If He wants all men saved, then all would be saved. The fact that you won’t even attempt a rebuttal, but dismiss with a hand wave, is telling.
Well, my hope is pretty strong. I just can't see the God who is love doing anything less than saving all, even if it take several ages to accomplish this in the most hardened of sinners.
One last time. This view cannot be posted in General Theology.Here's your rebuttal. I saw this YEARS ago, long before I became convinced of God's all saving love (Apokatastasis) and it made me go "Hmmmmmmmm......"
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
The Cross has saved all men, all mankind, all people, everywhere and at all times. God owns all souls. Through the Cross God broke into the house of the "strong man," (death) bound him, and plundered his household of his stolen goods (stolen from God). All return to God. All. Not one is left behind. Any Scripture presented by anyone which suggests that God leaves anyone behind is a mistranslation of the Bible.
If men reap what they sow, then we are all doomed to hell.No, because God is just. A man reaps what he sows. God wants us to be righteous.
You didn't even attempt a rebuttal. The words of scripture are explicit.
Paul uses the phrase ALL MEN twice in the passage you quoted. You claim he didn't mean all men.
His universalist view cannot be discussed.Even though I disagree with the poster, he quoted scripture and you told him it couldn't be discussed in GT.
Being that I am soon entering into the Orthodox Church and am therefore a neophyte in many ways, I will let seasoned Orthodox answer this question:
Orthodox Christians on Penal Substitutionary Atonement - Orthodox Reformed Bridge
Orthodox Problems with Penal Substitution ·
I will also do further study on these sites I dug up in order to better understand the Orthodox position. One thing I do know - Orthodoxy rejects utterly the idea of an angry and vengeful God who needs a blood sacrifice to appease His wrath. I remember reading a "vision" given by a Roman Catholic "seer" who proclaimed that the Virgin Mary and Jesus were struggling to hold back the hand of God's wrath, but couldn't hold on much longer.
Do you see the problem with such a statement? It pits Christ/God against Father/God as if there are two conflicting wills in the Godhead, which attacks the very nature of the Trinity.
Anyway...happy studying!
The penal-substitution theory of Jesus' atonement supposes that God's wrath was satisfied at the cross as Jesus was penalized for our sins. Thus Jesus took our place and was punished for us. However, this theory does not jive with other scriptures such as Col 1:20 "...and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. Since the stated purpose of God is to RECONCILE ALL things to himself, the penal-substitution theory of atonement does not fit because under this theory, most of humanity end up being never reconciled to God and are punished in the lake of fire forever, or annihilated.
I was simply responding to your comment and how it relates to the OP.It’s not orthodox and not allowed in General Theology.
Well, my hope is pretty strong. I just can't see the God who is love doing anything less than saving all, even if it take several ages to accomplish this in the most hardened of sinners.
Go through Romans 5:12-21 and chart all the "likes" and "not likes." One of the things you will find is:Here's your rebuttal. I saw this YEARS ago, long before I became convinced of God's all saving love (Apokatastasis) and it made me go "Hmmmmmmmm......"
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
The Cross has saved all men, all mankind, all people, everywhere and at all times. God owns all souls. Through the Cross God broke into the house of the "strong man," (death) bound him, and plundered his household of his stolen goods (stolen from God). All return to God. All. Not one is left behind. Any Scripture presented by anyone which suggests that God leaves anyone behind is a mistranslation of the Bible.
Good question. We know that God so loved the world that he gave Jesus; whoever believes in him has eternal life per Jn 3:16. From this we can deduce that God loves all as he loves the world as the OP stated. Yet as the OP pointed out, there appear to be scriptures that say the opposite.How would you interpret what immediately follows Colossians 1:20?
And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. - Colossians 1:21-23 (ESV)
In context, Paul is addressing his letter to the saints of Colossus. Toward the end of his opening statement Paul tells them that their reconciliation is conditioned upon their continuing in the faith (v23). What are we to say of those who die without faith? How can they continue in the faith, and thus be reconciled, if they never had faith to begin with?
Christ died for all -- but not all will accept the Gospel
the righteous will be in the "first resurrection" and the wicked will be raised 1000 years later in the second resurrection of Rev 20.
Your highlighted quote of Matt 7:14 implies that few will ever find salvation. However the word for "find" is heuriskontes which is a present tense participle more accurately translated as "finding." Thus Jesus stated that there a few presently finding salvation which is not the same as saying few will ever find it at some point in the future.Matthew 7
13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
...
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
One last time. This view cannot be posted in General Theology.
Thank you for your reply and sharing those resources.
Perhaps it would be helpful to me if you could expand on your statement at the end of your post. What do you mean when you say, "It [penal substitution] pits Christ/God against Father/God as if there are two conflicting wills in the Godhead..."? From the second link you posted, the author writes:
1. Penal substitution compromises the deity of Christ and puts a rift in the Trinity
If Christ died for, and is our solution to, our sins against god the Father, then what about our sins against Christ? He’s just as god as the Father is. or our sins against the Holy Spirit? With penal substitution, God is pitted against God, either dividing God (and thus destroying the Trinity) or saying that Christ isn’t fully god.
Is this the basis for your referring to "conflicting wills in the Godhead" as a consequence of penal substitution? If so, I suppose I fail to understand the theological grounding for an interpretation that allows for a particular sin to be regarded as an offense against one person within the Trinity and not the others, who are coequally God and have the same Divine nature and perfect righteousness. If sin is any failure to conform to, or any actual violation of, the law of God, then all sin is an offense to the Triune God as Father, Son, and Spirit; not Father, Son, or Spirit. I do not see how, on the view of penal substitution, the Trinity is rent apart.
Look at the OP. It is asking about "all being saved" vs others not being saved. I simply responded with the statements and verses that support all being saved. Seems to me you should have shuffled the very first post over to the Controversial Doctrines page.
What would be the purpose of Jesus telling them how to believe if they could not, and Jesus knew they couldn't?
I believe the Holy Spirit was working to convict those Jews of sin, but they shut their hearts, which made it impossible for them to believe. God wanted them to believe, Jesus wanted them to believe, the Holy Spirit wanted them to believe. They wouldn't.
Heb 4:7
“TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS.”
I forgot to mention, his purpose is given in Romans 9, spec vs 23What would be the purpose of Jesus telling them how to believe if they could not, and Jesus knew they couldn't?
I believe the Holy Spirit was working to convict those Jews of sin, but they shut their hearts, which made it impossible for them to believe. God wanted them to believe, Jesus wanted them to believe, the Holy Spirit wanted them to believe. They wouldn't.
Heb 4:7
“TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS.”
No, my statement about conflicting wills in the Godhead was about Roman Catholic "visionairies" posting their "visions which make no theological sense.
I forgot to mention, his purpose is given in Romans 9, spec vs 23
"What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory--"
Also note, the same message he gave to those who hardened their heart is also given to those who belong to him. Those he has designated as sheep. He enables their hearts.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?