A Conversation with an "Eastern Orthodox"

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Ben:
Sorry, the "baptism" spoken of in Rom6:3, has nothing to do with water.
Five words are used interchangeably, and we cannot inject a "water-topic":
1. Died
2. Crucified
3. Buried
4. Immersed
5. UNITED
We are "immersed into Christ", we are not "immersed into water"; just like we are "united with Christ", we are not "united with water".

Quoted by RG:
It does and always has. It is the one who by faith has believed and is now entering the Kingdom of Christ. We SPIRITUALLY experience that physical death, resurrection, burial of Christ. It is known as that FIRST RESURRECTION, the spiritual one overcoming the dead spiritual nature we all have unless we are IN Christ, LIVE IN HIM.​

The "First Resurrection", occurs at the END of the Tribulation, and begining of the 1000 years.

Let's establish that Rom6:3 does not speak of water. First, we establish that both persons, Jesus, and the Spirit, indwell the believer; I think you'll agree with that.

Second, Matt3:11-12: "As for me, I baptize you with water; but He who comes after me ...will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. ...He will gather His wheat, but will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire."

Here in absolute terms it speaks of an "immersion into the Holy Spirit", which is separate from water. (He's also speaking of "immersion into fire for sinners", can only mean "Hell".)

Because salvation is BOTH "Jesus-in-you" (1Jn1:13), and "the Spirit in you" (as we just read), we have established that the BAPTISM of the Spirit is SEPARATE from water, then it follows that the "baptism into Christ" is the SAME as "baptism into the Spirit".

Thus --- "united/buried/crucified/died/IMMERSED" --- has nothing to do with water.

Another thing that we showed in a different post --- those in Acts8:16 had been waterbaptized but had not received the Holy Spirit yet. And those in Acts10:47 had received the Spirit but not yet been waterbaptized. If Jesus and the Spirit are both received at the same time (they are), then these two instances establish that "receiving", is separate from "water".

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
It is the end of the Tribulation and time as we know it. It is the end. the next is eternity. The Thousand Year reign is in progess.​

Can't be. There would have to have been a "world government", a "mark" without which none could buy or sell, and especially the antichrist presenting himself as God.

None of that has happened yet.

Quote:
Those that shared in that first, (spiritual) resurrection are already with Him and sharing in that reign.
You don't believe Christ in on the Throne today and rules? You don't believe you are actually IN Christ, that you don't LIVE IN HIM, thus you can reign with Him NOW!?​

Look around you, at all the evils being done in the world; do you really see a world where Christ physically reigns?

Besides --- that reign BEGINS, with His physical returning; and all the world will SEE Him riding in on that white horse.

This should be enough for now...

 

[Rightglory]

Ben Johnson,

Romans6:3-4 is "immersion into Christ"; nothing to do with "water"
Quoted by Ben:
Sorry, the "baptism" spoken of in Rom6:3, has nothing to do with water.
Five words are used interchangeably, and we cannot inject a "water-topic":
1. Died
2. Crucified
3. Buried
4. Immersed
5. UNITED
We are "immersed into Christ", we are not "immersed into water"; just like we are "united with Christ", we are not "united with water".
Quote:
It does and always has. It is the one who by faith has believed and is now entering the Kingdom of Christ. We SPIRITUALLY experience that physical death, resurrection, burial of Christ. It is known as that FIRST RESURRECTION, the spiritual one overcoming the dead spiritual nature we all have unless we are IN Christ, LIVE IN HIM.
The "First Resurrection", occurs at the END of the Tribulation, and begining of the 1000 years.
Let's establish that Rom6:3 does not speak of water. First, we establish that both persons, Jesus, and the Spirit, indwell the believer; I think you'll agree with that.
Second, Matt3:11-12: "As for me, I baptize you with water; but He who comes after me ...will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. ...He will gather His wheat, but will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire."
Here in absolute terms it speaks of an "immersion into the Holy Spirit", which is separate from water. (He's also speaking of "immersion into fire for sinners", can only mean "Hell".)
Because salvation is BOTH "Jesus-in-you" (1Jn1:13), and "the Spirit in you" (as we just read), we have established that the BAPTISM of the Spirit is SEPARATE from water, then it follows that the "baptism into Christ" is the SAME as "baptism into the Spirit".
Thus --- "united/buried/crucified/died/IMMERSED" --- has nothing to do with water.

the Bible only speaks of ONE Baptism. It is why I believe in ONE Baptism. Rom 6, the whole chapter has always been understood as the baptism chapter. It is entrance into the Kingdom. It is when we repent, are baptised, regenerated, put ON Christ, and are indwelt with the Holy Spirit. It is a simultaneous event, it is not separated. It never was understood differently. No Christian group, all those that left over the defining of the Trinity, the Incarnation, still abide by this understanding today, including the RCC. It is ONLY within protestantism, that we find a multitude of personal interpretations regarding this singular event of a believer entering INTO Christ, into His Kingdom. The definition of a believer. It has always been with water. Again, most if not all protestants have a gnostic approach to the material world, because, as you have, believe that Christ only redeemed some individuals for salvation. When in fact, He redeemed the physical world as well. It is why Christ was baptised. First, to sanctify water as that means of gracr to be used to signify that regenerational event of a believer. Secondly to use it as an example. Thus the command to preach the Gospel and baptise in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
this is one reason why Sola Scriptura cannot work. The Gospel was much more than just that which was written. The written part is only a portion of the whole of that Oral Tradition that was put into practice and was being practiced for almost 60 years before all what we know as NT Canon even existed. No person or group ever began a movement to contradict this teaching ever until the Reformation. NO man has been able to change it and now within protestantism, each person can change the meaning to suit his fancy. Why do you think that you can have so many interpretations all based on scripture?
The Bible has always been understood within the larger Oral Tradition which produced the Bible. It was not just understood, but practiced. It cannot be extracted from the full content of that Gospel once given. That same teaching and understanding has not changed, the Holy Spirit has been faithful in preserving that practice as part of that once given Gospel.
Answer this Ben, why can the same human beings, who I am sure you will agree have not changed since time immemorial, do not change a body of knowledge known as the Gospel for 2000 years, yet the same type of individuals since the 16th century have yet to end the multiplicity of differing views on even just baptism? Which would you think would be the authentic, historical work of preservation of that Gospel by the Holy Spirit?

Can't be. There would have to have been a "world government", a "mark" without which none could buy or sell, and especially the antichrist presenting himself as God.
None of that has happened yet.

Why would there need to be a world government. The people of that day did not consider anything outside of the Roman Empire of worth. They were the world empire. Also, the simple fact of a "mark" has also already occured in the same Roman Empire. During the severe persecution of Diocletian, he established a Roman law that required all Christians to turn in their Bibles to be burned and would recieve a mark on their hands. Those that refused were executed. It is this very event that triggered the dispute over rebaptising those who gave up the Bible to save their lives. They were not willing to sacrifice life for Christ. This goes to that Heb 6:6. The Church decided to permit them to reenter and since God is the ultimate judge, left that judgement to Christ.

Look around you, at all the evils being done in the world; do you really see a world where Christ physically reigns?

So, now you don't even think God can rule providentially in this creation either?
Christ does reign physically. He was lifted up into Heaven in His Glorified state, a state we will possess some day. That is still a physical state, Christ still has that physical state, NOW, in heaven, as we will also.
Read what Matt says about this matter.
When is this sacred reign?
At the Last Supper Christ revealed when the reign would begin. Whenever next Jesus drinks with the desciples, He says, it will be in His Fathers's kingdom. After His resurrection Jesus did eat and drink with his disciples. The millennium of grace had begun and the message of the Gospels is that salvation comes in the here and now. It is this reigning of believers as living in a relationship with Christ within His Church, His Body. That the saints are reigning can be clearly seen in the verse Matt 16:19, Matt 18:18.
Then what Peter says.... in the Pentacost sermon, Acts 2:22-36. Peter clearly puts Christs as the inheriter of Davids Throne connected to His resurrection, not some future earthly kingdom. He further emphasizes that He reigns NOW, TODAY. We, as believers reign with Him NOW.

Besides --- that reign BEGINS, with His physical returning; and all the world will SEE Him riding in on that white horse.

Peter just tied it to His physical resurrection.
Do you really believe that much in symbolism of a Book that is written as an Apocolypse that Christ will be riding on a white horse?

 

[nobdysfool]

Eleven posts in a row, and Ben claims to not understand why most people will not engage with him. He thinks that taking him to task for multiple, voluminous posts is just trying to sidetrack the discussion.

Ben counts on overwhelming his opponents in this fashion. It is the internet equivalent of creating a huge diversion (kicking up massive quantities of dust) to mask the thinness of what he says. Ben's theology is miles wide, but only millimeters thick.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
Eleven posts in a row, and Ben claims to not understand why most people will not engage with him. He thinks that taking him to task for multiple, voluminous posts is just trying to sidetrack the discussion. ​

Each post is a response to something RG said. This is a discussion; every position carefully compared with Scripture, and exegesis of Scripture pursued with careful and thorough study. In these posts, show me where any post is "meandering" or "off-topic" and/or "not discussing Scriptural correlation".

Quote:
Ben counts on overwhelming his opponents in this fashion. It is the internet equivalent of creating a huge diversion (kicking up massive quantities of dust) to mask the thinness of what he says. Ben's theology is miles wide, but only millimeters thick.​

"Millimeters thick"? Then you will be able, with Scripture, to show where something I've said, is "shallow". With respect, this is the same accusation levied in the "OSAS" discussions. Charges of "overwhelming" when I'm only responding carefully and thoroughly to every point (usually in the midst of ALSO being charged with "not reading the other person's posts), and charges of "bad hermeneutics" and "faulty interpretation" and "eisegesis" without citing any Scriptures. Such charges would have more credibility if they came with Scriptual backing. With respect, if you had that "backing", you would give it.

No offense meant.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by RG:
the Bible only speaks of ONE Baptism. It is why I believe in ONE Baptism. ​

"One Lord, one faith, one baptism" --- Eph4:5. Yet we've established (by Matt3:11-12) that the "baptism into the Spirit", has nothing to do with water. We also accept that receiving the Spirit, and receiving Christ, are simultaneous and both equate to "being saved". Thus the "one baptism", is into Christ and the Spirit.

Sadly, I just edited the post before reading your reply; I added the comments about Acts8 and 10, where believers had received the Spirit BEFORE waterbaptism, and other believers had received Him AFTER waterbaptism. If the water was part of salvation, there could be no "separate".

Remind me --- I know we agree on this --- those in concentration camps in WWII, who became believers but died without being "dipped", are certainly accepted into Heaven.

Quote:
Rom 6, the whole chapter has always been understood as the baptism chapter. It is entrance into the Kingdom. It is when we repent, are baptised, regenerated, put ON Christ, and are indwelt with the Holy Spirit. It is a simultaneous event, it is not separated.​

Yet it's possible to receive the Spirit BEFORE water (Acts10:47), and AFTER water (Acts8:16). "Separated" is the only possible understanding.

Quote:
It never was understood differently. No Christian group, all those that left over the defining of the Trinity, the Incarnation, still abide by this understanding today, including the RCC. It is ONLY within Protestantism, that we find a multitude of personal interpretations regarding this singular event of a believer entering INTO Christ, into His Kingdom. The definition of a believer. It has always been with water. Again, most if not all protestants have a gnostic approach to the material world, because, as you have, believe that Christ only redeemed some individuals for salvation. When in fact, He redeemed the physical world as well.​

"Redemption" is identical to "justification" and "sanctifiation" and "regeneration", and "salvation". Redemption CAME to all the world, but only those who receive it, are redeemed.

To put it more clearly --- all mankind was redeemed by Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross; but those who REFUSE to believe, reject that redemption --- thus are not redeemed. And are not sanctified, and are not justified, and are not regenerated, and ARE JUDGED for the conscious choice they made.

Quote:
It is why Christ was baptised. First, to sanctify water as that means of grace to be used to signify that regenerational event of a believer. Secondly to use it as an example. Thus the command to preach the Gospel and baptise in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
this is one reason why Sola Scriptura cannot work. The Gospel was much more than just that which was written.​

And yet, what WAS written, is accurate and sound. All Scripture is "God-breathed" and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. 2Tim3:16

Quote:
The written part is only a portion of the whole of that Oral Tradition that was put into practice and was being practiced for almost 60 years before all what we know as NT Canon even existed. No person or group ever began a movement to contradict this teaching ever until the Reformation. NO man has been able to change it and now within Protestantism, each person can change the meaning to suit his fancy. Why do you think that you can have so many interpretations all based on scripture?
The Bible has always been understood within the larger Oral Tradition which produced the Bible. It was not just understood, but practiced. It cannot be extracted from the full content of that Gospel once given. That same teaching and understanding has not changed, the Holy Spirit has been faithful in preserving that practice as part of that once given Gospel.​

The whole reason I wrote the book, is to demonstrate Scriptural absolutes. People can ATTEMPT to make various interpretations; but as I've shown in the OSAS debates, the main "proof verses" can be shown NOT to assert that they had been interpreted to.

For instance (not discussing OSAS but showing proper understanding) Jeremiah 17:9 was thought to assert "man's heart is too corrupt, God must change the heart BEFORE the heart can seek God". But simply reading verse 10 shows that God responds TO men's heart, rather than changing them TO respond to God.

Quote:
Answer this Ben, why can the same human beings, who I am sure you will agree have not changed since time immemorial, do not change a body of knowledge known as the Gospel for 2000 years, yet the same type of individuals since the 16th century have yet to end the multiplicity of differing views on even just baptism? Which would you think would be the authentic, historical work of preservation of that Gospel by the Holy Spirit?​

The Scripture hasn't changed. Men have always been "fallible". If in the past some have said "waterbaptism is part of salvation, it's when the Spirit is received and salvation begins" --- then what happens when we read a passage in the Bible that asserts "people had received the Spirit BEFORE being dipped" (Acts10:47)? And what happens when we see others received the Spirit AFTER being "dipped" (Acts8:16)? If Scripture is not in error, then we must conclude that the previous understanding was.

Quoted by Ben:
Can't be. There would have to have been a "world government", a "mark" without which none could buy or sell, and especially the antichrist presenting himself as God.
None of that has happened yet.

Quoted by RG:
Why would there need to be a world government? The people of that day did not consider anything outside of the Roman Empire of worth. They were the world empire. Also, the simple fact of a "mark" has also already occured in the same Roman Empire. During the severe persecution of Diocletian, he established a Roman law that required all Christians to turn in their Bibles to be burned and would recieve a mark on their hands. Those that refused were executed. It is this very event that triggered the dispute over rebaptising those who gave up the Bible to save their lives. They were not willing to sacrifice life for Christ. This goes to that Heb 6:6. The Church decided to permit them to reenter and since God is the ultimate judge, left that judgement to Christ. ​

The "mark", is required for buying/selling. World-wide. There must be some kind of authority that would supercede nationality for that to happen. Else some nations would just say "no".

Quote:
So, now you don't even think God can rule providentially in this creation either?
Christ does reign physically. He was lifted up into Heaven in His Glorified state, a state we will possess some day. That is still a physical state, Christ still has that physical state, NOW, in heaven, as we will also.
Read what Matt says about this matter.
When is this sacred reign?
At the Last Supper Christ revealed when the reign would begin. Whenever next Jesus drinks with the desciples, He says, it will be in His Fathers's kingdom. After His resurrection Jesus did eat and drink with his disciples. The millennium of grace had begun and the message of the Gospels is that salvation comes in the here and now. It is this reigning of believers as living in a relationship with Christ within His Church, His Body. That the saints are reigning can be clearly seen in the verse Matt 16:19, Matt 18:18.
Then what Peter says.... in the Pentacost sermon, Acts 2:22-36. Peter clearly puts Christs as the inheriter of Davids Throne connected to His resurrection, not some future earthly kingdom. He further emphasizes that He reigns NOW, TODAY. We, as believers reign with Him NOW.​

He reigns in our hearts and spirits; but He does not reign in the world. He will return physically, as the angels said "in JUST the SAME WAY as he left".

Quote:
Peter just tied it to His physical resurrection.
Do you really believe that much in symbolism of a Book that is written as an Apocolypse that Christ will be riding on a white horse?​

In Matt24 the whole world will see His coming, on clouds with power and great glory. Whether or not He's on a horse, all the world will see and know Him.

 

[Rightglory]

Ben,

Sadly, I just edited the post before reading your reply; I added the comments about Acts8 and 10, where believers had received the Spirit BEFORE waterbaptism, and other believers had received Him AFTER waterbaptism. If the water was part of salvation, there could be no "separate".

It isn't in each case they were baptised. Every spiritual event is connected to a physical means. We, as human beings are both, body and soul. Why is it necessary to separate these elements. Christ was both human and had a spirit. He was one person but two natures. Divine and material. Just as we are.

"Redemption" is identical to "justification" and "sanctifiation" and "regeneration", and "salvation". Redemption CAME to all the world, but only those who receive it, are redeemed.

the words have meanings outside of scripture. they are being used to denote an event. They do not necessarily denote a single event. In this case they do not, but have the exact same meaning because that is what is happening in each instance.
Christ, redeemed, justified, reconciled, made righteous, made acceptable manking to God by giving man life and propitiating their sins. It is an accomplished event, complete and fulfilled. All men received it. You have nothing to do with it. As I stated before you can no more deny these events upon mankind then you can deny your birth.
On the other hand, individually, relative to the salvation of our souls, we are reconciled, justifief, regenerated, sanctified all by/through faith. We, man is the initiator of this reconciliation. God may do the actual reconciliation, or sanctification, but man must cooperate with God or it does not happen. Two totally different uses of the word, but same meanings.

To put it more clearly --- all mankind was redeemed by Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross; but those who REFUSE to believe, reject that redemption

That is the point, Ben, you cannot reject it. It is imposed upon you as a creature, by God. You cannot deny or reject that God, through Christ gave you life, (physical, eternal, immortal life) nor can you reject the propitiation of the sins of the world. It is an accomplished event. You don't have anything to do with it.
However, by faith, which is possible because God gave life to mankind, and by faith, any man can believe in Christ and when he repents, makes use of that propitiation of sin, Christ the High Priest can forgive him of those sins because they have already been propitiated, atoned. That is the salvation of our souls, individually, we are justified by faith, we are sanctified through faith. We are regenerated as a result of faith, repentance and accepting Christ. Believing on Him.

And yet, what WAS written, is accurate and sound. All Scripture is "God-breathed" and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. 2Tim3:16

Yes, which is why I can point to scripture as verification of that which had always been done, practiced and believed. But the Bible cannot be extracted from its full content, nor its context. It cannot be isolated as sola scriptura does then at that, makes it the sole source of faith and practice. But faith and practice as determined by separate individuals who have the authority to place new, innovative interpretations upon it. Sola scripture does not make the Bible authoritative. It makes man the authority. Four hundred years of solid verification speaks volumes about who has authority over scripture.

The whole reason I wrote the book, is to demonstrate Scriptural absolutes. People can ATTEMPT to make various interpretations; but as I've shown in the OSAS debates, the main "proof verses" can be shown NOT to assert that they had been interpreted to.
For instance (not discussing OSAS but showing proper understanding) Jeremiah 17:9 was thought to assert "man's heart is too corrupt, God must change the heart BEFORE the heart can seek God". But simply reading verse 10 shows that God responds TO men's heart, rather than changing them TO respond to God.

I'm not saying that a person cannot develop a view and not get it right once in a while. You have had the correct understanding of what you call, "recieved faith". God recieves man's faith which reconciles man to God. But as I have also shown, your theology lacks completion because you want a dead human being to be able to respond to the Gospel. You fail to see that man, the world needed life. A physical existance, and eternal quality, if man was going to ever be able to fulfil the mandate of his very existance, to be in union with God for an eternity. Because you have Christ only be a partial Savior, He becomes a total failure over death. He either conquers death or He does not. If not, then any and all faith, any union with God is moot. That is why Christ was needed in the first place.

The Scripture hasn't changed. Men have always been "fallible".

Scripture is moot, it is the Gospel that has not changed. Man has nothing to do with that Gospel, other than the Apostles who were given that Truth and charged to teach and put it into practice. Scripture is a book, ink on paper. That it has existed unchanged is not quite true either, as many translations made by verious individuals or groups have a tendency to change that Gospel and its meaning. So, even Scripture has changed, though slightly. Just look what the word "justification" did for the western world, Jerome, using Latin, did not have the same word as the Greek to convey the same meaning, so the only word available was "justification". A legal definition for Roman Latin. But in the Bible it does not have a legal meaning nor even connotation. Maybe not so bad, except Anselm took the word and the metaphor and developed a whole theory, the "Satisfaction theory". Wholly unscriptural. Metaphors have uses, but not as a basis of a theological premise.

then what happens when we read a passage in the Bible that asserts "people had received the Spirit BEFORE being dipped" (Acts10:47)? And what happens when we see others received the Spirit AFTER being "dipped" (Acts8:16)? If Scripture is not in error, then we must conclude that the previous understanding was.

But only verifible by your own personal interpretation. I can find many who will disagree with you on any point you want to bring up. Just look at this forum or any forurm. The underlying fact of these kinds of discussions is that none of you are even certain you have Truth. That is why you are willing to negotiate change in your theology. It is why you take the teaching so personally, because it is personal. It is not a universal Gospel. It is also why you cannot show anyone else that their view is less valid versus yours. It is why you have three or more baptisms because the word occurs that many times in scripture. You are assuming, or must assume because it is described differently that it means something entirely different. Same thing with "made alive" verses being In Christ, alive spritually. One is external, the other internal, one is physcial the other is spiritual. Two distinct understandings.

The "mark", is required for buying/selling. World-wide. There must be some kind of authority that would supercede nationality for that to happen. Else some nations would just say "no".

But people who bowed to the Emporer were vested with special privileges. This concept was in use the last 1000 years in Moslem countries right up to today. Read up on what jizyah or Similitude means.
The practice and understanding never separated them, never had two or three different meanings. the Gospels were the last Books to be written outside of Revelation. It is very possible that in the Didache which explains this already was written before the Gospels. That the practice was carried out all over the Roman Empire by the Apostles, some of whom never crossed paths after leaving Jeruselem. Yet what they taught, and what was handed down over those early centuries was not different, and was not changed. Can you find anything like this is the Reformers. Look at Calvin and Luther, They had disciples who began to slightly alter some of the theology of those men even before they were dead, if one assumes they were receiving the "gospel" by the Holy Spirit.
Revelation is an apocalypse. It has a lot of imagery and is written is stages of progression dealing with God and Satan in the world. Most of it is more applicatable to those Christians of the first century because it is a writing of hope and courage. It abounds with encouragement to Christians not to give up, It may seem as if God is not in charge but He will but tarry and shortly will come. The most important part for us today is the promise of the end times. That Christ is coming again.
That Christ rules this world now, so do not be dismayed.

He reigns in our hearts and spirits; but He does not reign in the world. He will return physically, as the angels said "in JUST the SAME WAY as he left".

He reigns in both places as both Matt and Peter stated. He will return physically, just as He left. He will come in triumph and all will bow before Him and acknowledge that He is Lord. He does not need an earthly kingdom. His first words of ministry was to proclaim that His Kingdom has come. John 18:36 clearly states that His Kingdom is not of this world.

In Matt24 the whole world will see His coming, on clouds with power and great glory. Whether or not He's on a horse, all the world will see and know Him.

Yes, absolutely, He comes as a victor. The last enemy will be defeated, death. Death will be no more. The New Heaven and New Earth will begin, eternity.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
It isn't in each case they were baptised.​

Hi, "RG". I'm sorry, I didn't understand this statement. What isn't what? Acts8 and 10 both demonstrate that reception of the Spirit is separate from waterbaptism.

Quote:
Every spiritual event is connected to a physical means.​

In the two examples, the Spirit was received BEFORE waterbaptism, and AFTER; "receiving the Spirit", is a "spiritual event". They're separate --- unless someone can impose the idea of "it was a different dispensation; happened ONLY back then, no we're different".

Quote:
We, as human beings are both, body and soul. Why is it necessary to separate these elements. Christ was both human and had a spirit. He was one person but two natures. Divine and material. Just as we are.

Quoted by Ben:
"Redemption" is identical to "justification" and "sanctifiation" and "regeneration", and "salvation". Redemption CAME to all the world, but only those who receive it, are redeemed.​

the words have meanings outside of scripture. they are being used to denote an event. They do not necessarily denote a single event. In this case they do not, but have the exact same meaning because that is what is happening in each instance.
Christ, redeemed, justified, reconciled, made righteous, made acceptable mankind to God by giving man life and propitiating their sins. It is an accomplished event, complete and fulfilled. All men received it. You have nothing to do with it. As I stated before you can no more deny these events upon mankind then you can deny your birth.​

Please read Rev14:9 --- He redeemed with His blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation --- ALL men? No. His blood only covers the repentant.

The term "agorazo" is used for "redeemed" --- which means "purchased". In Gal3:13 and 4:5, "exagorazo" means "redeem for oneself" --- contextually, "those who were under Law".

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Lw, having become a curse for us..."
"God sent His Son ...in order that He might redeem those who were under Law, that we might receive adoption as sons."

So we were redeemed towards adoption as sons. In 2Pet2:1, the "false teachers and false prophets deny the the Lord who BOUGHT them" --- again, "agorazo".

"Redeemed", or "bought", does apply to every last man; but it's towards adoption --- to which only those who BELIEVE and RECEIVE Christ are given the right.

Quote:
On the other hand, individually, relative to the salvation of our souls, we are reconciled, justified, regenerated, sanctified all by/through faith. We, man is the initiator of this reconciliation. God may do the actual reconciliation, or sanctification, but man must cooperate with God or it does not happen. Two totally different uses of the word, but same meanings.​

I don't see it as "two meanings". Rather, it's "provision", and "fulfillment".

All mankind was redeemed --- that is, purchased towards adoption as sons. But as the false prophets/teachers in 2Pet2:1 refused the Lord who BOUGHT (redeemed) them, that redemption can be refused.

It is the same as in 1Jn2:2, where "Jesus is the propitiation not ONLY for us (who believe), but also for the whole world". Provision to all, fulfillment to believers.

And in 1Tim4:10, "God is the Savior of ALL MEN (provision), chiefly/above-all believers" (fulfillment).

Quoted by Ben:
To put it more clearly --- all mankind was redeemed by Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross; but those who REFUSE to believe, reject that redemption

Quoted by RG:
That is the point, Ben, you cannot reject it. It is imposed upon you as a creature, by God. You cannot deny or reject (the fact) that God, through Christ gave you life, (physical, eternal, immortal life) nor can you reject the propitiation of the sins of the world. It is an accomplished event. You don't have anything to do with it.​

The "propitiation", is "appeasement"; it does not exist for those who do not repent. Passages like Heb6:6 and Heb10:26 assert that to those who continue unrepentantly in sin, it is as if Jesus would have to die over and over again; thus, His payment no longer covers them.

Quote:
However, by faith, which is possible because God gave life to mankind, and by faith, any man can believe in Christ and when he repents, makes use of that propitiation of sin, Christ the High Priest can forgive him of those sins because they have already been propitiated, atoned. That is the salvation of our souls, individually, we are justified by faith, we are sanctified through faith. We are regenerated as a result of faith, repentance and accepting Christ. Believing on Him.​

Regeneration is the result of faith/repentance/believing; but "propitiation" is conditional. "Whole world" is the provision, "above all" is the fulfillment. It is literally God handing the gift of life to EVERY PERSON; who then receives it, or walks away empty-handed.

Quote:
Yes, which is why I can point to scripture as verification of that which had always been done, practiced and believed. But the Bible cannot be extracted from its full content, nor its context. It cannot be isolated as sola scriptura does then at that, makes it the sole source of faith and practice. But faith and practice as determined by separate individuals who have the authority to place new, innovative interpretations upon it. Sola scripture does not make the Bible authoritative. It makes man the authority. Four hundred years of solid verification speaks volumes about who has authority over scripture.​

"Interpretations" must be measured in light of the text. Thus "interpretations" are either supported, or refuted by what was written.

Quote:
I'm not saying that a person cannot develop a view and not get it right once in a while.​

You have had the correct understanding of what you call, "recieved faith". God recieves man's faith which reconciles man to God. But as I have also shown, your theology lacks completion because you want a dead human being to be able to respond to the Gospel. You fail to see that man, the world needed life. A physical existance, and eternal quality, if man was going to ever be able to fulfil the mandate of his very existance, to be in union with God for an eternity. Because you have Christ only be a partial Savior, He becomes a total failure over death. He either conquers death or He does not. If not, then any and all faith, any union with God is moot. That is why Christ was needed in the first place.​

Our disagreement is that I perceive from Scripture that "made alive", applies only to believers; "made-alive" is through faith". Immortality is only granted to those who have Christ; "he who has the Son, has the eternal life --- he who has not the Son of God has not the eternal life."

QUote:
Scripture is moot, it is the Gospel that has not changed. Man has nothing to do with that Gospel, other than the Apostles who were given that Truth and charged to teach and put it into practice. Scripture is a book, ink on paper. That it has existed unchanged is not quite true either, as many translations made by verious individuals or groups have a tendency to change that Gospel and its meaning. So, even Scripture has changed, though slightly. Just look what the word "justification" did for the western world, Jerome, using Latin, did not have the same word as the Greek to convey the same meaning, so the only word available was "justification". A legal definition for Roman Latin. But in the Bible it does not have a legal meaning nor even connotation. Maybe not so bad, except Anselm took the word and the metaphor and developed a whole theory, the "Satisfaction theory". Wholly unscriptural. Metaphors have uses, but not as a basis of a theological premise.​

We have the original texts, unaltered; we can study what they wrote and meant.

QUote:
But only verifible by your own personal interpretation. I can find many who will disagree with you on any point you want to bring up. Just look at this forum or any forurm. The underlying fact of these kinds of discussions is that none of you are even certain you have Truth. That is why you are willing to negotiate change in your theology. It is why you take the teaching so personally, because it is personal. It is not a universal Gospel. It is also why you cannot show anyone else that their view is less valid versus yours. It is why you have three or more baptisms because the word occurs that many times in scripture. You are assuming, or must assume because it is described differently that it means something entirely different. Same thing with "made alive" verses being In Christ, alive spritually. One is external, the other internal, one is physcial the other is spiritual. Two distinct understandings.​

And yet, in indisputible words, the two examples persist; one group received the Spirit BEFORE water, another received Him AFTER water. Thus water is not part of receiving the Spirit.

Quote:
Revelation is an apocalypse. It has a lot of imagery and is written is stages of progression dealing with God and Satan in the world. Most of it is more applicatable to those Christians of the first century because it is a writing of hope and courage. It abounds with encouragement to Christians not to give up, It may seem as if God is not in charge but He will but tarry and shortly will come. The most important part for us today is the promise of the end times. That Christ is coming again.
That Christ rules this world now, so do not be dismayed.​

We who are alive and remain when Christ returns, will be changed, immortal. I am not immortal. I do not have a "glorified body". I walk around holding my breath, 'cause my back hurts less when I do that; surgery may correct it --- but if I had received a glorified body, it would not be necessary. I do not reign physically with Christ in the world now; I will (in that changed body) when He returns.

He has not returned yet...

 

[Rightglory]

Ben Johnson,

In the two examples, the Spirit was received BEFORE waterbaptism, and AFTER; "receiving the Spirit", is a "spiritual event". They're separate --- unless someone can impose the idea of "it was a different dispensation; happened ONLY back then, no we're different".

Acts * is the Eunuch which is water baptism. Again, water clearly being used.
In Chapter 10, the Gentile Pentacost, water baptism is also used. I don't see any separation, nor the absence of water.

Please read Rev14:9 --- He redeemed with His blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation --- ALL men? No. His blood only covers the repentant.
The term "agorazo" is used for "redeemed" --- which means "purchased". In Gal3:13 and 4:5, "exagorazo" means "redeem for oneself" --- contextually, "those who were under Law".
"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Lw, having become a curse for us..."
"God sent His Son ...in order that He might redeem those who were under Law, that we might receive adoption as sons."

All men is clearly being described in these instances. We have all been purchased. We are (were) all under the Law, namely the judgement of death. No man can be recieved as adopted sons, unless and untill man has life. Man cannot respond without life. Man needs life, it is the bane of the fall - death.
His blood does not cover the repentant, or believer until and unless that person repents and confesses their sins. If we decide to willing, determinatively reject Christ as a believer, we then are not covered by His Blood. We may have been purchased but many men deny that great Gift and the privilege to use it as it was meant to be used.

So we were redeemed towards adoption as sons. In 2Pet2:1, the "false teachers and false prophets deny the the Lord who BOUGHT them" --- again, "agorazo".

Yes, every single man has been bought, every man has had his sins propitiated, since all sins were propitated. It is the ONLY reason that individual man can repent. Each, those, whosoever believes, repents, ONLY those who seek forgiveness will have their sins forgiven. If at some time you get lazy in your faith, begin to take God for granted and do not seek forgivness, all those sins accure under your name. They can convict you, you can fall from Grace. You have been arguing this all along. Why are you switching gears now?

I don't see it as "two meanings". Rather, it's "provision", and "fulfillment".

If you want to look at this way, I can go along with it, but it will not have the same meaning as what you might think.
Christ death, burial and resurrection gave life. physical life, which is a provision for mankind, to enable them to fulfill their mandate of existance. Namely, to be in union, spiritually with God, which we do by faith. Christ does not reconcile us individually, but He did reconcile the world to Himself. We reconcile ourselves to God by faith. See the difference.
the problem with your understanding, you leave Christ as only a possibility, not actually accomplishing anything. In theological point, that would be correct. If Christ, in fact, did not actually give life, then no one recieved life, and faith would be in vain. I Cor 15:14-19 again.

All mankind was redeemed --- that is, purchased towards adoption as sons. But as the false prophets/teachers in 2Pet2:1 refused the Lord who BOUGHT (redeemed) them, that redemption can be refused.

Christ's redemptive work cannot be refused. You cannot undo the propitiation, or His Death, or His resurrection. What these false teachers were denying or refusing is the offer of that Great gift.
If I bought you something, you cannot reject the fact I bought it, you can only reject the offer I am making to you to recieve it.
Propitiation has nothing to do with believers at all. It has to do with the Work of Christ on the Cross making provision for man to have union with Him individually. We individually are redeemed, reconciled, made right with God, made acceptable to God, made righteous, all the same words again, all have the same meaning, when we confess our sins, when we repent and seek forgiveness. Christ is able to forgive because He has completed the sacrifice. You cannot undo the sacrifice, only reject the offer from that sacrifice.
In the case of these false teachers, the fact that God bought them will never change. In fact, they can repent latter if they desire, and then they have accepted that offer because they were bought.

It is the same as in 1Jn2:2, where "Jesus is the propitiation not ONLY for us (who believe), but also for the whole world". Provision to all, fulfillment to believers.

Same thing.
If you were able to undo the sacrifice from your one rejection of the offer, you would effectively deny God from making the offer to all the rest of mankind. Do you really think that you can undo the sacrifice? You are rejecting the offer from that work of Christ. Yes, it is a provision, but the sacrifice is a completed act, event, something you cannot change, add to, or even deny.

And in 1Tim4:10, "God is the Savior of ALL MEN (provision), chiefly/above-all believers" (fulfillment).

Actually. It must be actually, which is a provision, but you cannot deny Life being given to you. You are but a mere creature and God can create you as He did Adam. Did Adam have a say in his creation? Just as we don't have a say in Christ giving Life to us and the World, actually, not just sitting out there and saying that if we do not appropriate it, it never happened.

The "propitiation", is "appeasement"; it does not exist for those who do not repent.

Your theology is backwards. It is available ONLY for those who do not repent. For those who desire to be in union with God have appropriated that work by seeking its power of forgiveness. You cannot even think of having a believer unless that event is an accomplished event. And believers continue to use its power for the forgiveness of sins so they remain reconciled to God. Sin and faith cannot mix. It is the same thing as saying sin and God do not mix. When we sin, and do not seek forgiveness, we are falling from grace, from faith. If we lose faith, we are no longer being recieved, thus no longer being saved. We shall not inherit the Kingdom promised to those that endure. It is about enduring, not sinning. But because we know we do and will, we have forgiveness, confession, Christ as our mediator, and He is faithful to forgive us. Why? Because we continually seek Him. We continually attempt to remain faithful.

The "propitiation", is "appeasement"; it does not exist for those who do not repent. Passages like Heb6:6 and Heb10:26 assert that to those who continue unrepentantly in sin, it is as if Jesus would have to die over and over again; thus, His payment no longer covers them.

This is what I just explained above as well. Sin separates anyone from God.

Regeneration is the result of faith/repentance/believing; but "propitiation" is conditional. "Whole world" is the provision, "above all" is the fulfillment. It is literally God handing the gift of life to EVERY PERSON; who then receives it, or walks away empty-handed.

Yes, the spiritual life. Our salvation of our souls is a spiritual salvation. It is salvation from hell. Christ did not save you from hell. He saved you from death. His resurrection , using your language, made provision for heaven and hell. Without Christ coming into this world, without His Incarnation, there is no heaven or hell. Who would occupy either place?
You fail to understand, mankind is/was under the condemnation of death through Adam. That is the end of man as he was created. All the rest of revelation is moot, until and unless man has life, physcial life. ONLY Chrsit can give physical existance. Otherwise we might have read in Genesis, that Adam, a form, believed, and recieved life. Is that what it says? Because this is what you want faith to do for the believer. Not just a spiritual union, but faith also grant a physical existance. If this is what you believe, that is fine, but that is not what scripture has revealed.
God, through Christ gave you life, physcial life whether you want it or not. He gave it because He desires that all men come to know Him spiritually. That all come to Him. If they do not have a physical existance, there is no need for God to call any man. Faith does not grant eternal physical life, but it does grant an eternal physical life with Christ spiritually.
The walking away is rejecting this offer of Spiritual life with Christ. That person will still live eternally, physcially, because otherwise you have just eliminated hell. Man needs life to exist in hell as well.

Continued part II

 

[Rightglory]

Ben Johnson,

Continued part II

"Interpretations" must be measured in light of the text. Thus "interpretations" are either supported, or refuted by what was written.

But everyone uses the text. Every false teacher that has ever come down the the proverbial pike, has used scripture including all the infamous heretics. Scripture alone can prove nothing. All it supports is your personal opinion based on only a partial Gospel. Scripture is tested in Light of the Rule of Faith, that which has alwas been believed and practiced. It is what has always been believed and practiced that the Holy Spirit has preserved and is witnesses in history. It has an authentic historical verification to the Truth that the Holy Spirit has in fact been faithful in preserving that Gospel given once, for all.
All your really measuring is YOUR interpretation against another. His is as valid as yours and you cannot prove, convince any other differently. I have no intent on proving that what I explained from scripture alone, it would be futile. My abilities may or may not be as worthy as yours. It often becomes who has the best intellectual ability but the question is who is more brilliant. It has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. He does not grant revelation to indivicuals, nor prophecy for personal interpretation. You would have no proof that Joseph Smith doesn't k now what he is talking about regarding his vision. He could have had a vision and he could have recived it. He is using the same method as you are, but is honest enough to admit that He added on to scripture. he does not deny scripture, just has a different interpretation, just like you.

Our disagreement is that I perceive from Scripture that "made alive", applies only to believers; "made-alive" is through faith". Immortality is only granted to those who have Christ; "he who has the Son, has the eternal life --- he who has not the Son of God has not the eternal life."

I know you percieve this. But you have failed, to this point, to develop a theology that fits your use of words from scripture. I'll explain.
First, for the believer, you will never find a phrasing that faith makes us alive. (I am disregarding your understanding for the moment). The reason is that ontologically we exist IN Christ. We become sharers, or partakers in the Divine Nature of Christ. If we live IN HIM, this is an internal phenonomon, and we recieve LIFE, spiritual life, a relationship, by being IN Christ. Which is why when you fall from Christ, lose faith, you do not lose physical life, but you do sever the spiritual relationship. We live IN Him. After all, those that reject Christ must also have physical life if they are going to stand in judgement and experince an eternal spiritual death, hell.
The LIFE that Christ grants through His resurrection is an external phenonomon. It is imposed through our very human natures which He assumed, rasised to immortality.
When we look at the phrase in I Cor 15:20-22, protestants need to change the meaning of words, especially the "all" just to fit their theology.
If we held that we are all in Adam spiritually, then as in Christ all shall be made alive spiritually would make everyone individually saved, that is soul saved, which is a better version of universalism than the actual doctrine.
But we are not in Adam, spiritually or physically either. Adam IS us. We are of the same essence, the same human nature. If you change any aspect of that nature, of only one, all will be changed, This is why Adam became mortal, he fell, his human nature was changed. He died. Even worse is this fallen nature causes us to sin. We sin because we are dead, thus the phrase we are dead in sins and treaspeasses. The fallen nature of itself is not sinful. It causes sin. Otherwise Christ could not assume our fallen human natures and remain sinless. He would have been born sinful. We are not born sinful, but mortal, fallen.
Thus the phrase is ONLY speaking of the Work of Christ, being the Second Adam who reversed the first Adam. As in Adam all die(physically) so also in Christ shall all be made alive, (physically)
In order for any man to believe he must have life. In order to live (spritually) IN Chist, we must have physical life. A dead mortal being cannot hear, cannot respond, and surely cannot LIVE a spiritual life IN Christ.
Christ raised our human natures to LIFE, physically, through His resurrection. When that one human nature became alive on Easter, every single human being, who possessed that same human nature was given life. Eternal, immortal, incorruptible physical life. A body that will not die.

Here is your other problem, you want unbelivers to be raised in the last day. You make no provision in your theology just how they can be raised from death. Then you just mandate it becasue scripture obviously says they do, and you want them to be raised mortal. Mortal is death, to begin with. If mortal, then when do they die? They are not obviously immortal nor eternal. So, if they can actually experience hell, how long, before they die again? Then what?

We have the original texts, unaltered; we can study what they wrote and meant.

That is the point, Ben, Not a single NT book as you know it is from the original manuscript. By the time 325 AD comes, it has been copied so many times one could not number them. Paul only wrote one letter each. They were copied and passed on. Some were not copied, but passed on. Not all Churches had all copies for a very long time before they were colated.
You have the Greek copies, but this does not help you, as is quite obvious, because they did not include the meaning, the interpretation that goes with the text. This is the Oral Tradtion, the extra biblical recordings of the Gospel, not necessarily the written. You explanatin of Baptism is a very good example. Baptism was not a problem in the early Church, So there is no corrective statements regarding it. The Gospels simply record that it occurs. You see it described three or four ways and think that there are four different baptisms, There is ONLY one. And it goes on and on.

And yet, in indisputible words, the two examples persist; one group received the Spirit BEFORE water, another received Him AFTER water. Thus water is not part of receiving the Spirit.

But it is for justification. It is an obedience factor. If one is not baptised when the availability is present, then one is being disobedient, thus faith falters even before it begins. The Church has always assumed and declared that a catechuman had the Holy Spirit before baptism while they were being taught. The reason they are called catechumans. But they were and will be baptised. There are stories of people being baptised with sand, because water was either so scarce or even absent. This is why protestants are all over the map on this issue. There are so many one cannot keep track of all the different nuances. Yet, there has always been ONE baptism and water has always been the acceptable way. Infants were baptised from the beginning and only a couple of early Fathers disagreed with it, Tertullian being one of them, but the practice never changed because the Church did not agree.

We who are alive and remain when Christ returns, will be changed, immortal. I am not immortal. I do not have a "glorified body". I walk around holding my breath, 'cause my back hurts less when I do that; surgery may correct it --- but if I had received a glorified body, it would not be necessary. I do not reign physically with Christ in the world now; I will (in that changed body) when He returns.
He has not returned yet...

So what, not a single person is immortal as yet. It occurs for every man at the very same time, In a twinkling of an eye. We do not reign with Christ physically in this life. But Christ is definitely on the Throne. We LIVE In Christ, spiritually, which is why and how we reigning with Him. It goes right back to your theological understanding of terms. You have an exteral theology regarding our spiritual existance. You say we live IN Christ, only because the Bible says it, but your explanations say otherwise. This is why you of necessity MUST say that we do not reign with Christ now. He is there, we are here. I'll have you know that we worship with the Heavenly Church every Sunday during the Liturgy. We are all joined together, in that ONE Body, and are ontologically, standing before that Throne of Christ. That is why worship here on earth duplicates the form of worship in Heaven. Heb 9-10, Rev 20:4. Those of the "first resurrection" the spiritual regeneration of a believer, will reign with Him until the end, the judgement.

 

[Rightglory]

Ben Johnson,

Part II continued....

"Interpretations" must be measured in light of the text. Thus "interpretations" are either supported, or refuted by what was written.

But everyone uses the text. Every false teacher that has ever come down the the proverbial pike, has used scripture including all the infamous heretics. Scripture alone can prove nothing. All it supports is your personal opinion based on only a partial Gospel. Scripture is tested in Light of the Rule of Faith, that which has alwas been believed and practiced. It is what has always been believed and practiced that the Holy Spirit has preserved and is witnesses in history. It has an authentic historical verification to the Truth that the Holy Spirit has in fact been faithful in preserving that Gospel given once, for all.
All your really measuring is YOUR interpretation against another. His is as valid as yours and you cannot prove, convince any other differently. I have no intent on proving that what I explained from scripture alone, it would be futile. My abilities may or may not be as worthy as yours. It often becomes who has the best intellectual ability but the question is who is more brilliant. It has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. He does not grant revelation to indivicuals, nor prophecy for personal interpretation. You would have no proof that Joseph Smith doesn't k now what he is talking about regarding his vision. He could have had a vision and he could have recived it. He is using the same method as you are, but is honest enough to admit that He added on to scripture. he does not deny scripture, just has a different interpretation, just like you.

Our disagreement is that I perceive from Scripture that "made alive", applies only to believers; "made-alive" is through faith". Immortality is only granted to those who have Christ; "he who has the Son, has the eternal life --- he who has not the Son of God has not the eternal life."

I know you percieve this. But you have failed, to this point, to develop a theology that fits your use of words from scripture. I'll explain.
First, for the believer, you will never find a phrasing that faith makes us alive. (I am disregarding your understanding for the moment). The reason is that ontologically we exist IN Christ. We become sharers, or partakers in the Divine Nature of Christ. If we live IN HIM, this is an internal phenonomon, and we recieve LIFE, spiritual life, a relationship, by being IN Christ. Which is why when you fall from Christ, lose faith, you do not lose physical life, but you do sever the spiritual relationship. We live IN Him. After all, those that reject Christ must also have physical life if they are going to stand in judgement and experince an eternal spiritual death, hell.
The LIFE that Christ grants through His resurrection is an external phenonomon. It is imposed through our very human natures which He assumed, rasised to immortality.
When we look at the phrase in I Cor 15:20-22, protestants need to change the meaning of words, especially the "all" just to fit their theology.
If we held that we are all in Adam spiritually, then as in Christ all shall be made alive spiritually would make everyone individually saved, that is soul saved, which is a better version of universalism than the actual doctrine.
But we are not in Adam, spiritually or physically either. Adam IS us. We are of the same essence, the same human nature. If you change any aspect of that nature, of only one, all will be changed, This is why Adam became mortal, he fell, his human nature was changed. He died. Even worse is this fallen nature causes us to sin. We sin because we are dead, thus the phrase we are dead in sins and treaspeasses. The fallen nature of itself is not sinful. It causes sin. Otherwise Christ could not assume our fallen human natures and remain sinless. He would have been born sinful. We are not born sinful, but mortal, fallen.
Thus the phrase is ONLY speaking of the Work of Christ, being the Second Adam who reversed the first Adam. As in Adam all die(physically) so also in Christ shall all be made alive, (physically)
In order for any man to believe he must have life. In order to live (spritually) IN Chist, we must have physical life. A dead mortal being cannot hear, cannot respond, and surely cannot LIVE a spiritual life IN Christ.
Christ raised our human natures to LIFE, physically, through His resurrection. When that one human nature became alive on Easter, every single human being, who possessed that same human nature was given life. Eternal, immortal, incorruptible physical life. A body that will not die.

Here is your other problem, you want unbelivers to be raised in the last day. You make no provision in your theology just how they can be raised from death. Then you just mandate it becasue scripture obviously says they do, and you want them to be raised mortal. Mortal is death, to begin with. If mortal, then when do they die? They are not obviously immortal nor eternal. So, if they can actually experience hell, how long, before they die again? Then what?

We have the original texts, unaltered; we can study what they wrote and meant.

That is the point, Ben, Not a single NT book as you know it is from the original manuscript. By the time 325 AD comes, it has been copied so many times one could not number them. Paul only wrote one letter each. They were copied and passed on. Some were not copied, but passed on. Not all Churches had all copies for a very long time before they were colated.
You have the Greek copies, but this does not help you, as is quite obvious, because they did not include the meaning, the interpretation that goes with the text. This is the Oral Tradtion, the extra biblical recordings of the Gospel, not necessarily the written. You explanatin of Baptism is a very good example. Baptism was not a problem in the early Church, So there is no corrective statements regarding it. The Gospels simply record that it occurs. You see it described three or four ways and think that there are four different baptisms, There is ONLY one. And it goes on and on.

And yet, in indisputible words, the two examples persist; one group received the Spirit BEFORE water, another received Him AFTER water. Thus water is not part of receiving the Spirit.

But it is for justification. It is an obedience factor. If one is not baptised when the availability is present, then one is being disobedient, thus faith falters even before it begins. The Church has always assumed and declared that a catechuman had the Holy Spirit before baptism while they were being taught. The reason they are called catechumans. But they were and will be baptised. There are stories of people being baptised with sand, because water was either so scarce or even absent. This is why protestants are all over the map on this issue. There are so many one cannot keep track of all the different nuances. Yet, there has always been ONE baptism and water has always been the acceptable way. Infants were baptised from the beginning and only a couple of early Fathers disagreed with it, Tertullian being one of them, but the practice never changed because the Church did not agree.

We who are alive and remain when Christ returns, will be changed, immortal. I am not immortal. I do not have a "glorified body". I walk around holding my breath, 'cause my back hurts less when I do that; surgery may correct it --- but if I had received a glorified body, it would not be necessary. I do not reign physically with Christ in the world now; I will (in that changed body) when He returns.
He has not returned yet...

So what, not a single person is immortal as yet. It occurs for every man at the very same time, In a twinkling of an eye. We do not reign with Christ physically in this life. But Christ is definitely on the Throne. We LIVE In Christ, spiritually, which is why and how we reigning with Him. It goes right back to your theological understanding of terms. You have an exteral theology regarding our spiritual existance. You say we live IN Christ, only because the Bible says it, but your explanations say otherwise. This is why you of necessity MUST say that we do not reign with Christ now. He is there, we are here. I'll have you know that we worship with the Heavenly Church every Sunday during the Liturgy. We are all joined together, in that ONE Body, and are ontologically, standing before that Throne of Christ. That is why worship here on earth duplicates the form of worship in Heaven. Heb 9-10, Rev 20:4. Those of the "first resurrection" the spiritual regeneration of a believer, will reign with Him until the end, the judgement.

 

[Rightglory]

Ben Johnson,

I just noticed that I had missed a couple of your responses. so these responses are just catching up.

Our disagreement is simply what "made alive", means. I agree that the fellowship which existed between Adam and God is what Jesus restored. But does that restoration exist between God, and unbelievers? No.

Yes, He loved the World, He loved Sinners. He loves His created order, it was declared good. Besides that, every human being bears God's Image. Would you be willing to kill any of your children for no reason?
But, nevertheless, the Bible clearly states Christ reconciled the world, arbitrarily from anything man could have done. A dead human being cannot give himself life, not even faith can do that, which if it was, would be man contributing to his salvation. Christ did what man could never do. He is the Savior of the World, His World, and He is not going to give any power, or share any glory with Satan, who rules by the power of death. He is either the victor over death, or He is complete failure. Which would you think it would be?

Instead of "restoration", let's use "reconcilliation"; and with that, we see that it fully conditions on man's faith. Verses like Col1:21-23 are very clear...

Hardly. what it is really saying is that because of Christ's Work man can believe through faith. Faith does not reconcile man through the body of His flesh through death. We reconcile ourselves by faith, by sharing spiritually in that reconciliation by being spiritually regenerated through baptism, Rom 6:3-6. The latter is completely impossible without the former. A dead man cannot respond in any shape or form.

To support your position of "all men have life in Christ, without regard to their faith", you would need to provide a verse that asserts "life in Christ", but without the condition of "faith".

I don't need to assert that because that is impossible. The only way to LIVE IN Christ is by faith. But Christ gave life, physical life to mankind, SO WE CAN LIVE IN HIM.
II Cor 5:14-15 so clearly portrays this sequence. Vs 15 especially, says that those who live should no longer live for themselves but live for HIM. Then move down to vs 19 where God is reconciling the world, which includes every human beings. Now having been reconciled Paul is saying that though God were pleading that we should on Christ'ss behalf BE RECONCILED TO HIM. That recnciliation takes place through faitn, not the former.

Eph2:5 isn't it; 'cause verse 8 absolutely connects to verse 5, with "faith".

quite the opposite. If you want to link 9 with 5, ;then all of mankind were reconciled through faith. That is what Universalists hold. Man was reconciled, made alive, given life, by Grace, Grace ONLY, which is why it is in parentheses. Then and ONLY then, once man is made live can faith even be a factor. Vs 9 restates the first part, then adds through faith, which separates believers from all others.
We are not individually saved by Christ on the Cross. Christ is redeeming His entire creation. Giving LIFE to the world. In other words the world will not be destroyed through death as well as mankind. But once life is restored, then faith can have consequences. We can actually have union with God in this life, by virtue of the atonment and life eternally with Him, through faith.
We were made alive as much as Christ was made alive. Here is another text that clearly makes that distinction. I Pet 3:18. Christ was made alive by the Holy Spirit. It is how He was able to be raised from the dead on Easter morning. We, that is our human natures were also made alive with Christ being raised from the dead. I don't see any faith in this action by God. Unless you are going to posit that Christ had faith is God, and that is the reason He arose from the dead.
Then Col 2:12-15 starts out with baptism where we experience that death and resurrection through faith, only because in vs 13 He made alive together with Christ. Unless you posit that Christ was made alive by faith, you have only the alternative that faith is a spiritual existance we experrience spiritually and not physially. Then 14 confirms that Christ's resurrection wiped out the handwriting of requirment, namely death, the law of death having nailed it to the Tree.
It is clearly saying Christ triumphed over the condititions of our fallen existance, sin, death, the flesh, the law, the powers and principalites (Satan) by His death and resurrection. We share all this through faith, by baptism going back to vs12. This is the "first resurrection". in which believers, if the endure, will not experience the secnd death, It is comparing spiritual with spiritual.

 

[Rightglory]

Ben Johnson,

By becoming flesh, He became our substitute. Our "propitiation". But that, not without our faith, and receiving the Gift.

But Christ does not need to become human to accomplish this. You are speaking of a spiritual condition not a physical one. All Christ would have needed to become is a form of a man, not actually man. He would not needed to actually assume our human natures, but would have needed to assume our spiritual condition, lack of faith or no desire to live IN HIM. Any good man could have done this as well. Don't you think God could give some man more grace than another so that he might be able to keep the law, thus become the perfect lamb?
You have relegated the whole salvational event to a spritual condition. A physical Christ is wholly unnecessary.

Sin IS the problem; and His blood washes away our sin --- but not without our faith. By raising from the dead, He conquered death; and we are united in His resurrection, new creations (born again).

Sin is not the problem. It is a symtom of a much greater problem. We are dead, We sin because we are dead, mortal beings. Simply restoring a spritual condition will never give live, physical life to mankind. God would have been able to be in union with man ONLY in this lfie, then death, ceaseless existance. Remember Gen 3:19, That is the judgement against mankind, not believers.
You say he conquered death, yet you have been denying this left and right. It is why I am saying your theology denies the Incarnation. But we are merely united by faith in His actual, physical resurrection, a spiritual condition, not a physical. This spiritual can only exist, because we have also been made alive physically by that resurrection. It is impossible that Christ, if He did in fact rise from the dead, to miss any human being in that resurrection.
You stated earlier that you agreed that Christ assumed our mortal, fallen human natures which is the Incarnation. If man is of the same essence, which we are, consubstantial with each other, explain how, if Christ arose with that fallen human nature did not raise all men to life by that resurrection? Just how do you separate out some human beings, let alone the physical world?
If you sincerely believe that Christ arose from the dead, then all mankind also arose from the dead. If you do not believe that God raised all mankind, then He also did not become man, as you agreed to above. What kind of man would He have missed, when Col 1:15-20 clearly states He reconciled the World, all things in heaven and earth, who or what did He miss?

Our disagreement is on the concept of "all". In Adam all die --- and this includes every last man. Understand that death is the PROVISION, faithlessness (that is, SINNING) is the fulfillment.

This is the key to your failure to understand both the fall and the redemption from that fall. Faith or faithlessness does not fulfill a phsical death, it fulfills a spiritual death. We cannot die physically twice. An impossibility. Adam was condemned to a physical death, not a spiritual death. The physical death precluded the spiritual from taking place because man was dead, mortal, would cease to exist, dust to dust. Gen 3:19. That is why you fail to see, or accept the verse of I Cor 15:20-22. It is an equal equation. All mankind died through Adam, physical death. We do not die spiritually through Adam. We die, every single one of us spiritually due to US, ONLY US, Adam never had anything to do with our spiritual death.
Explain to me just how in your theological arguement you can have man dying twice physically?

Now understand that life is the PROVISION, equally to all men --- Paul conspicuously uses "SO THEN (death came to all), EVEN SO (justification came to all)". Death came provisionally, fulfilled by each man sinning; likewise, justification/salvation came provisionally, fulfilled by each man BELIEVING (or not!).

Ben, you do not possibly believe this. This is classic Pelagianism. He beleived that no man died through Adam. We are all created, or born just like adam was before the fall. When we sin, just like Adam, (which denies that in the likness of Adam Rom 5:14) then we die, physically, become mortal. He denied that we are born mortal, through Adam. I may be assuming to much here, you may just believe that, do you?

Rom5:17 plainly says that they will reign, who RECEIVE the abundance of grace and who RECEIVE the gift of righteousness. Faith receives (fulfils) the provision.
Notice the conjuction, (and) Believers get both, physical and spiritual. Vs 18 again makes the equal statement. Condemenation brought death to ALL MEN. just as through ONE man came the righteous Act, (as opposed to the ONE sin) came the FREE GIFT to all men, resulting in the justification of life. That is a physical condemnation and a physical justification. It is equal to all and the same to all. You cannot limit the equation nor can you change the physical to spiritual.
You can, but Scripture does not.

Those who do not have faith, do not have the provision.

Faith has nothing to do with Christ's Work on the Cross, nor the result of that resurrection. It is all Grace and nothing of man.

We are not guilty of Adam's sins; but we inherited Adam's sin nature. That's why all men sin, and thus fulfill the requirement for condemnation.

We did not inherit a sinful nature either. We inherited a mortal nature, or fallen nature. That is why all men sin. The ONLY condemnation this can result is in a spiritual death, Man cannot die physicall twice. That is classical Pelagianism again, which I hope you don't actually hold.

What I'm hoping to convince you of, is that "made alive", is only through faith; and it's a spiritual position ("in Christ").

You will need to argue with the Holy Spirit on that one. He gave that understanding to the Apostles. They taught it, wrote it, and it has been so understood ever since. The Incarnation was hammered out in 451 in the Council of Chalcedon, and it was stated in the terms of what was and always was understood regarding it, thus turning down Nestorius view, that Christ was only God, not really man. That one nature subsummed the other.
If you say you believe in the Incarnation, you might want to study it and see what it actually means.

Between Adam and Christ, many people lived; and they were not dead physically, until they died physically.

They were dead from the moment Adam sinned and the judgment of death pronounced. The fact that you state they died physically at some point, proves my point. Motality is death. So we breathe a few years, but we die. Adam was not created mortal, but neutral, Man was neither mortal nor immortal. These were states of being He ahd a choice over. Guess which one he chose, death. Physical death. Man is condemned to dust from whence he came.
You say that man lived between Adam and Chrsit, we still live betwen Chrsit and his second coming. Immortality does not occur until the end. But God knew from the beginning that sin and death would interrupt His created order, He already also knew that Christ would restore that created order to life, death would not reign eternally. He evicted ADam from the Garden just so Adam would not also eat of the 'Tree of LIFE. Immortality while in a sinful state. We were made immortal by Christ, all mankind. That is why all men will rise on the last day to stand in judgement. No man really has ever been under Adam. We were under Christ from Gen 3:15.

Between Adam and Christ, many people lived; and they were not dead physically, until they died physically.
It is faith that receives Christ's life. Yet --- those before Christ, were still saved THROUGH Him --- there is only one Savior.

Now, we are back to the contradiction in your theology. Let us assume you are correct. Believers ONLY get LIFE, physical life and spiritual life due to faith. Now, what do you do at the end when all the dead shall be raised?
How do unbelievers gat raised. Surely, not the same way as believers which was by faith. So why the difference,? The unbelievers get raised anyway, but you have no theological answer. You want them raised as mortals, which is death. You want them to stand in judgement, but they will die at some point, since they are still mortals. What happens to them then,
But more seriously, death was not conquered. Christ was not the total victor over death. He was able to raise ONLY believers from the dead. You will need to answer these huge contradictions in your view.

I'm not understanding how you are asserting that "men were not physically alive, until Christ

That is because man was under the judgement, the condemnation of death, dust to dust. You are confusing what the significance of mortal and immortal actually mean. Mortal is to have the capability of death. That we breathe a short period of years is quite insignificant. We wer not created to be mortal, but eternal, immortal. You are stumbling over theological terms.
God is using this short mortal life as a test of all men. All men to choose life or death, but we are speaking of spiritual life and death. We do this through faith. Man cannot give himself phyisical life, but we can give faith, beleive in God, so we can live IN Him now and for an eternity. Man cannot die physically twice. Most of the deaths in the NT especially, are refering to the spiritual death because man cannot die physically twice. The context will tell you he expired, that His breathing stopped.

 

[Rightglory]

Ben Johnson,

Reconcilliation is ONLY to believers...

Two different reconcilations. Christ reconciling the world, does not have faith is the statement.
But man reconciling himself to God by faith is a wholly different reconcilation. If it were the same faith would be a moot term. Why even mention faith in the Bible, Just say Christ reconciled believers. But alas, Scripturee speaks of two.

Yet those who were faithless, do not have "light" or "life". Light is something we must walk IN. 1Jn1:7

Could you explain how we are to walk in the light, when there would be NO light to walk in. This is the same with your confusion over physical and spiritual life and death. You cannot have faith (spiritual life), unless you have life (physical life). do you really think a dead man can respond to God. Do you really think a man creates his own light in which to walk.

It is faith by which we are "raised from the dead".

Did faith raise Christ from the dead also? Does faith raise all the dead at the end, at the judgement? You have not answered that completely as yet.

The provision is life and hope to all; the fulfillment of that provision, is by faith.

Ben, you are a pseudo Calvinist. (Just joking) But the Calvinist have at least answered this better than you. They honestly state that God just left most of His most prized creatures, bearing His Image to be destroyed by death. They will remain under Adam and the condemnation of death, dust to dust. But that theology does not raise them to life in order to stand in judgement. Who goes to hell in that view. NO one. Another form of a Universalist concept. All that Christ saved from the fall, will also be the same ones, saved through faith. Who goes to hell?
These views all come about because of a false veiw of the fall. Your fall does not align with salvaton from the fall. The creation and purpose of man does not align with what man was restored to do and be by Christ.
But Scripture says, that if the DEAD are not raised, It never says If the dead believers are not raised., If not raised neither is Christ. It is all or nothing. Obviously in your view, if not all are raised, only those by faith, then none are raised including Christ, which makes the statement at the end, your faith is in vain, Faith cannot grant physical life.
If it did, you are also contradicting the whole "responsibile grace" arguement. You would have man contributing to his salvation from the fall. Yet the Bible says man cannot save himself. Works, nothing man can do will save him, for if man or anything else could save him, then Christ is not needed. You still have several contradictions you need to iron out in your own theological point of view, if it is going to match what scripture is saying.

Those WHO believe are saved.

Ok, you have them saved physically, and spiritually all through faith. so who goes to hell? You have not gotten past this pile of dust of Gen 3:19.

Eternal life is the inheritance; and it is reserved in Heaven for us.

OK. so you may of sorts answered the question of hell. In your view, most remain under Adam. But those that do believe, gain both physical and spiritual life, and those that endure recieve the inheritance of eternal life, those that do not endure, get what? I still end up with somebody not having life, physical life. How are they going to stand in judgement?

But are unbelievers born again, into a spiritual union with the Savior?
No. They are "separated".

And that is why there is such a thing as hell in scripture. All men were made physically alive. Which permits anyone to have faith. That faith grants spiritual life, and the unbeliever, though physially alive, will be able to experience hell, which is a spiritual separation from God, a spiritual death, the second death.
You need to align your view correctly between the physical and spiritual.

Resurrections. Obviously you have gone all over the map on this.
There are two of each, one is spiritual the other physical. They align with each other.
Your response....
No, they don't. By faith we are "united into His resurrection" --- spiritually. The PHYSICAL resurrection, happens at the End of the Age.

Your answer does not explain the statement. I see a physical resurrection, at the end, I see a spiritual resurrection, but where is the physical death, and where is the spiritual death.
You missed the fall and you are excluding hell, so how do these fit in?

Christ gave physical life to mankind. We all shall die once physically.
He gave PHYSICAL LIFE, but we still DIE PHYSICALLY? That makes no sense...

Yes, we recieve this physical life at the end, the general resurrection when all mankind will be raised. They are raised through the Incarnation of Chrsit. Gave life to our mortal bodies. Christ did not give us immortality in this life. We still have our fallen mortal natures, we still give birth to babies with a fallen human nature. We bear the consequences of the fall in this life, ONCE. It is for the purpose of shedding the body of sin, the flesh, the thing that caused us to sin. We shall all be raised, eternal, immortal and incorruptible. That is how all will stand in judgement before Christ. He lost NONE to death.

All men are dead because all sin. THose WHO believe, are made alive in Christ THROUGH belief; thus those who refuse Jesus, choose to remain dead.

If some are made alive, then not all men are dead. Some are actually alive.
The correct way to say it is that all men are dead (physically) thus all men sin, Christ overcame that physical death, so man could believe. Those that do believe are alive IN Christ, by faith. They will not experience the second death, a spiriutal death. All men will experience the first death and all men will experience the resurrection from that death. Two deaths, two resurrections. Two are spiritual and two are physical, they align with each other. They cannot be crossed. Phyical does not give spiritual, nor does spiritual give physical.

No contradiction; those in the "Second Resurrection", are raised physically, but remain spiritually dead. Thus their "resurrection", is only temporary.

But the problem, BEN, you do not explain just how they are raised. Being raised or resurrected means physical life. Just how does God raise them?
( I ask this because you earlier stated that faith raises the believer to life, eternal life) so now what raised the unbeliever" Can you answser it directly, not just state it.
So, their resurrection is only temporary. Just what does this mean? Hell is temporary? Hell is not eternal? What happens to them?

 

[justsurfing]

I am by no means going to "set this forth" as anything I stand behind as the "right answer". Rather, I am setting it forth as "possible". I am very open to scripture that would state "no, that's not right because"... But I do want to set forth a "possibility" to see if holes can be shot through it... or if it can remain standing.

Rev. 20 :4bThey all came to life again, and they reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
5 This is the first resurrection. (The rest of the dead did not come back to life until the thousand years had ended.) 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. For them the second death holds no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him a thousand years.


Everyone who participates in the first resurrection are the elect. They reign with Christ for 1000 years. After the the 1000 years, the reprobate are raised to life. The reprobate are raised with mortal bodies. I cannot see any immortality in the bodies of the reprobate... because it is only the elect who are raised with immortality via the indwelling Holy Spirit:

2 Timothy 1:10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:


Immortality comes through the gospel of Jesus Christ and abolishes death.


1 Cor. 15:53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

Immortality is equal to incorruption that destroys death and is found only in life through Jesus Christ via the indwelling Holy Spirit.


Romans 8:10And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

2 Corinthians 5:4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

Death is swallowed up by life. Mortality is swallowed up by the immortality of life by the Spirit. The body is dead because of sin. The Spirit is life because of righteousness. It's by the Spirit that death is destroyed and abolished through Jesus Christ.


My first point of reason from the scripture is that by no means can I see the reprobate being raised in any form of immortality when they are raised to life to be Judged. They do not have the Spirit. They are not saved. There can be no immortality apart from Jesus Christ because immortality is life and that of the Spirit of God.


Can anyone see the reprobate who are raised to life for Judgment being raised any differently than how Lazarus was bodily raised from the dead in physical flesh?? If so, would you please provide scripture??
Before I progress to a second point, I want to set out the first point to see if it can be scripturally refuted. I can't see anyway to refute it - because I can't see any way for a physical body to be raised in immortality or incorruptible when Jesus Christ is not in a person spiritually.

Jesus is a lifegiving spirit:

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Appreciate your responses. I'd like to "weigh in" with a possibility but want to check each point successively first.


Grace and peace.

. After all, those that reject Christ must also have physical life if they are going to stand in judgement and experince an eternal spiritual death, hell.
The LIFE that Christ grants through His resurrection is an external phenonomon. It is imposed through our very human natures which He assumed, rasised to immortality.
When we look at the phrase in I Cor 15:20-22, protestants need to change the meaning of words, especially the "all" just to fit their theology.
If we held that we are all in Adam spiritually, then as in Christ all shall be made alive spiritually would make everyone individually saved, that is soul saved, which is a better version of universalism than the actual doctrine.
But we are not in Adam, spiritually or physically either. Adam IS us. We are of the same essence, the same human nature. If you change any aspect of that nature, of only one, all will be changed, This is why Adam became mortal, he fell, his human nature was changed. He died. Even worse is this fallen nature causes us to sin. We sin because we are dead, thus the phrase we are dead in sins and treaspeasses. The fallen nature of itself is not sinful. It causes sin. Otherwise Christ could not assume our fallen human natures and remain sinless. He would have been born sinful. We are not born sinful, but mortal, fallen.
Thus the phrase is ONLY speaking of the Work of Christ, being the Second Adam who reversed the first Adam. As in Adam all die(physically) so also in Christ shall all be made alive, (physically)
In order for any man to believe he must have life. In order to live (spritually) IN Chist, we must have physical life. A dead mortal being cannot hear, cannot respond, and surely cannot LIVE a spiritual life IN Christ.
Christ raised our human natures to LIFE, physically, through His resurrection. When that one human nature became alive on Easter, every single human being, who possessed that same human nature was given life. Eternal, immortal, incorruptible physical life. A body that will not die.

Here is your other problem, you want unbelivers to be raised in the last day. You make no provision in your theology just how they can be raised from death. Then you just mandate it becasue scripture obviously says they do, and you want them to be raised mortal. Mortal is death, to begin with. If mortal, then when do they die? They are not obviously immortal nor eternal. So, if they can actually experience hell, how long, before they die again? Then what?
That is the point, Ben, Not a single NT book as you know it is from the original manuscript. By the time 325 AD comes, it has been copied so many times one could not number them. Paul only wrote one letter each. They were copied and passed on. Some were not copied, but passed on. Not all Churches had all copies for a very long time before they were colated.
You have the Greek copies, but this does not help you, as is quite obvious, because they did not include the meaning, the interpretation that goes with the text. This is the Oral Tradtion, the extra biblical recordings of the Gospel, not necessarily the written. You explanatin of Baptism is a very good example. Baptism was not a problem in the early Church, So there is no corrective statements regarding it. The Gospels simply record that it occurs. You see it described three or four ways and think that there are four different baptisms, There is ONLY one. And it goes on and on.
But it is for justification. It is an obedience factor. If one is not baptised when the availability is present, then one is being disobedient, thus faith falters even before it begins. The Church has always assumed and declared that a catechuman had the Holy Spirit before baptism while they were being taught. The reason they are called catechumans. But they were and will be baptised. There are stories of people being baptised with sand, because water was either so scarce or even absent. This is why protestants are all over the map on this issue. There are so many one cannot keep track of all the different nuances. Yet, there has always been ONE baptism and water has always been the acceptable way. Infants were baptised from the beginning and only a couple of early Fathers disagreed with it, Tertullian being one of them, but the practice never changed because the Church did not agree.
So what, not a single person is immortal as yet. It occurs for every man at the very same time, In a twinkling of an eye. We do not reign with Christ physically in this life. But Christ is definitely on the Throne. We LIVE In Christ, spiritually, which is why and how we reigning with Him. It goes right back to your theological understanding of terms. You have an exteral theology regarding our spiritual existance. You say we live IN Christ, only because the Bible says it, but your explanations say otherwise. This is why you of necessity MUST say that we do not reign with Christ now. He is there, we are here. I'll have you know that we worship with the Heavenly Church every Sunday during the Liturgy. We are all joined together, in that ONE Body, and are ontologically, standing before that Throne of Christ. That is why worship here on earth duplicates the form of worship in Heaven. Heb 9-10, Rev 20:4. Those of the "first resurrection" the spiritual regeneration of a believer, will reign with Him until the end, the judgement.

​

 

[justsurfing]

Couple points. We were all physically IN Adam when Adam sinned... just as Levi was in the loins of Abraham:

Hebrews 10:4Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

5And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: 6But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
7And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
8And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
9And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 10For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

This is a challenging concept - but it exists in scripture. Levi who was in Abraham paid tithes in Abraham because Levi was physically in Abraham when Abraham paid tithes. Here's another version:

NIV Hebrews 10:9One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, 10because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.

From this scripture, this concept applied to the fall of Adam means more than Adam being a "federal head". From this scripture, because we were physically in Adam when Adam sinned - we sinned through Adam because we were still in the body of our ancestor Adam.

One body. One sin. All mankind fell in Adam... with Adam... because we were all in Adam physically (because we have all come forth from Adam physically).

It's more than "federal headship". It's us being united with Adam in physical being through physical origin... and therefore we physically were "involved" personally - all who came forth from Adam - in his sin.

Yes, he was the "federal head of all mankind" in that he did the sin and made the decision for all mankind. Yet, it was a sin in which we all participated passively in presence in Adam... (though we had no vote) because we were all in Adam as his physical progeny.

Why does this matter?? After all, it's the same end result of saying "federal head of all mankind"... we're all born with a sinful nature.

( Sidebar so people on the thread can know my position: I personally believe we are born with a sinful nature - the spirit of Satan. I guess a person needs always to be open to scriptural correction - but I've so studied it I personally just cannot see myself changing that position... just to clearly state my own pov. I'm going 100% with a Calvinist position on that: that we are born with a totally depraved spiritual nature. I want to stay pliable in the Lord's hands - I just can see no way that that position can be changed after studying it since I was old enough to read.)

Anyway, why it matters is we need to see the "spiritual dimension" as well as "physical dimension" of being "in Adam" in Adam's creation as well as his fall from grace - to see some things I'd like to bring out into the discussion.

I'd like to compare and contrast Adam as the "federal head of all mankind" because we were all in Adam in creation and fall from grace with our position in Christ.

Jesus Christ is the "federal head of all those who He saves".

There's a dimension here I want to bring to the study/discussion.

"Federal headship" just in decision making power would not be enough for Jesus Christ to effectually atone. We must be in Christ spiritually to be born of God through Christ later. Our "predestination" must be literal in that we must come forth from the Spirit to be born of God from above.

Just like we had to be in Adam physically and be born of Adam for him to effectively be our "federal head of all mankind"; so too we must be in Christ spiritually and born of the Spirit through Christ for Jesus Christ to be our "federal head" as He makes the atonement for our sins.

Whoever was "in Christ" when He went to the cross... is ABSOLUTELY guaranteed an efficacious atonement. The vicarious substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ is 100% effectual... because we were in Christ in predestination.

Just as we were "in Adam" when Adam was created and fell; so too must we have been "in Christ" when Jesus was made flesh to dwell among us and when Jesus went to the cross.

The first Adam is a living soul.

The 2nd Adam is a lifegiving spirit.

We had to be in both Adams to be predestined to salvation.

I want to go further... cause it's awesome to see predestination... come alive... before our very eyes... imo... and see the "whole big picture"... in Christ.

Part 1.

Grace and peace.

Ben, I recall having this conversation with you before, and at the time you didn't want to see that the operative terms in this passage are "in Adam" and "in Christ". Apparently you are beginning to see it.

What does it mean to be "in Adam"? For starters, if we are human, we are descended from him. So, we can safely say that all who are in Adam refers to the entire human race, inclusively.

What does it mean to be "in Christ"? It means we are joined to Him, and derive our life from Him. it means we have been changed (born again), made alive (by God), and redeemed from the consequences of being in Adam. the fate for all in Adam, is certain. Likewise, the fate for all in Christ is equally certain.

However, as you have correctly pointed out, not all are, or will be, in Christ. Those in Christ have passed from death to life, and no unregenerate, still-in-Adam unbeliever can make that claim, or bring it about themselves, because being in Christ is God's doing, not man's.

Ephesians 2:5, and Clk. 2:13, is speaking to and of those who are already in Christ. It is not speaking of mankind in general, as RG is trying to establish. In fact, most of the Bible is written to those who already believe.

RG would have us believe that the life being referred to is only physical life. That is absolutely untrue, and I don't care how many times he claims the ECFs taught it, or that his interpretation is the Gospel "one given", which is a misinterpretation of the passage it is lifted from.

The bottom line: All in Adam die. All in Christ are made alive. The two statements are not equivalent in numbers. those who assume they are, cannot avoid Universalism if they remain consistent.

The difference is, All are in Adam by default. Only those who are saved are transferred from Adam to Christ. Therefore, those who are in Christ are a subset of the human race. Those who are in Adam are the entire human race, minus those in Christ.

​

 

[Rightglory]

Ben Johnson,

Nevertheless, the passage says "in Christ". Not everyone is.

Thats because you only thing that Adam and Christ are but spiritual entities.
Adam sinned, that is a spiritual disfunction. That brougjht about a condemnation which was death, a physical death. So, consequently, Adam experienced both almost simultaneously. Sin is a spiritual separation and not a physical one.
Now, Christ assumed our fallen mortal natures, physical and raised them ot physical life. If we have no life, we cannot experience any kind of faith. We simply will eventually die and cease to exist.
Christ raised mankind from physical death to physical life, His entire universe, not just mankind. Faith cannot restore the universe, a huge contradiction also in your view which I have not pressed, since you have such difficulty in separating physical from spiritual of man.
Everyone, without exception is given life, resurrection, immortality, incorruptibility ONLY by Christ. Christ is the second Adam. He is not half an Adam. But living IN Christ is what we do by faith, It is not connected to the Cross. Christ did not give you spiritual life from the Cross, you get this by faith. Faith cannot grant physical existance. If you think so, could youi please explain this phenonomon theologically.

No. The parenthetical reflects the "made alive". In absolute terms.

That is absolutely correct. That is an absolute fact. It is all Grace. and faith has nothing to do with it. It is Christ and Christ alone that gives life, physical life. Faith cannot do it.

Yet not everyone is "baptised"; that is an act of faith.

NO, that is why there is a distinction in the Bible. Faith does not grant physical life, but spiritual life, and we LIVE IN Christ. Christ did not arbitrarily place us IN Christ and then call us believers, the elect, as Calvinists would argue. One cannot be baptised spiritually, unless Christ arose from the dead physically. The physical is before the spiritual, I Cor 15:46. If you want spiirtual life IN Christ, you first need to have life by Christ. Christ gave life to the world. How does faith give life to the world. Do you not beleive that the world was subjected to death also by that one sin and condemnation of death. Christ overcame death period. All death. He defeated it by His Resurrection. You cannot have, whosoever believes, unless and untill life is restored.

Salvation is a spiritual event. Yet it spills over into the physical. The reality of Christianity, is we are NOT what we DO (as all religions claim), we DO what we ARE. Him in us, changes and regenerates us --- from our spirits through to our flesh. Our FLESH walks after His Spirit --- we cannot walk after the flesh or we must die.

It is both. It is physical first, because the fall is physical. The condemnation was a physical death. It is a permanent death. Dust to dust. There is nothing spiritual about it. It precluded the union Adam had with God, spiritually.
Christ restored the physical, so each individual person could choose, spiritual life or death. You cannot have these choices unless you have physical life.
You still have the huge problem in your theology that Nobdysfool keeps telling you. You cannot have a dead man responding to Gods call of faith, repentance, belief. You have already stated that faith grants physical life and spiritual life. So how does a twice dead man, physically and spiritually respond to God. In this respect, the Calvinist have a much better answer than I have heard from you. It may be a monergistic, smack upon some, which is not in scripture either, but it is an answer. I know they use the word "regeneration" but the only way that word is used in scripture is the result of faith. Faith from dead people respective of both of your views. You need to get life into these dead mortal bodies if you want to follow Scripture.

Exactly --- we inherited a nature that sins; hence, "sin nature".

These are two distinct statements. They are not equal. That will create a monster problem for you as it has the RCC. they are as ambiguous on this as you. Their correction of this error is another error, the Immaculate conception of Mary. For how could a sinful Mary, give birth to Christ who is supposed to assume our fallen mortal natures?
Our fallen mortal nature is not a sinful nature. It is a nature that sins. Christ was not sinful, He did not sin. See the difference. Correct understanding is important.

The inheritance ("came-condemnation") is the provision, sinning is the fulfilment. IOW, condemnation came CONDITIONALLY. To be condemned, men must SIN --- each does, each meets the condition.

Death did not come conditionally. Have you known any that did not die? Again, you are stating Pelagianism point blank. To be condemned man must sin. Hardly, Ben. We have been condemned. We are still under that condemnation, in theory, since Christ has not yet come the Second time and has not yet raised us from that death, physical death.
Hardly conditional. Do you think if you believe hard enough you won't die physically, even once?

In the exact same measure that condemnation came, justification came to men --- also CONDITIONALLY. The condition for justification, clearly asserted in verse 17, is "believing and receiving the Gift".

That ignores Gen 3:19, It ignores the next two verses, 18-19. It ignores a lot of other scripture, such as all shall rise in the last day. It denies the Incarnation again. You do not keep the Incarnation in tact. You cannot possibly say these statements and also say you believe in the Incarnation. They are as opposite as one can get from each other. I need to assume you don't understand the Incarnation as understood and defined by the Church back in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. You may have you own definition but I have not heard it as yet.

No. The nature we inheritted from Adam, that causes our sin, is why we sin. The flesh we inheritted from Adam is too weak to resist sin; that's why Christ had to assume flesh, and die. Rom8:3-4 is clear.

Yes, that is correct, but it is NOT a sin nature. It is not weak to resist sin, it is what causes sin. Our spirit, is what resists sin. We can only do that with the help of the Holy Spirit. That is why we NEED to LIVE IN Christ. Christ only ASSUMED our flesh, because our nature, including the flesh, was dead. Man need life. Overcome the condemnation of death.

You're missing something profound. True we still have the "sin nature"; but we ALSO have a new spiritual nature.

Yes, and even that cannot resist sin. We sin all the time. Sin will separate a believer from God, if one is not careful. Sin is very powerful, which is why Christ gave us all the necessary tools to resist It, including the Holy Spirit, but IF we desire the flesh more, then our will will side with the flesh against the spirit. It is now believers are able to fall, to lose faith. It is why we need to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Constantly checking to see that we are still IN Christ.

"If any man be IN CHRIST, he is a new creation. The old has passed (is passing) away, behold all has become new." 2Cor5:17
Yet, as Paul details in Rom7, there is often a WAR between the new, and the old-but-not-gone natures. It is chapter 8 where the solution is presented; we walk by the Spirit, and not by the flesh, and our new natures thrive; but if WE walk by the flesh, then we must die.
This is why the "OSAS" debates have long interested me; we must constantly choose to walk in Him, the power of the Spirit conquering our sin.

On this side of the argument we are agreed. However, as pointed above, you have a dead mortal being trying to respond in faith. You also have a Christ who failed to raise all men through Himself, which makes faith moot. Your believer will still die physically permanently, notwithstanding your view point, but based on scripture.

 

[Rightglory]

Ben Johnson,

None of those verses assert "reconcilliiation apart from faith". Do they?

Every single one, Faith is not even mentioned.
If faith is mentioned in any one of them, unbelievers will also be reconciled by faith as will the universe and I dont' see a tree believing in God? Or can it?

Humans were not dead before Christ (unless they died). This is the problem with Calvinism; a spiritually-dead person CAN believe. And that's not "Pelagianism", nor "Semi-Pelagianism".

I agree a spiritually dead person can believe. But a physically dead one cannot. We are not speaking of breathing here. We are speaking about the permanent death, none existance which occurs when we stop breathing. If death is permanent, why would God want a spiritual relationship with a creature for 80 years adn then throw him away as garbage? Man was created to be eternal, AND in union with God. Man cannot restore life, so how is man going to overcome this condemnation of death, permanent death. The ONLY solution is Christ. It is why He is necessary. He gave life, overcame death. We all, mankind will have an eternal existance. His Work provided for a heaven and a hell. The salvatoin of our souls is from hell, not physical death. It is from spiritual death. You have been unable to differentiate these lifes,deaths and resurrections. They all have particular meanings. They cannot be ignored, nor intermixed.

You're perceiving that "physical death was defeated with Christ's death and resurrection"; but death continues, until it's thrown into the Lake of Fire.

that would be physical death. So if physical death is thrown into the lake of fire, hell is really non-existance. You already stated that you do not believe in the annihilation of man in hell. But your statement just made is exactly that. Hell is but the time it takes to burn and man is a cinder. Dust to dust. So what meaning is that for man. It is much better than the hell of scripture, which is endured for an eternity.
It also does not due justice to God. You have God just throwing away creatures created in His Image. Hell from God point of view is not of His doing, but of man's choice. It is a spiritual separation that is hell, not a physical extinction. It is a life, and eternal life that will be lived apart from HIM. But God is not apart from man. He cannot be since He sustains life, Christ raised that Human being at great cost. God was not willing to permit Satan to hold man in death, but now you have Christ permitting man to perish, permanently.

And that's the problem; if all mankind is "made alive", then unbelievers ARE "made alive". Nowhere in Scripture is "made-alive", asserted separate from "in Christ".

Yes man is made alive by Christ so that some, by belief, can life IN Him. We get both from HIM. Life to live IN. Dead cannot live IN anything, including Christ Himself. If Christ be not raised, then the dead are not raised, and faith is moot. But we know that all the dead will be raised, thus Christ was raised, thus faith has meaning and consequences. Faith, spiritual life eternally, no faith, second death, spirutual death eternally. It is outlined very well by Scripture.

No, it's not; our faith is in Christ, an His resurrection; BY that resurrection, WE are resurrected. Thus, "If He be not raised from the dead, your FAITH is in vain".

It does not say that Ben. Here is what it says, Go back to vs 12. The emphasis is not on faith but on the resurrection. The validity of that resurrection is not tied to faith, but to the dead. If there is NO resurrection of the dead, THEN Christ is not raised. If Christ is not risen then our preaching is in vain. v16 states it in reverse. If the DEAD, (all dead) are not raised, then Christ is not risen. So, then if Christ is not risen, your FAITH IS IN VAIN. The problem with you view is that only believers have died. Only believers are raised. But I can assure you that there are many unbelievers also dead. This aligns with the reason all the dead are raised at the end to stand in judgement. It answers your other conumdrum. Christ resurrection has nothing to do with faith, neither yours. You will be raised whether you believe or not.

Yes, it does; it's one and the same. Salvation is "Christ in us" --- which causes us to be regenerated, AND to pursue righteousness rather than sin.

The salvation of our souls which is a spiritual salvation, salvation from the second death, hell, eternal spiritual separation. But salvation from sin does not grant immortality. ONLY Christ can give immortality through His actually resurrection not the spiritual resurrection we experince by faith, being baptised into Christ.

The "immortality", is consequential to the union with Christ. And THAT, is by faith.

It never asserts that at all. Immortality is the consequence of being raised from the dead. Christ raised our mortal natures from death to life. All the dead shall be raised, by His Resurrection, by and through His Incarnation. Faith is not even in the picture.

Salvation is only for believers. Universalists misunderstand 1Tim4:10; "God is the Savior of all men, above-all believers" --- does not assert "all are saved". It asserts the provision ("Savior of all"), and the fulfillment ("malista/chiefly/above-all believers").

That is not what Universalist believe. They have it half right. They believe that Christ raised our mortal natures to life. All mankind is alive physically, NONE will be left dead, under Adam. BUT, here is the distinction, they also believe in the difference of faith in this life to give life with God immediately, and those that do not believe in this life will experince hell, but hell is but a time of chastisement, where they will eventually believe and will be saved. Thus all are saved physically and spiritually. You fail to understand both sides of the coin here. It is why a lot of other protestants are confused on this issue as well. You and most others conflate what Christ did, and man's response to that Gift of life which is offering spiritual union and communion. To even think of having union, Christ was needed to overcome death, physical annihilation, the condemnation of death through Adam. Two salvatoins, from the fall, then from hell, One is physical, the other spiritual. You cannot have the latter without the former. An impossibility.

Identical to 1Jn2:2, He is the propitiation not only of US (believers!), but also the WHOLE WORLD (does not deny that belief is required for the actual propitiation).

But belief has absolutely NOTHING to do with propitiation. You want man to save himself again. Yet the Bible says man cannot save himself, even by faith, works or anything you could come up with.
The proptitiation of Christ is an accomplished fact outside of faith. Sin is being propitiated, not individual sins, or even any number of sins.
I am going to make an anology, probably a poor one, but here goes.
If Christ had by some act, declared all salt water to be fresh water so man could live. But man to live must first believe in that Savior and ask for that water to live. If he doess not ask he will die. But in either case did that change the fact that Christ made the water fresh? Faith has nothing to do with propitiation.
By faith, we access it because we desire to be IN Christ. To be in Christ one must have their sins forgiven, You must ask to be forgiven, It is a choice as much as faith, which is why we are being saved through faith. Sin will separate a man from God, spiritually. If we do not confess our sins, our sins will sentence us to spiritual death and if we die physically before repenting, we also will suffer the second, eternal, spiritual death.
Christ did not forgive a single sin on the Cross. He propitiated, atoned for sins. that is why He is serving as our High Priest now, awaiting your confession.

The "texts" I use, simply speak to the essence of salvation; we become "begotten children", Jesus and the Spirit indwell the person bodily. And that ONLY happens by belief. John1:12 speaks of how one gains admittance to adoption into God's family; by believing and receiving Christ.

But that answer does not even acknowledge the fall. It does not evne acknowledge the salvation from that fall.
All it does acknowledte is that man joins with God by faith. But man was with God in the beginning by faith also. Adam was in union with God. It is why we were created and to do it freely which you also acknowledge. But you cannot explain the fall and the salvation from that fall, so we can have this union with Christ, and for an eternity.

 

[Rightglory]

justsurfing,


Most of your questions have already been answered in my discussion with Ben. But you bring a couple of different slants which he does not, probably because you are reformed, and he is not.

Rev. 20 :4bThey all came to life again, and they reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
5 This is the first resurrection. (The rest of the dead did not come back to life until the thousand years had ended.) 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. For them the second death holds no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him a thousand years.

Everyone who participates in the first resurrection are the elect. They reign with Christ for 1000 years. After the the 1000 years, the reprobate are raised to life. The reprobate are raised with mortal bodies. I cannot see any immortality in the bodies of the reprobate... because it is only the elect who are raised with immortality via the indwelling Holy Spirit:

Ben wants mortal bodies as well, but where does it ever say some will be raised with mortal bodies. We all died physically just to rid ourselves of this body of sin, our mortal natures.
You are correct that the elect, believers, experinced the "first resurrection", which is a spiritual resurrection. It is not a physical resurrection, unless you have Christ coming twice in the future instead of once. We experience that "spiritual resurrection" through baptism. It is when a belliever enters into the Kingdom, when we enter INTO Christ to live IN Him.
By living IN Him, we participate with Him in His reign, which is in progress now.
By saying the believers are raised with the power of the Holy Spirit then it is the Holy Spirit that gives life, physical life, But does Scripture ever say that the Holy Spirit died and was buried and was resurrected? You also have the same problem, just how do the other dead get raised then, even if you keep them in a mortal state, Can man raise himself from the dead? Is God raising them from the dead? If so, then why must believers be brought to life, a physical resurrection, by faith for Ben, and by the Holy Spirit for your view? Why the distinction. Couldn't God raise all the same way?

2 Timothy 1:10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
Immortality comes through the gospel of Jesus Christ and abolishes death.

I think you mean that knowledge of immortalty comes through the Gospel, that Christ abolished death. This is true. It is the ONLY way it has been revealed. But if you hold to this verse, it does not separate believers from all others. Christ, literally abolished death. It was completed at His resurrection. It does not need faith to activate it. The Holy Spirit rasied Christ from the dead. Our faith does not raise Christ from the dead. Christ is the victor over death. Over that condemnation upon mankind through Adam. Faith has nothing to do with restoring physical existance, overcoming physical death.

1 Cor. 15:53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
Immortality is equal to incorruption that destroys death and is found only in life through Jesus Christ via the indwelling Holy Spirit.

You will find no text that says immortality is the result of the work of the Holy Spirit. It says Christ overcame death, not the Holy Spirit. Christ went to the Cross, died, was buried, was raised from the dead, a physical resurrection, That resurrection was performed by the Holy Spirit. God raised Christ, by the Holy Spirit, not our faith or anything else.

Romans 8:10And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

First, the entire context is Paul speaking to beleivers about believers. The whole focus of Christ, or God was to be able to have union with man. Death precluded that union.
It is the Spirit that dwells in us, and this same Spirit which raised Christ, will also raise you physically at the end of time.

2 Corinthians 5:4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

Because we don't recieve immortality in this life, this mortal body groans to be releived of this body of sin.Mortality is swallowed by life, (can only be physical life, since mortal and immortality are physical states and not spiritual states of being.

Death is swallowed up by life. Mortality is swallowed up by the immortality of life by the Spirit. The body is dead because of sin. The Spirit is life because of righteousness. It's by the Spirit that death is destroyed and abolished through Jesus Christ.

Yes, Christ is the victor over death. Physical death.

My first point of reason from the scripture is that by no means can I see the reprobate being raised in any form of immortality when they are raised to life to be Judged. They do not have the Spirit. They are not saved. There can be no immortality apart from Jesus Christ because immortality is life and that of the Spirit of God.

You conclusion does not follow. It is saying that the same Spirit that indwells you will also raise you. It is not saying that just because He indwells you, only those will be raised. It is the same spirit doing both through Christ's Work.
But let us look at your conclusion. The dead are raised, just how are they raised, You are saying not by Christ, not by the Holy Spirit, so it is either man or God. But then we of necessity must say man, unless you believe in Modalism of the Trinity. That God, Son and Holy Spirit are not actually ONE essence, but three Persons. You are now getting into a whole new category of theology but it may help you to understand.
so, lets put God in charge of the resurrection of those you called "reprobates". If He in fact did just raise them from the dead, even if they remain mortal human beings, by His omnisicent power, could He not have done that for all men? In your view, why do some need to be raised by faith, that is the indwelliing Spirit?

Can anyone see the reprobate who are raised to life for Judgment being raised any differently than how Lazarus was bodily raised from the dead in physical flesh?? If so, would you please provide scripture??
Before I progress to a second point, I want to set out the first point to see if it can be scripturally refuted. I can't see anyway to refute it - because I can't see any way for a physical body to be raised in immortality or incorruptible when Jesus Christ is not in a person spiritually.
Jesus is a lifegiving spirit:

Do I understand you to say, that we will not be raised in glorifed bodies, that is body and soul? If not, then we are not human beings. You just eliminated Christ again, same as Ben, assuming our natures. Our nature is both body and soul. It is what is called a human being. Paul describes the perfect human being as being body and soul, but also in Union with Christ.
Lets look at Lazarus, Did Lazarus, die again? Or was he declared immortal and never died after that? Did he have a glorified Body as Christ did upon His resurrection?
Now, if the reprobate is raised a mortal being as yet, it means he still has the capacity to die physically again. So when is he going to die again? Do you hold the same view as Ben, that they are burned and experience hell only in the time it takes to kill a person. Lots of people are burned to death in this life also. Is that what hell is? Very short, temporary and a very short painful exist? Does not scripture say that hell is eternal. The spiritual death they experience, being apart from God is eternal. So could you explain?
I might also add, Do you also believe that the Holy Spirit indwells your dead body while in the Grave so He can resurrect you in the last day? You seem to be saying that? He needs to indwell you to raise you?

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Adam was created body and soul, breathed upon and given life. Christ did not need to recreate man, but simply give life back to man, that quicking spirit, which is done by and through Christ's Resurrection. He raised our mortal natures from death to life.
I would also be interested in just how the Incarnated Christ has any significance in your view? You dismiss it entirely.

 

[justsurfing]

Hi,

The conversations with Ben were confusing to me. Just the way the 2 of you interacted - for me it was challenging to follow.

I believe total depravity.

I believe the atonement is unlimited and efficacious. The only result of an unlimited efficacious atonement would be the final restoration of all mankind. The reprobate are not raised equal to the elect in physical body.

Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead right back in his mortal body though physically it was the 4th day and his flesh had already been rotting. That's what everyone said. Not pleasant - to discuss - but a point of fact.

Therefore, it is of no consequence to God how "broken down" a physical body may be - God can raise that body again in a mortal body just as He raised Lazarus. That's what I'm believing God did with all the reprobate.

The elect are raised in spiritual bodies that are glorified because the Spirit was in them. They cannot be "hurt" by the second death. They were raised in immortality and life physically. (We've already been spiritually raised from the dead by new spiritual life in Christ.)

The reprobate are "hurt" of the second death. They have mortal bodies which can feel pain. Plus Jesus said they would be destroyed body and soul. The second death of the reprobate appears to be a complete destruction of their mortal bodies.

I agree we are spiritually in Christ when we are included in Christ when we believe. Ephesians 1 says this. We are literally spiritually in Christ as a new creation when we are born of God from above in monergistic regeneration.

So, I think I agree, and want to clarify where we do not agree (potentially) and take a second look. I am always willing to examine scripture from all angles and will take a look at what you say.

But I need to understand if you are of the opinion that all people have Christ in them - which is not my position nor can it be. We are saved only when we are included in Christ and that when we experience spiritual conversion.

The atonement is efficacious - but until such time as the Spirit applies it via monergistic re-creation/re-generation... no one is in Christ in their bodies because no one has Christ dwelling in their bodies before they are regenerated by God's Sovereign will, plan, counsel, and power.

The atonement must be applied... and that by the Holy Spirit in monergistic regeneration... or the atonement exists in Christ but the person is not yet included in the atonement physically in being birthed into Christ by the Spirit.

Just trying to point counterpoint - checking for shared understanding. I want to examine resurrection and how it is that God may possibly monergistically regenerate the reprobate.

Grace and peace.

justsurfing,


Most of your questions have already been answered in my discussion with Ben. But you bring a couple of different slants which he does not, probably because you are reformed, and he is not.

Ben wants mortal bodies as well, but where does it ever say some will be raised with mortal bodies. We all died physically just to rid ourselves of this body of sin, our mortal natures.
You are correct that the elect, believers, experinced the "first resurrection", which is a spiritual resurrection. It is not a physical resurrection, unless you have Christ coming twice in the future instead of once. We experience that "spiritual resurrection" through baptism. It is when a belliever enters into the Kingdom, when we enter INTO Christ to live IN Him.
By living IN Him, we participate with Him in His reign, which is in progress now.
By saying the believers are raised with the power of the Holy Spirit then it is the Holy Spirit that gives life, physical life, But does Scripture ever say that the Holy Spirit died and was buried and was resurrected? You also have the same problem, just how do the other dead get raised then, even if you keep them in a mortal state, Can man raise himself from the dead? Is God raising them from the dead? If so, then why must believers be brought to life, a physical resurrection, by faith for Ben, and by the Holy Spirit for your view? Why the distinction. Couldn't God raise all the same way?

I think you mean that knowledge of immortalty comes through the Gospel, that Christ abolished death. This is true. It is the ONLY way it has been revealed. But if you hold to this verse, it does not separate believers from all others. Christ, literally abolished death. It was completed at His resurrection. It does not need faith to activate it. The Holy Spirit rasied Christ from the dead. Our faith does not raise Christ from the dead. Christ is the victor over death. Over that condemnation upon mankind through Adam. Faith has nothing to do with restoring physical existance, overcoming physical death.
You will find no text that says immortality is the result of the work of the Holy Spirit. It says Christ overcame death, not the Holy Spirit. Christ went to the Cross, died, was buried, was raised from the dead, a physical resurrection, That resurrection was performed by the Holy Spirit. God raised Christ, by the Holy Spirit, not our faith or anything else.

First, the entire context is Paul speaking to beleivers about believers. The whole focus of Christ, or God was to be able to have union with man. Death precluded that union.
It is the Spirit that dwells in us, and this same Spirit which raised Christ, will also raise you physically at the end of time.
Because we don't recieve immortality in this life, this mortal body groans to be releived of this body of sin.Mortality is swallowed by life, (can only be physical life, since mortal and immortality are physical states and not spiritual states of being.
Yes, Christ is the victor over death. Physical death.
You conclusion does not follow. It is saying that the same Spirit that indwells you will also raise you. It is not saying that just because He indwells you, only those will be raised. It is the same spirit doing both through Christ's Work.
But let us look at your conclusion. The dead are raised, just how are they raised, You are saying not by Christ, not by the Holy Spirit, so it is either man or God. But then we of necessity must say man, unless you believe in Modalism of the Trinity. That God, Son and Holy Spirit are not actually ONE essence, but three Persons. You are now getting into a whole new category of theology but it may help you to understand.
so, lets put God in charge of the resurrection of those you called "reprobates". If He in fact did just raise them from the dead, even if they remain mortal human beings, by His omnisicent power, could He not have done that for all men? In your view, why do some need to be raised by faith, that is the indwelliing Spirit?
Do I understand you to say, that we will not be raised in glorifed bodies, that is body and soul? If not, then we are not human beings. You just eliminated Christ again, same as Ben, assuming our natures. Our nature is both body and soul. It is what is called a human being. Paul describes the perfect human being as being body and soul, but also in Union with Christ.
Lets look at Lazarus, Did Lazarus, die again? Or was he declared immortal and never died after that? Did he have a glorified Body as Christ did upon His resurrection?
Now, if the reprobate is raised a mortal being as yet, it means he still has the capacity to die physically again. So when is he going to die again? Do you hold the same view as Ben, that they are burned and experience hell only in the time it takes to kill a person. Lots of people are burned to death in this life also. Is that what hell is? Very short, temporary and a very short painful exist? Does not scripture say that hell is eternal. The spiritual death they experience, being apart from God is eternal. So could you explain?
I might also add, Do you also believe that the Holy Spirit indwells your dead body while in the Grave so He can resurrect you in the last day? You seem to be saying that? He needs to indwell you to raise you?
Adam was created body and soul, breathed upon and given life. Christ did not need to recreate man, but simply give life back to man, that quicking spirit, which is done by and through Christ's Resurrection. He raised our mortal natures from death to life.
I would also be interested in just how the Incarnated Christ has any significance in your view? You dismiss it entirely.

​