I can't quite say He's not the source of evil, given the reasons I've previously stated. However, I should probably make it more clear that also don't think this means that He's running around wreaking havoc just for kicks and giggles either, like Dennis the Menace on steroids. Besides that, there are things considered "evil" which are subjectively determined as such depending on denomination, religion, culture, etc., so that muddies the waters enough to give the topic a thread of its own elsewhere.
Yes, I think you may have explained this already, but I'm still of the mind that if Adam was indeed perfect, if he was made righteous before God, and in a perfect state, he would not have rebelled.
However, I suppose it's quite possible that even in his apparent rebellion, he was still perfect, and what has been historically considered his "messing up" really wasn't a mess-up at all, but just another perfect, righteous act performed by a perfect, righteous being.
But again I ask: If a perfect Adam could ruin a perfect setting with just a flick of his free will, then who's to say this won't happen again in heaven one day (assuming we have free will in heaven)? Maybe that's another heavier topic deserving of its own thread too. It's not a question that has to be answered here unless someone wants to take a stab at it. It's just food for thought.
I love Romans 5, because it elaborates on what 1 Corinthians 15:22 puts forth, that the fall and salvation from the fall both follow the same pattern, just in different directions:
Just as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. It's the same all, otherwise the sentence wouldn't make sense. It would be like saying something like "Just as I drove a VW to work as a teen, so also does my daughter eat grapes on Tuesdays."
And Romans 5:15 echoes 1 Corinthians 15:22:
15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
Same "the many". There's a parallel being drawn between the effects on mankind of Adam's single transgression and Christ's single sacrifice. Just as... so also.
Then there's another parallel illustrated in Romans 5:17:
17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
Then, as if Paul couldn't make this clear enough (maybe while under the influence of Divine Inspiration he foresaw the endless debates over this that would take place in the future
), we have Romans 5:18:
18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
One act of transgression brought condemnation upon all.
One act of righteousness brought justification upon all.
Same all.
Romans 5:19:
19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
One act of disobedience by one individual affected everyone
One act of obedience by one individual affected everyone.
Now, I can see it already: Some will jump in and argue that Romans 5:19 is saying that "the many and not all" are saved, but in order for that to work one would then have to conclude that "the many and not all" were made sinners by Adam's disobedience. It's the same "the many", either way, or else it wouldn't make sense grammatically.
Romans 5:20-21:
20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
A clear (to me, anyway) demonstration that God sees your sin and raises you an abundance of grace. Every. Single. Time.
God wins (a statement that potentially inspires the Godwin-posts, ironically enough!
).
Well, there are a couple ways to look at this.
There was the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 which could account for a lot of that impending-doom-speak people interpret as referring to post-mortem punishment for not believing in Christ.
However, as we've already seen, we are made alive in Christ the same way we were made dead in Adam. So if it was the same way, we didn't have to believe in Adam first before we were made dead in him. The whole being-made-dead-and-alive-again transaction was made waaaaay over our heads, and apparently our vote in the matter has not been required.
What believing does help do is give us a clearer outline of what went down, and what it means for us ultimately. That's why (I believe) that, as 1 Timothy 4:10 states, while God is, indeed, the Savior of all, He's especially the savior of those who believe, because knowing now that one's future is so bright they need to wear shades makes the remainder of life here on earth a heck of a lot more bearable than if one is wandering around thinking there's a good chance it's going to be all doom and gloom for eternity. Especially if one's particular denomination / religion comes with a handy list of "unforgivable" or "mortal" sins for one to constantly fret over possibly having committed.
The judgment in this verse can be at least a couple of things: The fall in AD 70, or the judgment that Christ took upon himself on the cross. In any case, it would be hasty for me to conclude that "the judgment" can only mean "torture for all eternity". Such a conclusion waters down Christ's sacrifice far too much for my tastes.
Well see that's just it: Paul didn't find salvation, it found him. That's as free-gift as it gets, imo.
Those verses have already been shared.
As I've said before, sin, rebellion, and unbelief are symptoms of being lost. "The lost" is who Christ came to save. To punish the lost for sinning is like punishing a tuberculosis patient for coughing. Especially if salvation from such things is supposedly a gift that God bestows on someone—if someone continues in those things, it's because God refrained from bestowing that transforming gift on them, in which case He's responsible for their condition, either way.
It's helpful to note that a person can be an inhabitant of a kingdom without actually inheriting it.
Far from it. Not sure where you're seeing that in my posts.
-
Now we're going in circles, so I'll try and summarize the problems by highlighting the critical errors you hold to:
1. God is not the source of evil. Scripture does not say that He creates, bestows and imputes moral evil upon men, that causes men to sin. It does say, however, that God punish evil according to His righteousness and goodness. Evil is something void of God, not something from God, and to punish evil is in itself a good thing. From the erroneous idea that God somehow creates evil opens up to many strange teachings that can only be described as gnostic and anti-Christian. This has never been the position of the church for there is no Biblical or historical evidence of this.
I would even add that to proclaim that God is the source of evil is actually blasphemy and not something to be taken lightly, and I would further urge you you pray and seek counsel about this.
2. Sin has been used as a sickness in an analogy, but on the whole it is not described as a mere symptom in Scripture - this would be greatly reducing the severity of sin. This attitude and aloofness towards sin is problematic, for Scripture overwhelmingly describes sin as serious offenses that deserves serious punishment.
3. Scripture says nowhere that whoever disbelieves in Christ will be saved. It says the polar opposite in Mark 16:16:
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." We can't simply take "all" (Romans 5:15) to mean universal salvation, as the word can be used in a wide and narrow sense, and ignore the call for repentance and belief in Jesus Christ. When looking at Romans 5:19, we can know that this is directed at believers if we read the whole chapter. It even begins with:
"Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." We can't ignore this context; we are justified by faith, not rebellion.
If your idea is that all who have died in their own sins and rebellion, rejecting God's grace, will be turned and believe, when exactly would you suggest that this transpire? And where is the Biblical evidence for this?
4. Your idea of judgment really goes hard against much Scripture. I can quote a lot, but Matthew 25:31-46 illustrates the judgment pretty well. Here again we see the word "inherit" in the context of believers.
Regarding Adam - I agree, this could really be its own discussion, so I'll leave it at this: The key difference does not rest in our states, but in God's promises for Adam and for people in Christ. To Adam He said if he sins, he would surely die. To people in Christ, God promises no more sin or death.