Something higher than God wants to save everyone...

[john14_20]

It was not Adam's "job" do impute sin to us. It is not Christ "job" to impute righteouness to us.

Unfortuanly it does not matter what you want, it is God's plan.

There is no need to get caught up on terms.

The implication of what I am writing is clear.

A mere man named Adam has had a far greater impact on the human race than the Son of God has.

I simply find that to be unacceptable.

 

[msortwell]

In Adam we had the ability to not sin.
No we didn't. That's why we sinned.

I would offer that we in as much as we were "in Adam" as our federal head before the fall participated in his activities spiritually and shared his abilities spiritually. Before he did most willingly submit himself to the disobedience of God's command he was not a servant of sin nor were we "in him." He was not dead in his trespasses and sin, nor were we "in him. We had no fallen nature '"in him." These characteristics of fallen man came upon us all as we were "in him" during his disobedience. None of these biblical precepts are news to you.

Upon what biblical basis do you issue your edict that, "No we didn't [have the ability to not sin]"?

mrsortwell

 

[msortwell]

There is no need to get caught up on terms.

The implication of what I am writing is clear.

A mere man named Adam has had a far greater impact on the human race than the Son of God has.

I simply find that to be unacceptable.

1. The Son of God created the world and all that is therein.

2. Adam, through disobedience, brought death to men who would most certainly have brought it upon themselves.
Christ, through perfect obedience, brought life to men who would most certainly have continued, as free moral agents, sinning their way to eternal damnation.

mrsortwell

 

[tigersnare]

There is no need to get caught up on terms.

The implication of what I am writing is clear.

A mere man named Adam has had a far greater impact on the human race than the Son of God has.

I simply find that to be unacceptable.

Once again, you have a problem with God's plan of redemtion, sounds as though the only "acceptable" outcome would be for every man to be saved.

 

[john14_20]

1. The Son of God created the world and all that is therein.

2. Adam, through disobedience, brought death to men who would most certainly have brought it upon themselves.
Christ, through perfect obedience, brought life to men who would most certainly have continued, as free moral agents, sinning their way to eternal damnation.

mrsortwell

Greetings msortwell


Did Adam bring death to all men or only some?

Did Christ bring life to all men, or only some?

Blessings to you, Pete

 

[msortwell]

Greetings msortwell


Did Adam bring death to all men or only some?

Did Christ bring life to all men, or only some?

Blessings to you, Pete

Adam brought death upon all men through his disobedience. Christ offered life to all men through His sacrifice and the communication of the gospel. Christ's sacrifice had the effect of saving some . . . by God's grace.

What point are you trying to make?

Are you taking a universal salvation position? Or are you simply making the point that, by using your definition of "a far greater impact," Adam made the greater impact? Using our own defintion of the term, I would concede to that position. Applying what I would consider to be a "great impact" upon humanity, I would hold to my initial position - Christ made the greatest impact upon human history. Christ is the complete central truth and theme of human history.

Blessings,

mrsortwell

 

[john14_20]

Adam brought death upon all men through his disobedience. Christ offered life to all men through His sacrifice and the communication of the gospel. Christ's sacrifice had the effect of saving some . . . by God's grace.

What point are you trying to make?

Are you taking a universal salvation position? Or are you simply making the point that, by using your definition of "a far greater impact," Adam made the greater impact? Using our own defintion of the term, I would concede to that position. Applying what I would consider to be a "great impact" upon humanity, I would hold to my initial position - Christ made the greatest impact upon human history. Christ is the complete central truth and theme of human history.

Blessings,

mrsortwell

Greetings mrsortwell

My dilemma is that we have a view of Adam that greater impacts the human race than Jesus.

Everybody died in Adam, while some are made alive in Christ.

This is both a philosophical dilemma (for obvious reasons) and a Scriptural one. Twice Paul tells us that all died in Adam and the same all are made alive in Christ.

Only 2-300 years after Christ's death, the great Early Church Father Irenaeus said that "What was lost in Adam was restored in Christ".

He did this without being labelled a universalist!

Yet if someone were to say this today, they would be labelled a universalist and dismissed as a heretic.

I am on a search right now.

Something has changed in the way we understand Christianity to make this possible.

I want to find out what that is. I want to find out what we have lost.

I should be able to say, alongside Irenaeus, that Christ has undone what Adam did, without being called a universalist.

But I can't. And that is a serious problem in today's theology.

Hope that's a bit clearer.

If it is my conclusion you are asking for, I cannot give it to you.

I am still looking for it!

Bless you, Pete

 

[frumanchu]

My dilemma is that we have a view of Adam that greater impacts the human race than Jesus.

Everybody died in Adam, while some are made alive in Christ.

This is both a philosophical dilemma (for obvious reasons) and a Scriptural one. Twice Paul tells us that all died in Adam and the same all are made alive in Christ.

The philsophical issue in this case seems to stem from a presumption that there is a direct correlation between numerical extent of individual impact and "greatness" of the respective actions. That I believe to be a false presumption.

Only 2-300 years after Christ's death, the great Early Church Father Irenaeus said that "What was lost in Adam was restored in Christ".

He did this without being labelled a universalist!

Yet if someone were to say this today, they would be labelled a universalist and dismissed as a heretic.

Not necessarily. I happen to agree with Iraneus insofar as fellowship with God was lost in Adam, but is restored in Christ. That does not mean that this is necessarily applied universally nor equally in either or both cases, nor does it need to in order to hold true.

Now if he had said "[Those] who were lost in Adam were restored in Christ" I would take issue and would consider it universalist.

Salvation is clearly and unequivocally presented in Scripture as a conditional matter, which condition not all men will meet. All men have the propositional capacity for meeting that condition (insofar as they are volitional creatures and the condition...faith...is a volitional act).

 

[Colossians]

I would offer that we in as much as we were "in Adam" as our federal head before the fall participated in his activities spiritually and shared his abilities spiritually.
Inabilities, not abilities. He had no spiritual abilities, because from the very beginning he was not in Christ.


Before he did most willingly submit himself to the disobedience of God's command he was not a servant of sin nor were we "in him."
He must have been, for by sinning, he served sin.
Just because he was busy naming animals etc, doesn't mean that if he hadn't been busy, he wouldn't have sinned. Non-believers don't go around sinning every minute, yet they are still the servants of sin.
Put another way, if he in fact was a servant of sin, how would the result have been any different? And of course it wouldn't have been any different, thus proving that he was in sin from the beginning.


He was not dead in his trespasses and sin...
He was in a state of unratified sin. His being not in Christ, meant he was in a state of sin. What remained was for him to prove such state by its fruit.
This occurred irresistably - it was not simply an unfortunate event which could have gone the other way.


had no fallen nature '"in him."
There is no such thing as "the fall of man", which is why such is not in the bible. Man couldn't fall: he was already at rock bottom. And he proved it.
The Rom 5:12 statement that sin entered the world through Adam's transgression, does not mean to say that Adam was not already in a state which would bring about such transgression, but simply means that sin is not ratified as such until it is known to be what it is, via the knowledge of good and evil. That is, until sin has knowledge of itself, it remains unratified.
That is, it could not be said that sin was in the world while it was 'asleep' and consequently unratified. Rom 7:9, which speaks from the mouth of Adam, tells us that sin was initially present but asleep, for it was "revived".



In summary, only God is good. Adam was not God, therefore he was not good. The "God saw that it was good" in Genesis, spoke to functionality, not righteousness.

 

[msortwell]

Just a quick note at this time . . .

Nothing that I have offered to this point proclaimed Adam as "good" in a sense that would equate him with God in His goodness.

mrsortwell

 

[tigersnare]

Inabilities, not abilities. He had no spiritual abilities, because from the very beginning he was not in Christ.

He must have been, for by sinning, he served sin.
Just because he was busy naming animals etc, doesn't mean that if he hadn't been busy, he wouldn't have sinned. Non-believers don't go around sinning every minute, yet they are still the servants of sin.
Put another way, if he in fact was a servant of sin, how would the result have been any different? And of course it wouldn't have been any different, thus proving that he was in sin from the beginning.

What remained was for him to prove such state by its fruit.
This occurred irresistably - it was not simply an unfortunate event which could have gone the other way.

There is no such thing as "the fall of man", which is why such is not in the bible. Man couldn't fall: he was already at rock bottom. And he proved it.
The Rom 5:12 statement that sin entered the world through Adam's transgression, does not mean to say that Adam was not already in a state which would bring about such transgression, but simply means that sin is not ratified as such until it is known to be what it is, via the knowledge of good and evil. That is, until sin has knowledge of itself, it remains unratified.
That is, it could not be said that sin was in the world while it was 'asleep' and consequently unratified. Rom 7:9, which speaks from the mouth of Adam, tells us that sin was initially present but asleep, for it was "revived".



In summary, only God is good. Adam was not God, therefore he was not good. The "God saw that it was good" in Genesis, spoke to functionality, not righteousness.

So you are saying Adam could not have choosen right over wrong? Was he already spiritually dead? Was he not in fellowship and right relation with God before his sin?

 

[cygnusx1]

So you are saying Adam could not have choosen right over wrong? Was he already spiritually dead? Was he not in fellowship and right relation with God before his sin?

Adam did have a choice , he wasn't forced to disobey .
God seeing he would sin , overuled it ....for GOOD!

 

[john14_20]

Greetings Fru

I happen to agree with Iraneus insofar as fellowship with God was lost in Adam, but is restored in Christ. That does not mean that this is necessarily applied universally nor equally in either or both cases, nor does it need to in order to hold true.

But is that what Irenaeus meant?

Now if he had said "[Those] who were lost in Adam were restored in Christ" I would take issue and would consider it universalist.

Why would you have to?

Cannot we say that Christ has undone what Adam did and not be universalist?

All men have the propositional capacity for meeting that condition (insofar as they are volitional creatures and the condition...faith...is a volitional act).

But do you really believe that? (that all men have the capacity to meet the condition)

Wouldn't you say, as a reformed theologian, that only the elect have the capacity?

Blessings to you, Pete

 

[frumanchu]

But is that what Irenaeus meant?

I believe so.

Why would you have to?

Cannot we say that Christ has undone what Adam did and not be universalist?

That depends entirely upon what you mean by it and how you are applying it.

But do you really believe that? (that all men have the capacity to meet the condition)

Wouldn't you say, as a reformed theologian, that only the elect have the capacity?

All men have the capacity (meaning mental ability) to meet the condition. Not all men have the ability, by which I mean their wills are enslaved to sin and only in being freed from that slavery are men able to will "to good and to God." (Augustine)

 

[john14_20]

Greetings Fru

I believe so.

On what basis?

That depends entirely upon what you mean by it and how you are applying it.

I mean everything.

The entire mess that Adam plunged us into, death, everything.

I mean Jesus came and undid all of it.

Everything Adam stuffed up, Jesus fixed up.

Can I not make this statement and not be called a universalist?

All men have the capacity (meaning mental ability) to meet the condition. Not all men have the ability, by which I mean their wills are enslaved to sin and only in being freed from that slavery are men able to will "to good and to God." (Augustine)

Doesn't this make the unelect man's capacity nothing but a cruel joke?

A carrot dangled in front of his nose that he can never reach.

Blessings to you, Pete

 

[Philip dT]

Something higher than "God wants to save everyone"...

I agree with this heading. But I would say that God's higher purpose for saving people would be for people to have fellowship with Him (1 Joh 1:1-3), and for people to know Him (rest of 1 John), that is to have a personal relationship with man. God don't want to save people for the sake of saving, He wants to engage in a reciprocal relationship with him, where man is not a mere marionette. God can not have a relationship with a marionette. That's why God has given man a free will and choice. The fact that man has a free will IS GOD's GRACE. He therefore comes to man first; He loved us first. If we react on God's grace by choosing and believing, it is ons the basis of God's grace.

 

[tigersnare]

He therefore comes to man first; He loved us first. If we react on God's grace by choosing and believing, it is ons the basis of God's grace.

Does he come to all men, does he love all men?

You said, "if we react on God's grace...it is on the basis of God's grace". Sounds alot like the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistable Grace, how does it differ in your mind?

 

[Philip dT]

Does he come to all men, does he love all men?

Titus 2:11-14 "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men..."

"For God so loved the world..."

 

[tigersnare]

Titus 2:11-14 "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men..."

"For God so loved the world..."

NASB

For the Grace of God has appearded, bringing salvation to all men.


But it obviously has not brought salvation to ALL men.
So can we safely narrow our understanding of that verse and others to mean all men "who God has chosen". Can we then safely draw from the word God has not chosen every man unto salvation?

 

[msortwell]

Titus 2:11, For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

And are we going to get hung up on "all men" again? I was once told by a preacher, "'All' means 'all' and that's all that 'all' means." But I must disagree . . .

If we are going to get all up in arms because the Scriptures use the term "all" in Titus 2:11, let's really put those Calvinsts on the ropes and add 1Tim 2:6.

1 Tim 2:6
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
(KJV)

The term all (above in Titus 2:11 and 1Tim 2:6) is translated from the Greek word pas. Strong's informs us that pas may be translated as follows:

3956 pas (pas); including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: KJV-- all (manner of, means), alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X thoroughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

And there are a number of places that translaters of the KJV translated pas as "all manner." Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to interpret the "all [men]" in 1Tim 2:6 as "all manner [of men]." The following are situations where the translaters of the KJV translated 'pas' as "all manner."

Luke 11:42
42 But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and ALL MANNER of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (KJV)

Acts 10:12
12 Wherein were ALL MANNER of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. (KJV)

Rom 7:8
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me ALL MANNER of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. (KJV)

1 Pet 1:15
15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in ALL MANNER of conversation; (KJV)

Rev 18:12
12 The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and ALL MANNER vessels of ivory, and ALL MANNER vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble, (KJV)

Rev 21:19
19 And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with ALL MANNER of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald; (KJV)

Therefore, literally the term is the same. Because we know (from the long list of Scriptures that I provided previously, with which you were so pleased) that the specific meaning of "all" must be determined by context, let's review the immediate context in 1 Tim 2:6.

The immediate context of 1 Timothy sheds no conclusive light of the specific meaning of "all" in the second application of 1 Tim 2:6. This should be no great surprise because Tim 2:6 is part of a parenthetical statement rather than a major point of the discourse wherein it is found.

It is a widely accepted rule of hermeneutics that we weigh more heavily: 1) the more clear teachings of Scripture, and 2) the teachings that are relevant to the main point of a discourse. These teachings are weighed more heavily than: 1) the more obscure teachings of the Bible, and 2) the teachings that can be gleaned from secondary discussions or observations peripheral to the main point of the text.

In light of the various ways that 'pas' can be translated into English, and has been translated into English in other applications of the Biblical text, and in consideration of the many places in the English translations where "all" clearly can mean something other than "all" without exception, we should observe that neither the Calvinist nor the Armenian view can be proved wrong by the text of Tim 2:6.

Therefore, our interpretation of 1Tim 2:6 is rightly going to be shaped by the theology that is taught more clearly (specifically) elsewhere in Scripture.

Many Calvinists embrace the following two verses as conclusive. I must admit that I see them as very encouraging however, we must concede that literally speaking, if Jesus were the ransom for "all without exception," He would also be "a ransom for many." Although I strongly suspect that a term other than "many" would have been selected if "all without exception" was the intended meaning.

Matt 20:28
28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.(KJV)

Mark 10:45
45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.(KJV)

But the best understanding comes from the consideration of the possible meanings. If he is the ransom for all men (no men excepted) then all men would be redeemed. Do other Scriptures support this universalistic doctrine? No. Some will go to eternal torment. This therefore cannot be the meaning of "ransom for all."

Rev 14:9-11
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. (KJV)

What if 'pas' in 1Tim 2:6 means "all manner [of men]"? Do the Scriptures teach elsewhere that all races of men will be represented among the redeemed? Yes.

Rev 5:9
9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;(KJV)

Conclusion. Jesus is a ransom for "all manner of men."

The exercise is similar for Titus 2:11, except that Paul had just completed encouraging Titus in the teaching of a wide variety of parishoners, in a wide variety of circumstances. It would seem that "all manner" would be the best understanding of 'pas' within the immediate context.

God Bless,

Mike