How do you define the word "all" in these verses?

[holyrokker]

A better explanation would be:

Adam's trespass brought condemnation for Jews and Gentiles alike.
Christ's sacrifice brings salvation for Gentiles and Jews alike.

I think Clare has the true context here.

 

[holyrokker]

If the first "all" means each individual person, the second "all" would likewise mean each individual person.

If all are born sinful, then all will be raised to eternal life.
If all aren't raised to eternal life, then all aren't born sinful.

 

[Reformationist]

If all are born sinful, then all will be raised to eternal life.
If all aren't raised to eternal life, then all aren't born sinful.

So you believe in universal salvation?

 

[sculleywr]

Were all made alive in Christ?



Please define "arbitrary" as you are using it.



So God would be sinful if He treated some different than others?

If by "made alive" you mean regenerated, yes. If by "made alive" you mean saved, then all who are saved are "made alive". Christ's death made possible every man to receive salvation. If a person builds a bridge, and leaves nobody to prevent entrance, his intent is for all who need it to use it. This does not presuppose that all who need it will actually use it.

In the same way, Christ's death made available salvation for all mankind. That does not presuppose that all will take it.

 

[Rick Otto]

If by "made alive" you mean regenerated, yes. If by "made alive" you mean saved, then all who are saved are "made alive". Christ's death made possible every man to receive salvation. If a person builds a bridge, and leaves nobody to prevent entrance, his intent is for all who need it to use it. This does not presuppose that all who need it will actually use it.

In the same way, Christ's death made available salvation for all mankind. That does not presuppose that all will take it.

I believe Christ's death actualy paid for the sins of all men (not just Israel). but only all those men whom God elected to place "in Christ" before the foundation of the world as Eph 1:4 says.

 

[Reformationist]

If by "made alive" you mean regenerated, yes. If by "made alive" you mean saved, then all who are saved are "made alive". Christ's death made possible every man to receive salvation. If a person builds a bridge, and leaves nobody to prevent entrance, his intent is for all who need it to use it. This does not presuppose that all who need it will actually use it.

In the same way, Christ's death made available salvation for all mankind. That does not presuppose that all will take it.

Okay. I understand. Using your analogy, neither the building of the bridge nor the existance of the bridge causes anyone to use the bridge, right?

Assuming you agree, what is the catalyst for someone using the bridge?

 

[Reformationist]

By the way scully, you still didn't define arbitrary. Would you mind doing that?

 

[holyrokker]

If the first "all" means each individual person, the second "all" would likewise mean each individual person.

If all are born sinful, then all will be raised to eternal life.
If all aren't raised to eternal life, then all aren't born sinful.

So you believe in universal salvation?

Nope. The broader teaching of Scripture contradicts this concept.

 

[Reformationist]

Nope. The broader teaching of Scripture contradicts this concept.

So then you don't believe all are born sinful?

 

[holyrokker]

So then you don't believe all are born sinful?

I believe that the passage being discussed does not leave room for the doctrine of inherited sin unless it allows for the doctrine of universal salvation.

Based on the passage, we cannot accept or discount one at the exclusion of the other.

In other words, it cannot be a "prooftext" for either doctrine.

 

[Reformationist]

I believe that the passage being discussed does not leave room for the doctrine of inherited sin unless it allows for the doctrine of universal salvation.

Based on the passage, we cannot accept or discount one at the exclusion of the other.

In other words, it cannot be a "prooftext" for either doctrine.

Well, I never think it's a wise policy to leverage a single point of Scripture as the basis for a major theological stance. That said, you didn't exactly answer my question. You have stated that you do not believe Scripture supports universal salvation. You have also stated that, based on how you understand the referenced passage, if all are not raised to eternal life then all are not born sinful.

This seems to reveal, quite clearly, that you do not believe in the universality of sin. Can you confirm that is your understanding or, if I've misunderstood, explain what you do believe?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[sculleywr]

Okay. I understand. Using your analogy, neither the building of the bridge nor the existance of the bridge causes anyone to use the bridge, right?

Assuming you agree, what is the catalyst for someone using the bridge?

The catalyst for using the bridge is the need to cross, the recognition of one's need to cross, and the acknowledgement of one's need to cross the bridge. The need to cross the bridge was given by our imperfection. The recognition is given by the evangelistic efforts of the Church. The Acknowledgement is given by one's personal decision to cross said bridge.

To put it in our metaphor, there is a store carrying milk on the other side of the bridge. It is the only store that carries milk. A person uses up all of their milk. Someone asks him if there is milk, to which he says, "no". Then he is told the milk is across the bridge, and he gets in his car, drives across the bridge, and gets some milk.

 

[sculleywr]

By the way scully, you still didn't define arbitrary. Would you mind doing that?

To use our analogy, arbitrary would be the milk store rolling dice to determine where the milk goes. If a person doesn't have a favorable dice roll, he doesn't get milk.

 

[Reformationist]

The catalyst for using the bridge is the need to cross, the recognition of one's need to cross, and the acknowledgement of one's need to cross the bridge. The need to cross the bridge was given by our imperfection. The recognition is given by the evangelistic efforts of the Church. The Acknowledgement is given by one's personal decision to cross said bridge.

The catalyst for using the bridge cannot be the need to do so, as you contend, as all people have that need yet not all use the bridge. The catalyst is the factor that invariably prompts using the bridge. In your analogy, the catalyst would be the person's decision to act upon their recognition of their need to use the bridge. In short, as it applies to Jesus' atoning work (the creation of the bridge), His work saved not a single soul, in and of itself. It is not until man couples his work (using the bridge) with Jesus' work (the creation of the bridge) that the bridge serves its purpose, spanning the gap between God and man and reconciling them. Aside from the fact that this means Christ's death, in and of itself, saves NO ONE, it leaves some important questions unanswered. For instance, everyone needs "milk" from the storeon the other side of the bridge yet not all use the bridge to get it. Why do those that use the bridge do so? How are they different than those that refuse to use the bridge? Are they just smarter?

To put it in our metaphor, there is a store carrying milk on the other side of the bridge. It is the only store that carries milk. A person uses up all of their milk. Someone asks him if there is milk, to which he says, "no". Then he is told the milk is across the bridge, and he gets in his car, drives across the bridge, and gets some milk.

This, of course, works off the presumption that the person lacking milk believes both in the existance of the milk and his need for it. Nonbelievers, of course, think the very idea of milk is foolishness and reject their need for a made up substance so they certainly would not use the bridge to go get some.

 

[Reformationist]

To use our analogy, arbitrary would be the milk store rolling dice to determine where the milk goes. If a person doesn't have a favorable dice roll, he doesn't get milk.

Great. What does such nonsense have to do with anyone's theological stance? God doesn't roll dice and let some random thing define who gets the milk. I agree that would be arbitrary. Just because it's based on what pleases God and not on what you do doesn't make it arbitrary and it's unproductive, not to mention intellectually dishonest, of you to try to apply your analogy to a theological stance with which it isn't analogous.

 

[sculleywr]

Great. What does such nonsense have to do with anyone's theological stance? God doesn't roll dice and let some random thing define who gets the milk. I agree that would be arbitrary. Just because it's based on what pleases God and not on what you do doesn't make it arbitrary and it's unproductive, not to mention intellectually dishonest, of you to try to apply your analogy to a theological stance with which it isn't analogous.

Because, God, being a logical and rational being (as He is described as the Logikos, we can assume that He is what that means), will follow what He says will happen.

The judgment of who will and won't be saved is not based on a decision God makes without us knowing, because the criteria has already been given:

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”​

This is the criteria. This is the objective measuring stick to which all will be held. Not regeneration, not what you say.

 

[sculleywr]

The catalyst for using the bridge cannot be the need to do so, as you contend, as all people have that need yet not all use the bridge. The catalyst is the factor that invariably prompts using the bridge. In your analogy, the catalyst would be the person's decision to act upon their recognition of their need to use the bridge. In short, as it applies to Jesus' atoning work (the creation of the bridge), His work saved not a single soul, in and of itself. It is not until man couples his work (using the bridge) with Jesus' work (the creation of the bridge) that the bridge serves its purpose, spanning the gap between God and man and reconciling them. Aside from the fact that this means Christ's death, in and of itself, saves NO ONE, it leaves some important questions unanswered. For instance, everyone needs "milk" from the storeon the other side of the bridge yet not all use the bridge to get it. Why do those that use the bridge do so? How are they different than those that refuse to use the bridge? Are they just smarter?



This, of course, works off the presumption that the person lacking milk believes both in the existance of the milk and his need for it. Nonbelievers, of course, think the very idea of milk is foolishness and reject their need for a made up substance so they certainly would not use the bridge to go get some.

Like I said, it is all three, the need, the recognition of the need, and the acknowledgement of the need.

So no, it doesn't work off the presumption that he believes in the existence of the milk. It works off of the presumption that those of us who have the milk will tell him where the milk comes from, and his acknowledgement of that need. The milk exists whether or not he believes in it. At the point that he has been shown where milk is (whether by us or by God), it is his responsibility to go and get the milk.

 

[chilehed]

In 1 Corinthians 15:22, the Scripture states, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive"...

Everyone in Adam dies. Everyone in Christ lives.

 

[holyrokker]

This seems to reveal, quite clearly, that you do not believe in the universality of sin. Can you confirm that is your understanding or, if I've misunderstood, explain what you do believe?

That's quite an assumption on your part. To say that 1Cor 15:22 does not teach inherited sin is not the same as rejecting the idea of the universality of sin.

By "universality of sin" do you mean that everyone who has ever lived (apart from Jesus) has sinned?

I agree with that concept.

 

[sculleywr]

That's quite an assumption on your part. To say that 1Cor 15:22 does not teach inherited sin is not the same as rejecting the idea of the universality of sin.

By "universality of sin" do you mean that everyone who has ever lived (apart from Jesus) has sinned?

I agree with that concept.

See, this is the universality of sin. But a person is judged on his own actions, not the actions of others.