The Bible: God's plan for the redemption of humankind? Or... ???

[Ceallaigh]

And yet the NT calls them the (first) Adam and the second Adam. . .because in both cases their actions (sin, righteousness) are imputed/accounted to others (Romans 5:18-19), just as Abraham's righteousness was accounted to him (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3).

It's not aout the nature of each man, it's about the actions of each man, being accounted to us.

I was just thinking about the tremendous power of the Son of God submitting to being crucified to atone for the sins of mankind, compared to anything anyone else has ever done. Apparently that's wrong thinking. I stand corrected.

 

[Clare73]

I was just thinking about the tremendous power of the Son of God submitting to being crucified to atone for the sins of mankind, compared to anything anyone else has ever done. Apparently that's wrong thinking. I stand corrected.

Has anyone else ever been God?

 

[Fervent]

Within the context of the Bible?
That's what this topic is about. How our view of the Bible colors the whole thing.
You want to use your view to dismantle Romans 5:18-19. Rather than take it at face value and ADD it to the "context of the Bible", you seek to isolate it from the whole.

Look at the actions here. Two men, two results for ALL people.

Romans 5:18-19
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

No, I don't want to take "my view of the Bible," I want to look at what Paul wrote to the Romans and examine whether it was likely Paul's intent to say what you are attempting to say with the verse. Are you forwarding Romans 5:18-19 as a passage where the intent of the author is to teach UR?

 

[Saint Steven]

No, I don't want to take "my view of the Bible," I want to look at what Paul wrote to the Romans and examine whether it was likely Paul's intent to say what you are attempting to say with the verse. Are you forwarding Romans 5:18-19 as a passage where the intent of the author is to teach UR?

There is no "teaching" in the Bible about any of the three biblical doctrines of the final judgment. (Damnationism, Annihilationism, or Ultimate Redemption) The doctrines came later as an observation.

 

[Saint Steven]

No, I don't want to take "my view of the Bible," I want to look at what Paul wrote to the Romans and examine whether it was likely Paul's intent to say what you are attempting to say with the verse. Are you forwarding Romans 5:18-19 as a passage where the intent of the author is to teach UR?

The verse is about the acts and results of two men.
One man (Adam) through his disobedience (trespass) brought condemnation for all people.
The other man (Christ) through obedience (one righteous act) brought justification and life for all people.

This scripture clearly says that salvation is for everyone. Sounds like UR to me.

Romans 5:18-19
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

 

[Clare73]

There is no "teaching" in the Bible about any of the three biblical doctrines of the final judgment. (Damnationism, Annihilationism, or Ultimate Redemption) The doctrines came later as an observation.

Matthew 25:46 is clear teaching on one of the three. See post #1120.

 

[Clare73]

The verse is about the acts and results of two men.
One man (Adam) through his disobedience (trespass) brought condemnation for all people.
The other man (Christ) through obedience (one righteous act) brought justification and life for all people.

This scripture clearly says that salvation is for everyone. Sounds like UR to me.

Romans 5:18-19
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

All those of/in the first Adam are made sinners by Adam's sin.
All those of/in the second Adam (Christ) are made righteous by Christ's righteousness.
(Romans 5:18-19)

That is not universal salvation.

 

[Saint Steven]

Are you forwarding Romans 5:18-19 as a passage where the intent of the author is to teach UR?

There are no doctrines in the Bible, because doctrines are man-made. Opinions were formed in regards to the biblical texts. Those opinions were then formed into doctrines that explain the opinions. When doctrines are contradictory, the opinions they were formed from were contradictory. Compare Calvinism with Arminianism. Both biblical and both contradictory. Same with the three doctrines of the final judgment.

 

[Clare73]

There are no doctrines in the Bible,

Who made you Lawgiver?

because doctrines are man-made.

Not in my Bible!

Tell it to Paul and justification apart from faith's works (Romans 4:5, 3:21, 28).

Tell it to Paul and salvation. . .without faith's works (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Tell it to Jesus and ". . .whover believes in the Son shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

Tell it to Jesus and "No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." (John 6:65)

Tell it to Jesus and "All whom the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away." (John 6:37)

etc., etc., etc.

UR is not serving you well.

Opinions were formed in regards to the biblical texts. Those opinions were then formed into doctrines that explain the opinions. When doctrines are contradictory, the opinions they were formed from were contradictory. Compare Calvinism with Arminianism. Both biblical and both contradictory. Same with the three doctrines of the final judgment.

 

[Fervent]

There are no doctrines in the Bible, because doctrines are man-made. Opinions were formed in regards to the biblical texts. Those opinions were then formed into doctrines that explain the opinions. When doctrines are contradictory, the opinions they were formed from were contradictory. Compare Calvinism with Arminianism. Both biblical and both contradictory. Same with the three doctrines of the final judgment.

Then why did Paul instruct Titus "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9 ESV)

What you are presenting is itself a doctrine, one that does not convey what the Bible teaches.

 

[Fervent]

There is no "teaching" in the Bible about any of the three biblical doctrines of the final judgment. (Damnationism, Annihilationism, or Ultimate Redemption) The doctrines came later as an observation.

I would argue that Matthew 25 comes pretty close for what you call "damnationism," as the intent is clearly to teach about final destinies and judgment.

Romans 5, on the other hand, is teaching about the means of salvation as a broader discussion throughout Romans. Final destinies is not what is in mind in the passage, in fact the emphasis is on the universal need for a savior. To make submission to Christ an optional extra is counter to the thrust of the book which pretty much centers on the need for faith in Christ. Unless you think God tortures people to faith, I suppose.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Who made you Lawgiver?
Not in my Bible!

Tell it to Paul and justification apart from works (Romans 4:5, 3:21, 28).

Tell it to Paul and salvation. . .without works (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Tell it to Jesus and ". . .whover believes in the Son shall not perish but have eternal life." (
)

Tell it to Jesus and "No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." (John 6:65)

Tell it to Jesus and "All whom the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away." (John 6:37)

etc., etc., etc.

UR is not serving you well.

Scripture isn't doctrine. Doctrine is how scripture is interpreted.

John 3:16, John 6:65 and John 6:37 don't negate UR, because (as I understand it) UR teaches that the Father will enable all to come to believe in Jesus and recognize Him as their Lord and Savior. "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:10-11

 

[Hmm]

You argued for the translation of aionios to mean "age to come," which translation is irrelevant because it neither addresses nor settles the issue of the meaning of the word as used in the NT, which I showed to be "endless duration." (see post #1120)

Likewise with kolasis (punishment), where I showed that "restraining" is one of the meanings of the word, and that its usage in Matthew 25:46 means imprisonment in Gehenna.

I think we both agree that aionios can mean eternal but it can also mean a duration of a limited time period that has an end. So, we are talking about whether or not aionios means eternity or a limited time period in Matthew 25:31-46 as regards punishment.

You are saying that since aionios is used for both life and punishment, it has to have the same meaning in both cases. But that's not necessarily true because duration of aionios depends on what it is referring to. For example, it's used to refer to Jonah being inside the whale where it is limited to three days. In Matthew 25:46 it is referring to kolasis.

I agree with you that that one of the meanings of kolasis is "restraining". But another is corrective punishment. If it means that here then it must be referring to a finite punishment. It must be finite because, as it is corrective, its intention is to bring the person to salvation. And once the person is saved she no longer has need of such a punishment and so it ends.

Now I'm not a Bible scholar and I don't read ancient Greek. All I know is from the scholarship of others. It's clear to me that the case is not proved conclusively either way and we could carry on having this argument until we enter our aiónion life. We can't decide the matter on this one verse alone. We have to look at the rest of the Bible and when I look at passages such as these:

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

For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross
Colossians 1:19-20

Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all.
Romans 5:18

I believe the idea of eternal punishment in the Matthew verse is absolutely ruled out because it would give the lie to these passages.

If you disagree then kindly explain how the first verse cites above, ”For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”, is consistent with the idea of eternal punishment?

 

[Saint Steven]

Then why did Paul instruct Titus "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9 ESV)

It says "as taught", not "as written". Get it?

 

[Saint Steven]

What you are presenting is itself a doctrine, one that does not convey what the Bible teaches.

You are welcome to your own opinion, but don't grant me the same. How come?

Colossians 1:19-20
For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

 

[Saint Steven]

... Unless you think God tortures people to faith, I suppose.

That's quite a line of reasoning there. - lol

No problem with God torturing "sinners" for all eternity and calling it justice, but how could he be so cruel as to torture them to faith? Wow.

As if the God that is claimed to incinerate the vast majority in the afterlife would never DARE to violate our free will. Horrors!

 

[Saint Steven]

Scripture isn't doctrine. Doctrine is how scripture is interpreted.

John 3:16, John 6:65 and John 6:37 don't negate UR, because (as I understand it) UR teaches that the Father will enable all to come to believe in Jesus and recognize Him as their Lord and Savior. "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:10-11

Right.

Anyone who has knees to bow and a tongue to speak, in heaven and on earth and under the earth (in the realm of the dead), will whole-heartedly, and without reservation, acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord. No one can say that “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” you will be saved. Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. (the reason for the bodily resurrection) Scriptural support below.

Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says,
“Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart
that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 14:9
For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that
he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

Note on "acknowledge" in Philippians 2:11 from Strong's Concordance
S1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

Further reading: (Isaiah 45:23, Romans 14:11, Philippians 2:10, Revelation 15:4)

 

[Saint Steven]

I would argue that Matthew 25 comes pretty close for what you call "damnationism," as the intent is clearly to teach about final destinies and judgment.

Romans 5, on the other hand, is teaching about the means of salvation as a broader discussion throughout Romans. Final destinies is not what is in mind in the passage, in fact the emphasis is on the universal need for a savior. To make submission to Christ an optional extra is counter to the thrust of the book which pretty much centers on the need for faith in Christ. Unless you think God tortures people to faith, I suppose.

Why do you argue for Damnationism if you claim to not believe in it? And why do you argue against UR if you haven't decided which doctrine you align with?

Universalism, the Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During its First Five Hundred Years

 

[Hmm]

As if the God that is claimed to incinerate the vast majority in the afterlife would never DARE to violate our free will. Horrors!

Indeed. That line of argument is Pythonesque in its absurdity and, if true, dark horror.

I find I'm asking myself a lot on this forum "Forget the intellectual arguments. How on earth can anyone have a loving relationship with a god like that?" lol

 

[Saint Steven]

Indeed. That line of argument is Pythonesque in its absurdity and, if true, dark horror.

I find I'm asking myself a lot on this forum "Forget the intellectual arguments. How on earth can anyone have a loving relationship with a god like that?" lol

I agree.

And I was just thinking before I got back on the computer (having been reading David Bentley Hart) that the iron will supposed upon sinners who will never repent no matter the eternal torture they are forced to endure, is lost in the story of Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus. How long did it take him, the one who was breathing out murderous threats against the Body of Christ, to convert? The first words out his mouth were, "Who are you, Lord?" (indicating immediate submission) Meeting Jesus changes everything.