When all does not mean all.

[SkyWriting]

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

So all die in adam and so all will be made alive.

However, since - eternal torment -

It means some people don't die, since most people will not be made alive in Christ.

Comments?

People might suffer unending torment until they stop breathing.
Souls might suffer torment without end, until the second death.

That's the reason two deaths are mentioned. The second one is final.

 

[Magnanimity]

Death in what sense? Some might infer from that, that the living death in hell too will end.

Death in the sense in which it's tragic at least in the aspect of being a permanent separation of someone whose very identity is intertwined with our own. Whatever may be meant by Death forever being undone, I assume that St Paul has at least this in mind.

There are verses speaking to Christ being the Saviour of the world, John 4:42 but these verses in no way teaches the world will be for certain saved.

Certainty should be tabled by everyone. Let's all rather show humility. So, St Augustine seems certain that Hell will be well-occupied and will be forever and inescapable. By contrast, David Bentley Hart argues as if he's certain that all will be saved in the end. Most of us (hopefully) are in between these two extremes of certainty. This in-between is the most reasonable space to occupy, given the ambiguity of scripture and the finitude of our own minds (and other matters like the nature of God, the nature of love, the nature of humanity, etc).

The purpose of God's longsuffering is salvation (2 Peter 3:15) but if it already a done deal, predetermined that all men will be saved then there is no need for God to be longsuffering.

Properly speaking, God is not actually longsuffering (meaning, Oxford: "having or showing patience in spite of troubles, especially those caused by other people"). Patience necessitates finitude. It's a virtue for humans because we do not know how things will turn out. But for God who is infinite in knowledge and power, patience is not possible. This is anthropomorphic speech.

So verses as you cite above (1 Timothy 4:10) show that Christ is the Saviour of the world in the sense salvation has been offered to all men, but that does not mean all men accept what Christ has offered hence Christ "would" all men be saved by accepting what He has offered.
"who is the Saviour of all men" refers to all men having the offer of salvation given them "specially of those that believe" refers to those who have accepted that offer. If God is going to save 'all men' how then does He go about "especially" save believers? Such has unbelievers saved as beleivers.

Here is the verse again: "For this we toil and struggle, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the savior of all, especially of those who believe" - 1 Tim 4:10. You are theologizing this verse because of your prior commitment to the eternal separation of humans in the afterlife. The straightforward reading of the line suggests that God is everyone's actual savior, but God is especially the savior of those who believe.

Attempting to parse it out ("offer of salvation" & "those who have accepted that offer") is theology. I'm not saying that theologizing the scriptures is illegitimate. It's perfectly fine. It's a way to attempt to get the ambiguities of the NT to all fit together in an overall coherent framework. But, let's not pretend that you're simply reading the text for what it's saying. You're inserting your eschatological vision into it and reading it through that lens. St Paul could have easily enough said here what you're saying--that the offer of salvation was given to everyone, but God will only save those who accept that offer. But, he doesn't say that. He says that God "is the savior of all, especially of those who believe."

There is nothing particularly strange about inequality in the outcome of Heaven. In fact, Christ's language would seem to suggest inequality in the hereafter (the last will be first, and the first last). St Paul, in another letter, says, "So then, while we have the opportunity, let us do good to all, but especially to those who belong to the family of the faith." - Gal 6:10. We do good to everyone (and yes, that means every single one) but especially to believers. I fail to see the problem here. You seem to be suggesting that one group of humanity being special is somehow an issue.

1 Timothy 4:10 cannot contradict Matthew 7:13; John 3:36.

I don't know what you mean by this, but there is enough ambiguity within the NT that a great many fathers of the church were open to the possibility of universalism (or were explicit universalists). There is only one place in the gospels when Christ is directly asked if few will be saved (Luke 13:23), and he does not answer this question. If the answer were so clear, as you'd like to believe, stands to reason that his answer would have simply been "yes" followed by whatever other guidance he wanted to give. But, there was no yes in response to that question. There wasn't a "no" either. There was redirection to what we ought to be concerned about--the narrow gate.

Lastly, I'm not countering your suggestions that Matthew 7 and John 3 advocate eternal-separation because I see no reason to. As far as I can tell, you haven't made a case that those verses have anything to do with the topic.

 

[Lazarus Short]

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

So all die in adam and so all will be made alive.

However, since - eternal torment -

It means some people don't die, since most people will not be made alive in Christ.

Comments?

Did you really mean to say that? "For as in Adam all die...It means some people don't die..."

Maybe you'd like to rephrase that...?

Anyway, "eternal torment" is not axiomatic.

 

[Butterball1]

Death in the sense in which it's tragic at least in the aspect of being a permanent separation of someone whose very identity is intertwined with our own. Whatever may be meant by Death forever being undone, I assume that St Paul has at least this in mind.



Certainty should be tabled by everyone. Let's all rather show humility. So, St Augustine seems certain that Hell will be well-occupied and will be forever and inescapable. By contrast, David Bentley Hart argues as if he's certain that all will be saved in the end. Most of us (hopefully) are in between these two extremes of certainty. This in-between is the most reasonable space to occupy, given the ambiguity of scripture and the finitude of our own minds (and other matters like the nature of God, the nature of love, the nature of humanity, etc).



Properly speaking, God is not actually longsuffering (meaning, Oxford: "having or showing patience in spite of troubles, especially those caused by other people"). Patience necessitates finitude. It's a virtue for humans because we do not know how things will turn out. But for God who is infinite in knowledge and power, patience is not possible. This is anthropomorphic speech.

God actually is longsuffering. In His preceptive will He is desiring, wanting all men to come to repentance and be saved.

Many verses speak to God's longsuffering and patience;
Numbers 14:18; Psalms 86:15; Joel 2:23 The Lord is slow to anger....
1 Peter 3:21 ...patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah...
Acts 13:18 ..."He put up with their ways in the wilderness"....
....among many other verses proving God has patience, endures, is longsuffering. Your argument dies here for if all have predetermined to be saved than all the verses that speak to God's patience become meaningless.

Here is the verse again: "For this we toil and struggle, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the savior of all, especially of those who believe" - 1 Tim 4:10. You are theologizing this verse because of your prior commitment to the eternal separation of humans in the afterlife. The straightforward reading of the line suggests that God is everyone's actual savior, but God is especially the savior of those who believe.

Attempting to parse it out ("offer of salvation" & "those who have accepted that offer") is theology. I'm not saying that theologizing the scriptures is illegitimate. It's perfectly fine. It's a way to attempt to get the ambiguities of the NT to all fit together in an overall coherent framework. But, let's not pretend that you're simply reading the text for what it's saying. You're inserting your eschatological vision into it and reading it through that lens. St Paul could have easily enough said here what you're saying--that the offer of salvation was given to everyone, but God will only save those who accept that offer. But, he doesn't say that. He says that God "is the savior of all, especially of those who believe."

There is nothing particularly strange about inequality in the outcome of Heaven. In fact, Christ's language would seem to suggest inequality in the hereafter (the last will be first, and the first last). St Paul, in another letter, says, "So then, while we have the opportunity, let us do good to all, but especially to those who belong to the family of the faith." - Gal 6:10. We do good to everyone (and yes, that means every single one) but especially to believers. I fail to see the problem here. You seem to be suggesting that one group of humanity being special is somehow an issue.



I don't know what you mean by this, but there is enough ambiguity within the NT that a great many fathers of the church were open to the possibility of universalism (or were explicit universalists). There is only one place in the gospels when Christ is directly asked if few will be saved (Luke 13:23), and he does not answer this question. If the answer were so clear, as you'd like to believe, stands to reason that his answer would have simply been "yes" followed by whatever other guidance he wanted to give. But, there was no yes in response to that question. There wasn't a "no" either. There was redirection to what we ought to be concerned about--the narrow gate.

Lastly, I'm not countering your suggestions that Matthew 7 and John 3 advocate eternal-separation because I see no reason to. As far as I can tell, you haven't made a case that those verses have anything to do with the topic.

Again, I have not seen Universalists prove the phrase "Saviour of the world" to mean all men will be saved. Again such an idea contradicts other verses.

If all men are to be saved. I asked then how beleivers are "especially" saved. How are some "especially" save if all are saved. Makes no sense if all are going to be equally saved. Because does God DOES have patince and is longsuffering that all be saved but especially saves those that conditionally believes. No way to get Universalism out of this. If Universalist, as you, deny the fact God has patience and is longsuffering and is slow to anger and does endure then their argument is totally dead.

 

[chilehed]

Comments?

"All" does not always mean "every instance without exception", in fact much of the time it doesn't.

There are many seeds that are smaller than mustard seed, and IIRC there are at least two people who have never died. There are other similar examples.

Additionally, it's important to know what "all" refers to in the passage in question. All people individually? All groups in general? All fools? All what?

 

[Magnanimity]

Many verses speak to God's longsuffering and patience;
Numbers 14:18; Psalms 86:15; Joel 2:23 The Lord is slow to anger....
1 Peter 3:21 ...patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah...
Acts 13:18 ..."He put up with their ways in the wilderness"....
....among many other verses proving God has patience, endures, is longsuffering. Your argument dies here for if all have predetermined to be saved than all the verses that speak to God's patience become meaningless.

And I could quote scriptures that suggest that God has a body, that he walked around in the garden, that he didn't want Moses to see his "face" but only his "back." There are scriptures that suggest that God regrets having done things suggesting that he's entirely capable of making mistakes and unable to see outcomes ahead of time. Other scriptures suggest that he is reactive (can become wrathful and angry in response to human actions).

But none of this is properly true of God. It cannot be. All of these qualities could only be properly true of a finite being. An infinite being can't have a body, can't react or regret (as if he didn't know what would happen beforehand), can't even change in any real way. If one is infinite, how would one change? If one is infinite, there is no potential within that being to be other-than-as-that-being-is. See the writings of any major father of the church, and you'll get the gist of what I'm saying here. This is all anthropomorphic language.

If God is sitting around waiting to see what you'll decide (regarding salvation) then he's really just like you and me. He would be contingent, limited, finite, like a big ole creature. Maybe like a maximally-great human (e.g., Zeus)... But no, he isn't waiting around ready to respond. He "knows the end from the beginning," right?

Again, I have not seen Universalists prove the phrase "Saviour of the world" to mean all men will be saved. Again such an idea contradicts other verses.

I only offered once such verse. As you probably know if you've really interacted with universalists a lot, they offer many other verses to support their position.

If all men are to be saved. I asked then how beleivers are "especially" saved. How are some "especially" save if all are saved. Makes no sense if all are going to be equally saved

And I responded by denying equality. It seems we have ample reasons for denying equality and presuming some type of inequality in the afterlife. The entire notion of "storing up for yourselves treasures in heaven" presumes this idea of the last being first, and the first last. It would seem to presume inequality in the hereafter.

The second great commandment is that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. But, Christ later gives a "new commandment" when speaking to his disciples--"love one another, as I have loved you" (John 13). And, as I quoted St Paul in Galatians 6 above, we are do "do good" to everyone, but "especially to those in the household of faith." There is nothing strange about preferencing "family" when it comes to love. But, the neighbor and the stranger and the sojourner must receive our love too. It's just that they'll get it from me after I love my kids. Not before I love my kids, nor even simultaneous with (or equal to) the love that I show my children.

So, in the here and in the hereafter, there would seem to be no equality of outcome. But whereas inequality often seems arbitrary and unjust in this life, we hope for nothing but justice in whatever inequality may persist in the next life (1 Cor 3:10-15).

 

[aiki]

I've participated in these types of discussions many times over in the past. I know that folks get very impassioned that their particular view on eschatology must be the correct one (i.e., it's "biblical"). But, given the sheer numbers of big brains in our church's past who have disagreed with St Augustine's vision of eternal-Hell, the "openness" of the church's history on this issue, and the recent resurgence of scholarship on this topic should be enough to force a little humility here. We all want to think we have "the truth" on this issue, but as you dig deeper and deeper, the water gets muddier and muddier.

Are you not also here doing as you describe others of doing? Offering a view that you believe is correct? It seems so, to me. You're view, though, is not that one particular, concrete perspective is right and all the others wrong, but, apparently, that the truth can't be known, evidenced by the multiplication of views on the matter of hell. This is certainly a very post-modern view, but, in its own way, is offered with just as much dogmatism as any other. Ironic.

I think of Christ's words, however, when I think on the nature of the final, eternal end of people:

Matthew 7:13-14
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.

And also the words of the John the Baptist:

John 3:36
36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

 

[Magnanimity]

Are you not also here doing as you describe others of doing? Offering a view that you believe is correct? It seems so, to me. You're view, though, is not that one particular, concrete perspective is right and all the others wrong, but, apparently, that the truth can't be known, evidenced by the multiplication of views on the matter of hell. This is certainly a very post-modern view, but, in its own way, is offered with just as much dogmatism as any other. Ironic.

Sure, as I noted to my interlocutor above, there is nothing particularly wrong with theologizing and reading into the text. At its core, such actions are attempts to resolve tensions within the scriptures themselves (or, more often perhaps, it's an attempt to bring one's theology into harmony with one's overall worldview, which would include philosophy, psychology, one's conscience, etc). My accusation above, as I think you'll see if you read my reply again, was to note that theologizing was what was occurring. There was not naïve, "plain reading" of the text going on. There was a person who had some a priori commitment who was taking those commitments to the text and forcing it into that overall view. We all do this from time to time, and I'm not being critical of it. Just pointing out that it was happening...

Regarding certainty, yes, we must endeavor to not overstate our cases on most things. The possibility of error is pervasive and ongoing. If you combine that fallibility with one's finitude (not having explored all options to their depths) then caution is imminently reasonable. It's not "postmodern" necessarily, but it is an acknowledgment of our own finitude and the ambiguity of scripture itself.

I think of Christ's words, however, when I think on the nature of the final, eternal end of people:

Matthew 7:13-14

Might I suggest that you read the church fathers here? When I read them on this passage, I was genuinely surprised by how many did not interpret this passage as having anything to do with a final end of people but rather with how difficult it is to find that particular path and how few find it.

John 3:36
36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

We could engage in this "exclusivity" verse-quoting all day, but I doubt it would get us anywhere. Since you like quoting the gospel of John, how about these verses:

"Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day." - John 6:53-54
​

Have you been eating the flesh of the Son of Man recently and drinking His blood? If not, then I guess you (and everyone else who hasn't) doesn't have life in you. Presumably, you won't be raised on the last day either as a consequence. Do you see how unhelpful this kind of proof-texting is? As hard as it is for us to accept, the scriptures alone are simply ambiguous enough to not settle this question.

 

[Mark Quayle]

People might suffer unending torment until they stop breathing.
Souls might suffer torment without end, until the second death.

That's the reason two deaths are mentioned. The second one is final.

That assumes a time-sequence after this temporal life is over.

Death will be thrown into the lake of fire too.

 

[SkyWriting]

That assumes a time-sequence after this temporal life is over.

Death will be thrown into the lake of fire too.

Sentences require some sequences, but block-logic is different and not in sequence.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

People might suffer unending torment until they stop breathing.
Souls might suffer torment without end, until the second death.

That's the reason two deaths are mentioned. The second one is final.

As it is written, in death we are freed from sin.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Did you really mean to say that? "For as in Adam all die...It means some people don't die..."

Maybe you'd like to rephrase that...?

Anyway, "eternal torment" is not axiomatic.

It was a question illustrating how the doctrine of eternal torment contradicts this scripture.

More posted for discussion's sake. No need to re-phrase.

 

[aiki]

Might I suggest that you read the church fathers here? When I read them on this passage, I was genuinely surprised by how many did not interpret this passage as having anything to do with a final end of people but rather with how difficult it is to find that particular path and how few find it.

I am not particularly interested in the Church Fathers views since they are just as human, which is to say, as fallible and finite (as you have pointed out) as you or I. With careful, prayerful study, Scripture itself, under the illumination of the Spirit, tells me what I need to know, I believe.

If the "narrow way" (John 14:6; John 10:7-9; Acts 4:12), is found only by a comparative few, it seems to me that the eternal life found via that "way" (1 John 5:11-12) is also found only by those few.

We could engage in this "exclusivity" verse-quoting all day, but I doubt it would get us anywhere.

Only if you assume, as you appear to do, that the truth is ultimately impossible to uncover (which is, of course, a self-refuting assertion).

Since you like quoting the gospel of John

Do I like quoting the Gospel of John? I don't recall writing that...

Have you been eating the flesh of the Son of Man recently and drinking His blood? If not, then I guess you (and everyone else who hasn't) doesn't have life in you.

I'm assuming, from what you've written here, that you don't think immediate context is important to the meaning of a verse or passage. Is this so? You'll note that none of the disciples who remained with Jesus after he talked of eating his flesh and drinking his blood were given bits of Jesus to eat, nor did they ask for any. Funny that, if the thinking you outline above was what Jesus intended to assert. You might also recall the Last Supper where Jesus calls the bread and wine he serves his disciples symbols of his body and blood rather than carving off bits of himself for his disciples to consume.

Do you see how unhelpful this kind of proof-texting is?

Do you? I have not suggested anyone should prooftext in such a manner.

As hard as it is for us to accept, the scriptures alone are simply ambiguous enough to not settle this question.

I disagree. I'm not plagued by what looks to me like a distinctly post-modern mindset in your approach to Scripture. I think the truth of God's word can be known, which is why I study it often and carefully. I don't assume that a multiplicity of views concerning a particular Christian doctrine means that it is impossible to find the actual truth of it in Scripture.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

"All" does not always mean "every instance without exception", in fact much of the time it doesn't.

There are many seeds that are smaller than mustard seed, and IIRC there are at least two people who have never died. There are other similar examples.

Additionally, it's important to know what "all" refers to in the passage in question. All people individually? All groups in general? All fools? All what?

Such as,

All oranges rose from the bowl, they grew teeth and bit my flesh .. I should not have eaten that pizza before bed.

The bowl was not magical, it only spoke of all oranges in the bowl, not all oranges in creation.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

1 Corinthians 15, the entire chapter, is an extended series of Pauline thoughts on resurrection. In a footnote to the NAB-RE, the editors note, "Some consider this chapter an earlier Pauline composition inserted into the present letter." It all goes together as a totality. The only thing that can be gathered from this chapter with any certainty on the universalism/eternal-Hell question is that the last enemy to be destroyed will be death. Death itself will pass away.



All die because of Adam, and all are resurrected because of Christ. Nothing here is mentioned in the chapter about any humans being excluded because they don't believe (or for any other reason).



There is no way to exclude universalism a priori. The New Testament is quite ambiguous on this issue, having passages that seem to suggest support for both Hell and universalism. Given that not a few of the brightest minds of the church have held a view open to universalism throughout church history should be enough for us to approach the issue with humility. For every quote that an eternal-Hell advocate might present, a universalist can offer a quote from the NT that strongly suggests universalism.

Moreover, the united church of the first millennium never condemned universalism. The most that ever happened on this issue was that the emperor Justinian wrote a series of anathemas against aspects of the theology of Origen. The emperor asked that the fathers of Constantinople II include his anathemas within the decrees of that ecumenical council. But, modern scholarship has concluded that the anathemas were never incorporated into that council's decrees (see Norman Tanner's editorial notes on Constantinople II in his Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown University Press, 1990). So, it's likely that universalism has never been condemned in an ecumenical council.

Now, whatever are someone's personal beliefs on eschatology is a different story. Some folks are convinced of the Augustinian vision of an eternal Hell, maybe even believing that most people who have ever lived are headed there. Still others are oriented toward believing that the scriptures, theology and philosophy, when taken together, are strongly suggestive of universalism. Others opt for a "middle way," of a limited Hell with some sense of temporality/finitude intrinsic to it, with Heaven having an inequality due to how a person lived her life here (i.e., the last shall be first). And then there's the also-ran of annihilationism..

I've participated in these types of discussions many times over in the past. I know that folks get very impassioned that their particular view on eschatology must be the correct one (i.e., it's "biblical"). But, given the sheer numbers of big brains in our church's past who have disagreed with St Augustine's vision of eternal-Hell, the "openness" of the church's history on this issue, and the recent resurgence of scholarship on this topic should be enough to force a little humility here. We all want to think we have "the truth" on this issue, but as you dig deeper and deeper, the water gets muddier and muddier.

Another possible interpretation, thank you for posting.

 

[Guojing]

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

So all die in adam and so all will be made alive.

However, since - eternal torment -

It means some people don't die, since most people will not be made alive in Christ.

Comments?

I always have this reflection on verses like this and Romans 5:12-19.

Why is it that mankind did not have to choose, they were automatically in Adam, and thus all die.

But when it comes to Christ, Adam's descendants must deliberately make a choice to accept Christ's death burial and resurrection, in order to be in Christ and alive.

Doesn't that make the final Adam's obedience at the cross, slightly less powerful than the first Adam's disobedience at the Garden?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I always have this reflection on verses like this and Romans 5:12-19.

Why is it that mankind did not have to choose, they were automatically in Adam, and thus all die.

But when it comes to Christ, Adam's descendants must deliberately make a choice to accept Christ's death burial and resurrection, in order to be in Christ and alive.

Doesn't that make the final Adam's obedience at the cross, slightly less powerful than the first Adam's disobedience at the Garden?

This reminds me of Hebrews 7:9 how Levi paid tithes to Melchizadek while in the loins of Abraham (i.e. not born yet.) thus the correct phrasing may yet be - all of our genetic material is not so much "in adam" but "adam" - The spiritual rebirth we experience when being born again by the Holy Spirit, sets us apart from the destiny of Adam, who continues to die.

 

[Navair2]

Why is it that mankind did not have to choose, they were automatically in Adam, and thus all die.

Please see Romans 1.

I don't see the Bible teaching that we, as a race, didn't all die voluntarily...with the Lord giving us up to that which we chose.
I also see that given the choice ( which happens every day we are alive ) we will continue to persist in that which we have grown to love...sin...and that which we have come to hate...God and His ways ( Romans 1:30-32, John 3:19-20 ).

See Jeremiah 13:23 and many others.

But when it comes to Christ, Adam's descendants must deliberately make a choice to accept Christ's death burial and resurrection, in order to be in Christ and alive.

As in the above, because of our choice already being made and made everyday, we don't ( and won't ) choose God.
We are stuck in our ways ( Romans 3:10-18 ), and darkened in our vain imaginations and selfish pride ( Ephesians 4:17-19 ).
God chooses us ( Psalms 65:4, Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:4-11, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 ) and causes us to approach Him via the new birth.

In other words,
He frees us from ourselves and our stubborn resentment at intruding in upon our "freedom" to sin.

Outside of that, I don't see any of us being made alive.
As "dead" men, we need to be made alive;

That's why I hold that only in Christ, all believers are made alive.

Doesn't that make the final Adam's obedience at the cross, slightly less powerful than the first Adam's disobedience at the Garden?

Quite the contrary.
His obedience to the death of the cross was far more powerful.

It is what purchased us, as His sheep, out of the hand of Satan and out of the wrath of God.

 

[Guojing]

Please see Romans 1.

I don't see the Bible teaching that we, as a race, didn't all die voluntarily...with the Lord giving us up to that which we chose.
I also see that given the choice ( which happens every day we are alive ) we will continue to persist in that which we have grown to love...sin...and that which we have come to hate...God and His ways ( Romans 1:30-32, John 3:19-20 ).

See Jeremiah 13:23 and many others.

As in the above, because of our choice already being made and made everyday, we don't ( and won't ) choose God.
We are stuck in our ways ( Romans 3:10-18 ), and darkened in our vain imaginations and selfish pride ( Ephesians 4:17-19 ).
God chooses us ( Psalms 65:4, Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:4-11, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 ) and causes us to approach Him via the new birth.

In other words,
He frees us from ourselves and our stubborn resentment at intruding in upon our "freedom" to sin.

Outside of that, I don't see any of us being made alive.
As "dead" men, we need to be made alive;

That's why I hold that only in Christ, all believers are made alive.

Quite the contrary.
His obedience to the death of the cross was far more powerful.

It is what purchased us, as His sheep, out of the hand of Satan and out of the wrath of God.

Did you understand my point in the post you were replying to?

None of us had a choice to be in Adam when the latter sinned against God.

We were automatically condemned because God saw us in Adam.

But we had to make a choice to be in Christ after the latter died on the cross, otherwise we will not be saved.

We can only be righteous after we choose to believe in the cross (1 Cor 15:1-4)

Isn't that what Romans 5:12-19 is about?

 

[Navair2]

Did you understand my point in the post you were replying to?

Yes, I did.
Perfectly.

None of us had a choice to be in Adam when the latter sinned against God.

I think you're misunderstanding "Original Sin".
It's not that we were involuntarily placed into Adam while he acted on our behalf and we all ended up paying for it unfairly...

It's that we were "in Adam" when he made his choice to sin.
In other words, in his place, we would have done the exact, same thing.

He acted as any of us would have done.