Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Fervent]

But Jesus was also born in the flesh. He was born in the flesh to replace Adam. In John 5:58 Jesus declares "before Abraham was born, I am!". He could have just as rightly said "before Adam was born/created, I am!". How can we be in Adam without first being in Jesus since Adam is the son of God/Jesus?

Where do you find that point made in the Bible?

 

[Ceallaigh]

Where do you find that point made in the Bible?

Every point I made was from scripture. Do you want me to attach the scripture reference to each point?

 

[Fervent]

Every point I made was from scripture. Do you want me to attach the scripture reference to each point?

You strung together some disjointed texts that don't make the central point you are making to create a point. I asked where your central point is taught in Scripture. Where does the Bible use "in Adam" interchangeably with "in Christ" or claim that being "in Adam" and "in Christ" are equivalent?

 

[Hmm]

Where does the Bible use "in Adam" interchangeably with "in Christ" or claim that being "in Adam" and "in Christ" are equivalent?

Where in MMXX's posts has he said that it does? Please provide the actual quotes.

What he has been saying is that the scope of the "all" the "in" is referring to is equivalent.

"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive".

The scope is "all" people. It's very hard to read it any other way but I admire your determined efforts to do so.

 

[Fervent]

Where in MMXX's posts has he said that it does? Please provide the quotes.

What he has been saying is that the scope of the "all" the "in" is referring to is equivalent.

"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive".

The scope is "all" people. It's very hard to read it any other way but I admire your determined efforts to do so

I don't see it in MMXX's posts, what I see in MMXX's posts is unrelated texts being used to make a point not found in the Bible to then bring to the text and use that point to interpret Paul's usage of "in Christ" and "in Adam." It doesn't matter if MMXX can argue some way we can conceive of "in Adam" and "in Christ" to mean the same people, what matters is if Paul would have used those words that way.

As for your claim that it is "'all' people", Where do you get "people" from? I don't see "people" in the text.

 

[Ceallaigh]

You strung together some disjointed texts that don't make the central point you are making to create a point. I asked where your central point is taught in Scripture. Where does the Bible use "in Adam" interchangeably with "in Christ" or claim that being "in Adam" and "in Christ" are equivalent?

As I understand it, the UR contention is that "in Adam" and "in Christ" are equivalent. I'm demonstrating how that might be the case.

 

[Fervent]

As I understand it, the UR contention is that "in Adam" and "in Christ" are equivalent. I'm demonstrating how that might be the case.

That's not the UR contention, but trying to make the Bible dance by inventing ways to see it a certain way is exactly what I am objecting to rather than the UR position itself.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I don't see it in MMXX's posts, what I see in MMXX's posts is unrelated texts being used to make a point not found in the Bible to then bring to the text and use that point to interpret Paul's usage of "in Christ" and "in Adam." It doesn't matter if MMXX can argue some way we can conceive of "in Adam" and "in Christ" to mean the same people, what matters is if Paul would have used those words that way.

As for your claim that it is "'all' people", Where do you get "people" from? I don't see "people" in the text.

I think it's possible that is what Paul was conveying. Especially when Romans 5 is taken into consideration. As for "all people" what else could "all" be referring to?

 

[Ceallaigh]

That's not the UR contention

So then what is the contention then? What are they trying to assert?

 

[Fervent]

I think it's possible that is what Paul was conveying. Especially when Romans 5 is taken into consideration. As for "all people" what else could "all" be referring to?

All in Christ=every confessing believer, all in Adam=everyone born in the flesh.

 

[Fervent]

So then what is the contention then? What are they trying to assert?

The grammatical argument the UR position tried to make is that the "in" functions within the verbal predicate, so that the subject and verb are both taking place within it. Which has been thoroughly explained and refuted, and your confusion just confirms that when you accused me of overcomplicating things its because you didn't understand what was at issue nor what I was arguing.

 

[Ceallaigh]

The grammatical argument the UR position tried to make is that the "in" functions within the verbal predicate, so that the subject and verb are both taking place within it. Which has been thoroughly explained and refuted, and your confusion just confirms that when you accused me of overcomplicating things its because you didn't understand what was at issue nor what I was arguing.

I have read quite a lot of statements from UR proponents, and I have never seen any of them say anything like, "the "in" functions within the verbal predicate, so that the subject and verb are both taking place within it". That seems to be something you came up with. Using a bunch of terminology that I'm pretty sure only a high school English teacher or a grammar aficionado would properly grasp. Aside from all of that, the contention is that "in Christ" can only mean those who are born again. Whereas their contention is that just as "all in Adam" covers everyone, "all in Christ" covers everyone. I'm using my knowledge of the Bible to demonstrate how they might be right. I'm using scripture rather than grammar.

 

[Ceallaigh]

All in Christ=every confessing believer, all in Adam=everyone born in the flesh.

I'll use your approach; where in the Bible does it specifically say "all in Christ=every confessing believer, all in Adam=everyone born in the flesh"?

 

[Fervent]

I have read quite a lot of statements from UR proponents, and I have never seen any of them say anything like, "the "in" functions within the verbal predicate, so that the subject and verb are both taking place within it". That seems to be something you came up with. Using a bunch of terminology that I'm pretty sure only a high school English teacher or a grammar aficionado would properly grasp. Aside from all of that, the contention is that "in Christ" can only mean those who are born again. Whereas their contention is that just as "all in Adam" covers everyone, "all in Christ" covers everyone. I'm using my knowledge of the Bible to demonstrate how they might be right.

While they didn't use the specific terms, I did for brevity's sake. It is the argument Hmm posted. What that grammatical phrasing means, represented syntactically, is:

all died in Adam, all are made alive in Christ

if you can't understand how the meaning of that phrase is different than
all in Adam died, all in Christ are made alive

then you've got big comprehension problems which render all of your interpretations suspect.

If your contention is "all in Adam" and "all in Christ" are the same group, then that is 100% eisegesis(bringing the meaning into the text rather than the text actually saying it) unless you can show that Paul would have used them interchangeably not simply that you can concoct some rationalization for understanding it that way by cobbling together unrelated texts. The way you're "using your Bible" anything can be supported with the right out of context snippets and logical constructions.

 

[Ceallaigh]

While they didn't use the specific terms, I did for brevity's sake. It is the argument Hmm posted. What that grammatical phrasing means, represented syntactically, is:

all died in Adam, all are made alive in Christ

if you can't understand how the meaning of that phrase is different than
all in Adam died, all in Christ are made alive

then you've got big comprehension problems which render all of your interpretations suspect.

So in order for it to be properly comprehended, it has to be reworded?

If your contention is "all in Adam" and "all in Christ" are the same group, then that is 100% eisegesis(bringing the meaning into the text rather than the text actually saying it) unless you can show that Paul would have used them interchangeably not simply that you can concoct some rationalization for understanding it that way by cobbling together unrelated texts. The way you're "using your Bible" anything can be supported with the right out of context snippets and logical constructions.

It's not my contention, but rather a contention that I'm exploring. How are the texts I'm using unrelated or out of context when they're all about Adam and Jesus? So far you're just making claims and accusations, rather than using the Bible to refute what I've come up with so far. I don't mean by using counter text, but rather demonstrating how and why the text I'm using is Biblically unrelated.

 

[IWalkAlone]

Love your enemies and pray for them. Whats the point to praying if God won't save them?

 

[Hmm]

I'm using scripture rather than grammar.

Arguments over grammar are really the only defense of ECT we have heard. But like you, I think this misses the bigger scriptural picture. God tells us time and time again that He is love while ECT lacks all compassion and has no redemptive purpose whatsoever. It's about torment forever and ever just for the sake of it.

I think most of us acknowledge that a lot of what we do is affected by our social and material environment and by our physical and mental health. Jesus said he came not for the healthy, but to seek and save the lost and yet in ECT there no scope to help or heal the people who need it most. God repeatedly tells us that He is love, merciful and just and this is simply denied by the doctrine of ECT.

ECT is an interpretation of scripture that has to erase all the qualities Jesus showed when he had compassion on those in need and healed them. Jesus said that the people would suffer the (time limited) punishments of Gehenna were those who lacked compassion and misrepresented God. "When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them" (Matthew 21:45)
.
It would be nice to hear how ECT accurately aligns with God's compassion rather than correct grammar but I wont hold my breath.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Which means that all in hell will acknowledge Jesus as the Christ but they will not be leaving hell.

NO WHERE in Scripture is there a suggestion that those in hell will ever leave.

That my friend is a figment of your imagination.

Swing and a miss, Major. How much enthusiasm can the King expect in support of his justice policies from the hopelessly condemned? What about the right of appeal, the bail, the suspended and non-custodial sentence? Where are the nuances in your medieval vision of the divine right?

Jesus breaks into the strong man's house to steal his goods.
Jesus has the keys to death and hell.
Jesus comes to give life and free from prison.
Jesus forgives and is meek and lowly of heart.
Jesus is God's right arm.
Jesus is Salvation.
Jesus is not only the alpha, but also...the omega.
See the Son, see the Father.

These are fundamental principles. How could such a great teacher in all of Israel not know these things? Ah, but you must be born again. Are you born again, Major?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Really...really easy because you see.....I have actually read the Bible and I believe it when I read in Revelation 21:25thru 28 about the city prepared for all who believe in Christ......
"And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.
And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life."

Those Pearly Gates are always open so that the nations and kings of the earth can come and go in peace, as long as they first wash their robes in the laver, the blood of the Lamb, the Lake of Fire. Get that fuller's soap to scrub out the scarlet stains from the wool, refine away the dross and stubble with the fire assay, and look in contempt at the wormy sludge of the fleshy corpse of the old man.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

But silver bullets returned to the Lone Ranger!

Hopefully Tonto knew how to duck and weave.

You may like "As all proceed from God so to Him shall all return." but the truth is that that phrase IS NOT IN THE BIBLE!

Neither is 'Major is majorly wrong,' but there's overwhelming support for the inference.

Now what is in the Bible is that only those who confess Christ and repent will be in heaven. In Matthew 11:20-24, we can see Jesus denouncing three cities for their unrepentant attitude despite the many miracles He performed.........

Correct. But all will eventually 'give it up' for Christ. All critters above, on and under the earth will sing his praises.

Then He began to denounce the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent.
“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you."

If God doesn't judge the modern world, He will have to apologise to Chorazin and Bethsaida. They will wail and gnash teeth in shame and regret, as they start on the road to repentance.