One Died For All

Status
Not open for further replies.

mlepfitjw

May you be blessed!
Jun 23, 2020
1,620
1,093
Alabama
✟44,897.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭5:8-15‬ ‭KJV‬‬


Am reminded of these verses I believe in universal reconciliation of everyone in the world by the one death of the Lord Jesus Christ, though I do not believe everyone is saved to the kingdom of God due to some people rejecting God because that is what they want.

I have met some that just simply reject any notion from Christianity one person being at my work.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Too many unresolved issues.
(1) Why create us at all?
(2) Why not create us holy?
(3) We do have good reason to disbelieve in infinite worlds - God promised to put an end to suffering, confirming that suffering is not a good thing. And frankly I don't believe that YOU believe infinite worlds, so it is not a moot point.
(4) Love isn't warm fuzzies. It intervenes to reduce suffering. Infinite love spells infinite intervention and thus is incompatible with suffering. For example, it would spell infinite atonement wherefore even the sin of rejecting salvation would be forgiven, even the devil would be forgiven. No room for hell here.
(5) I didn't ignore your counterargument, I just don't think it addresses my argument. You're making a seemingly bogus claim that God did the uncreated a huge favor by birthing them into a world of suffering. (With friends like that, who needs enemies?). Picturing myself in God's shoes, I certainly wouldn't have done so. Cerainly the atheists concur -that's why they press the Problem of Evil. You claim this is for our benefit? Why then not benefit MORE people? Sorry but my infinite-progression argument stands unrefuted. If suffering is inherently good, you haven't shown that more isn't better.
1)Why does God need a reason to act? 2) We get the joy of accomplishment through development 3)I don't believe infinite worlds are necessary for infinite goodness, and raised the counterpoint of the inherent value of uniqueness. The hypothetical infinte worlds are simply to point out that if such were a requirement for infinite goodness theres no reason to think its not happening 4) Love doesn't always interfere, though. Sometimes it allows suffering, such as in teaching. Constantly feeding someone and infantalizing them isn't better than teaching them to fend for themselves 5) Your contention is that in order for goodness to be infinite it must increase, but since uniqueness is an inherently good quality multiple creations could actually decrease rather than increase the degree to which goodness exists.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Not quite, because I am not saying God is not subject to human definitions like justice, honesty, etc. It's simply that we cannot apply terms that are defined based on our restrictions to an unrestricted being.
That amounts to the same thing! Distinction without a difference. You're implying that He CAN deviate from our definitions in terms of transgressing our restrictions/boundaries for those definitions.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
1)Why does God need a reason to act?
Love intervenes to REDUCE suffering. Why would an omnibenevolent being intervene to INCREASE suffering? Newsflash: The whole point of the discipline of theodicy is to explain this apparent contradiction. Leaping over it nonchalantly hopscotch, as you are trying to do, is not a convincing response.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Love intervenes to REDUCE suffering. Why would an omnibenevolent being intervene to INCREASE suffering? Newsflash: The whole point of the discipline of theodicy is to explain this apparent contradiction. Leaping over it nonchalantly hopscotch, as you are trying to do, is not a convincing response.
Ah, so surgeons must hate their patients. Why are you re-treading ground that's been discussed?
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That amounts to the same thing! Distinction without a difference. You're implying that He CAN deviate from our definitions in terms of transgressing our restrictions/boundaries for those definitions.
Not at all, it's just you've got the order backwards. "Goodness" is a meaningless concept, other than as an analogue of God's nature. "Honesty," is also analogous, in that "objective reality" is what God creates, not a thing He is subject to. "Justice," again flows from God and what we know of it is an analogue. We can trust the words not because of an objective value to them, but because they are grounded in God.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
2) We get the joy of accomplishment through development.
This is your justification for suffering? Jesus said pray that you NOT be led into temptation. Unlike you, apparently He realized that suffering/temptation is not inherently good. Suppose you just got married, wanted to have ten kids, and God gave you a choice.
(1) "Just pray to me, briefly, and I will shield them from all temptation."
(2) You will have your ten kids, but they will all suffer great temptation, in fact at least half of them will wind up in hell.

Curious to which choice you'd opt for.
2) We get the joy of accomplishment through development.
Makes no sense. You're implying that an infinite God can't give us the same degree of joy/pleasure without suffering. That's a contradiction.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Not at all, it's just you've got the order backwards. "Goodness" is a meaningless concept, other than as an analogue of God's nature. "Honesty," is also analogous, in that "objective reality" is what God creates, not a thing He is subject to. "Justice," again flows from God and what we know of it is an analogue. We can trust the words not because of an objective value to them, but because they are grounded in God.
That's exactly the sort of relativism espoused by Mark Quayle. Goodness is whatever God decides to define it as, even if that includes sending innocent people (i.e. puppets) to hell. This whole thread is full of my rebuttals to that nonsense, as it reduces the Bible to nonsense and self-contradictory promises and injustice and undermines hope.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is your justification for suffering? Jesus said pray that you NOT be led into temptation. Unlike you, apparently He realized that suffering/temptation is not inherently good. Suppose you just got married, wanted to have ten kids, and God gave you a choice.
(1) "Just pray to me, briefly, and I will shield them from all temptation."
(2) You will have your ten kids, but they will all suffer great temptation, in fact at least half of them will wind up in hell.

Curious to which choice you'd opt for.
Makes no sense. You're implying that an infinite God can't give us the same degree of joy/pleasure without suffering. That's a contradiction.
Now you're conflating all sorts of things. Suffering is not temptation, though temptation may lead to suffering. Some relevant words of Jesus on "the problem of evil" are found in Matthew 15 where He tells us what creates evil. You've already admitted that not all suffering is morally evil, which is the entire basis of the objection of suffering. If there is a good purpose to suffering, it is moral to inflict suffering.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's exactly the sort of relativism espoused by Mark Quayle. Goodness is whatever God decides to define it as, even if that includes sending innocent people (i.e. puppets) to hell. This whole thread is full of my rebuttals to that nonsense, as it reduces the Bible to nonsense and self-contradictory promises and injustice and undermines hope.
As opposed to goodness being defined by you or I? There's no relativism, we can hold God to His nature as revealed and expect Him to behave in a certain manner. But it is His nature that defines the issue, not what we want it to mean.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Now you're conflating all sorts of things. Suffering is not temptation, though temptation may lead to suffering.
Baloney. You've never heard of the agony of temptation? You don't understand that the recovering alcoholic or drug addict faces agony? There is no temptation without suffering.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
As opposed to goodness being defined by you or I? There's no relativism, we can hold God to His nature as revealed and expect Him to behave in a certain manner. But it is His nature that defines the issue, not what we want it to mean.
Great. Than I have no assurance of salvation, because I have no assurance that God is not a liar. After all, He is the one who gets to establish the definition of "lies", "honesty", "integerity", and so forth. My opinion doesn't matter.

Why are you re-treading ground that's been discussed?
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Baloney. You've never heard of the agony of temptation? You don't understand that the recovering alcoholic or drug addict faces agony? There is no temptation without suffering.
So those who lust do so out of suffering? Just because A follows B does not mean that B follows A. Temptation can be suffering, and suffering can lead to temptation. But not all suffering is temptation, nor is all temptation suffering. Adam was not tempted to defy God's words because of any suffering.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If there is a good purpose to suffering, it is moral to inflict suffering.
Replace that word "good" with "necessary" and we've finally found a point of agreement. But more than that - the Problem of Evil isn't merely about what God is ALLOWED to do in terms of upright behavior, it is about whether His actions reflect the HIGHEST POSSIBLE level of love/kindness (infinite love). And bear in mind that love is defined as intervening to REDUCE suffering.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Great. Than I have no assurance of salvation, because I have no assurance that God is not a liar. After all, He is the one who gets to establish the definition of "lies", "honesty", "integerity", and so forth. My opinion doesn't matter.

Why are you re-treading ground that's been discussed?
Nice straw man, you seem to be fond of building them. Assurance of salvation comes from God's nature, because God does not change. God IS truth, He does not simply tell the truth. A lie is a statement that is contrary to God's person, meaning He can in no way be a liar. It's simply not possible, when He speaks He creates reality so what He says is the truth.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Absolutely. Duh. You really don't get that?
Only if "not getting everything I want" is conflated with suffering, in which case the very idea of good goes entirely out the window because then not being allowed to murder is suffering, which you seem to be insisting is evil.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.