation immediately went viral in their diversity... So that your own experience argues against your understanding and convicts it...



There is a world of difference between the Latin and the Greek Churches... You do NOT know based on being reared Catholic...



You are indicting the Latin Church, not the Greek...

Arsenios
No that is not the way I believe it is all, and I have never believe that there will not be many, many Catholic/Orthodox people saved. They will be saved despite their church not because of it.

God is awesome in grace and mercy.

My grandpops for instance a Belfast RC used to tell of how as a soldier in the war he visited the church of the tomb in Palestine where supposedly the resurrection happened. He used to tell of a marvellous peace swept over him and he said in that instance He KNEW that Christ was arisen. What he described was an evangelical conversion and he was a saintly man.

The kind most parishioners mock as "holy Joes"

And I don't look at the differences between the Orthodox/Catholic churches but what they have in common, the idolatry of the eucharist, sacramentalism. I have spoken bluntly to you, I hope I speak as honestly to all Catholics [and Catholic sorts] but I wish you to know I am not a hater, I was brought up Catholic, I am profoundly thankful for that, I learned much.

....but I was not saved.
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
No that is not the way I believe it is all, and I have never believe that there will not be many, many Catholic/Orthodox people saved. They will be saved despite their church not because of it.

Well, the Church is the Body of Christ...
And Christ is the Head of HIS Body, the Church...

So IF you think you are saved
despite Christ's Body under His Headship,
I cannot prevent you...

God is awesome in grace and mercy.

He is indeed, and has been bestowing Salvation from the beginning...
He bestowed it to David, removed it from him, and restored it again...

Such is the Grace and Mercy of God...
Where God is acting OUTSIDE the Body of Christ...

But since the Incarnation of our Lord...
We can become MEMBERS of the Body of Christ...
We can eat His Body and drink His Blood...
And in this is LIFE...
And without it, "You have no Life in you" as Christ said...
Without it, you have the Salvation of David...
And you do not have the Salvation of Paul of Tarsus...
Who was baptized into Christ by Ananias and filled with the Holy Spirit...

My grandpops for instance a Belfast RC used to tell of how as a soldier in the war he visited the church of the tomb in Palestine where supposedly the resurrection happened. He used to tell of a marvellous peace swept over him and he said in that instance He KNEW that Christ was arisen. What he described was an evangelical conversion and he was a saintly man.

God bless him... He made it to Jerusalem, to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, where each year, the Eastern Orthodox receive the Holy Fire on Pascha in the service of the Resurrection of Christ there:

https://video.search.yahoo.com/vide...fr2=p:s,v:v&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mozilla&tt=b

The kind most parishioners mock as "holy Joes"

Christ was mocked...

And I don't look at the differences between the Orthodox/Catholic churches but what they have in common, the idolatry of the eucharist, sacramentalism.

It CAN become idolatry - Indeed, the whole of it CAN become an exercise is superstitious magic, and priests CAN become unbelieving charlatans and worse...

But Christ did say: "Take... Eat... This My Body IS... This do in remembrance of Me..." And the Lord's Prayer which He taught to the Apostles to pray whenever they should pray supplicates our Father to give them their "daily bread", their "super-essential" bread...

I have spoken bluntly to you, I hope I speak as honestly to all Catholics [and Catholic sorts]

I sort of get your blunted meaning... :) I am that sort, sort of... As I sort through the implications...

but I wish you to know I am not a hater, I was brought up Catholic, I am profoundly thankful for that, I learned much.

You are confusing salvation with a profound personal interaction with God... The only problem with that is that this is not why Christ incarnated... God could have and did give this kind of Spiritual interaction throughout the Old Testament prior to Christ's Birth of the Blessed Holy Virgin...

You DO call her Blessed, do you not?

You see, what Christ gave to mankind in this coming to earth born of a Virgin is His BODY, that within it, we should find Life,, the conjoining of WHO we are with WHO Christ IS... And not merely the saturation of our souls with the Grace of the Holy Spirit, which YOU think is Salvation IN Christ... The Old Testament Prophets ALL had the latter... Moses positively shone in his face with it... But not yet was he hypostatically joined with Christ...

....but I was not saved.

I cannot speak to your Salvation... But I can speak to your understanding of what it is that constitutes it, and it is not one's personal encounter with the Living God... Instead, it is one's ENTRY into the Body of Christ when one is Baptized INTO Christ BY and at the manual HANDS of Christ ACTING THROUGH His Servants... As did Ananias Baptize Paul INTO Christ...

It is very easy to mistake the Call of Christ, for so Holy is that Calling, for the Salvation of Christ...

Arsenios
 

Totton Linnet

New member
Silver Subscriber
You would never convince me that Ananias was a priest Catholic or orthodox.

Christ did indeed say "this is My body" then He broke it....The emphasis is always on breaking bread in the NT...something you guys do not do.

It SYMBOLises the cross.....how can the symbol be greater than that which is symbolised...He came to give His life, He gave it at Calvary, which life we have received.
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
You would never convince me that Ananias was a priest Catholic or orthodox.

Ananias was a servant of God - That is what Scripture tells us... I would hope, at the end of my life, that I could be called as much...

Christ did indeed say "this is My body" then He broke it....The emphasis is always on breaking bread in the NT...something you guys do not do.

It is the Latins who have the azymatic bread that is handed out as a wafer... The Orthodox bake bread for each Eucharistic Service, and it is broken as Christ said... It is Christ's Body, broken for you, for the remission of sins...

It SYMBOLises the cross.....how can the symbol be greater than that which is symbolised...He came to give His life, He gave it at Calvary, which life we have received.

It is one thing to receive life from God, and it is another to be reborn into Christ... The Prophets of the Old Testament were saturated in the Holy Spirit, but were not hypostatically joined with Christ...

How, experientially, are you going to discern the difference between hypostatic rebirth and saturation in the Holy Spirit?

Arsenios
 

TFTn5280

New member
Matthew 7.12 "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. 13 Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

If you're just now coming to this thread, at the end of last week, several of us were discussing the above passage. At least two of us had concluded that "the harrow gate" was a reference to Jesus and that "the difficult way" was referencing the obedient Christian life. One of the two, however, interpreted the passage in a narrow Jewish context ~ the few who find the gate being Jews specifically and not a reference at all to gentiles. The other saw it in a broader sense to be inclusive of gentiles as well.

I drew a conclusion different than either. I argued that the narrow gate was a reference not to Jesus but to the Jewish Law and that the difficult way referenced strict, in fact, perfect obedience to that Law. Well that put me all alone in the discussion.

Today I would like to build on my interpretation ~ not that it'll change any minds, but in order to help you to better see where I am coming from in our larger discussion of universal atonement. For as I have said, I believe salvation is wholly in Christ and wholly by Christ. It was activated by him alone in his life, death and resurrection, and not by our own faith movement. And it is kept by him alone and not by our obedience to him. Faith and obedience are our loving responses to his gracious, onto-relational inclusion of us in his life, death, and resurrection.

About this I agree with JSJOHNNT: The passage was given in address to Jews and Jews only. In order to understand this passage, we must read it in that narrow cultural context. Whether Jesus was speaking of himself here as the "few," he being the only one who could travel that road, or the few being a small number of Jews who would find it, it is not to be interpreted by gentiles for gentiles. The entire sermon on the mount must be interpreted within the strict context of Jewish culture in order to be rightfully understood by us.

But let me ask you? How would the Jews have interpreted this saying? Their frame of reference was the OT Law. They ate by the Law. They dressed by the Law. They worshiped by the Law. And they were governed by the Law. Jesus told them the road to everlasting life was difficult to travel. How were they to interpret that road? Said another way, how would they have interpreted that road as anything other than the road of obedience to the Law of Moses?

Those who argued for the interpretation that Jesus was the gate, also argued that the difficult road was a road of some sort of obedience to a Christian code of conduct. On what they thought that code was they differed, but they all thought of it as a specific road of conduct, the road of living in obedience to the Christian way of life. But let me ask you, what did the Jews know of that life? Christ had yet to die for them. Paul had yet to address them. They had the Law and that was it! They didn't get who Jesus was. Not even the apostles got who Jesus was. The only code they knew was the Jewish code. And so, let me ask you, Are Jewish Christ followers confined to follow OT Law in order to gain salvation? By extrapolation, are gentile Christians confined under that same law if to gain the same thing? If they were not and we are not, I think it is incumbent upon those who think it is not, to explain how it is that the Jews should have gotten it otherwise.

Now, let me say, I believe the difficult road was indeed a reference to absolute obedience to the Law of Moses. That's how the Jews would have understood it, and that's how we should understand it. That being the case, we must ask what does that mean for us. Are we to follow the same road today? If not, why? Why did they have a road other than the road we must travel?

The answer is because it is Christ who traveled that road for them, just as it is Christ who traveled the road for us. It is not we who must not swerve; it was Christ the perfect follower. The difficult way was traveled by Christ alone ~ and it led him alone to the cross.

If the road is obedience then the gate to that obedience is the Law. The Law determines the route the road takes. Why then do Christians call the gate Christ? Because that's what they've been taught by generations, for generations. "Christ is the gate." "Christ is the gate." "Christ is the gate." NO! Christ is not the gate. The gate is the Law. When Jesus said to the Jews, "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect," they thought of perfection as that which is defined by the Law. When Jesus said the way is difficult, they thought of that difficulty as being the difficulty of following the Law. And were they honest with themselves, both sayings would have evoked despair in their hearts. They were not perfect and they weren't going to be perfect. Nor are we.

Friends, the gate is the Law and the difficult way is the way of obedience to the Law ~ and the few who could pass through that gate and follow that difficult road was One, Jesus Christ alone.
 
Last edited:

Arsenios

Well-known member
I believe the difficult road was indeed a reference to absolute obedience to the Law of Moses.

They already HAD that -
Absolute obedience to the Levitical Law...
And the Pharisees were at the TOP of the heap...
So that IF that was what Christ meant,
then He was teaching NOTHING NEW...

But He WAS teaching something new...
THAT is why He drew such crowds...
He was not all that kind to those whom your view would praise...

Not to mention: ONE is NOT a FEW...

Arsenios
 

Totton Linnet

New member
Silver Subscriber
Ananias was a servant of God - That is what Scripture tells us... I would hope, at the end of my life, that I could be called as much...



It is the Latins who have the azymatic bread that is handed out as a wafer... The Orthodox bake bread for each Eucharistic Service, and it is broken as Christ said... It is Christ's Body, broken for you, for the remission of sins...



It is one thing to receive life from God, and it is another to be reborn into Christ... The Prophets of the Old Testament were saturated in the Holy Spirit, but were not hypostatically joined with Christ...

How, experientially, are you going to discern the difference between hypostatic rebirth and saturation in the Holy Spirit?

Arsenios

By receiving that life...if you believe it is received sacramentally you have not received it.
 

TFTn5280

New member
They already HAD that -
Absolute obedience to the Levitical Law...
And the Pharisees were at the TOP of the heap...
So that IF that was what Christ meant,
then He was teaching NOTHING NEW...

But He WAS teaching something new...
THAT is why He drew such crowds...
He was not all that kind to those whom your view would praise...

Not to mention: ONE is NOT a FEW...

Arsenios

What was new about "Be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect?"

... even more perfect than the scribes and pharisees
 

TFTn5280

New member
Today, Resurrection Sunday, is when we remember that God, the Father, had not forsaken his Son. And when Jesus of Nazareth uttered those words, "Why hast thou forsaken me," he was only declaring the whole truth of the 22nd Psalm. . . . [T]hose Jews who heard him say, "Why hast thou forsaken me," knew, full well, the reality of Psalm 22, that it is not a declaration of defeat, or a question as to God's desertion of the sinner, but the beginning of the proclamation that is found in Ps 22:24, "For he has not despised or disdained the suffering of the Afflicted One; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help."

AMEN!
 
Top