When all does not mean all.

[Navair2]

We were automatically condemned because God saw us in Adam.

We are "automatically" condemned because we're all dead in sins.
One can look at it from both directions;

God saw what we would become, and acted accordingly to provide a people for Himself and reserve the rest to everlasting punishment.

We, as men, would have always done as Adam did, if we were put in his place.
We would have sinned, fallen in love with it, and obstinately rejected God's commands to repent, no matter who was put in that situation.

The Lord saw it all perfectly, and acted in His wisdom, perfectly.

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

No, we didn't have to make a choice to be "in Christ";
God chose all believers "in Christ" before the foundation of the world and they were made accepted in the beloved ( Ephesians 1:4-6 ), by His grace.

They are His workmanship, created "in Christ" ( Ephesians 2:10 ).

 

[Navair2]

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

People believe because they are given to Christ by His Father ( John 6:37-47 ).
People come to Christ in faith, because they were given to Him by His Father ( John 6:64-65 ).

People do not believe, because they are not "of" His sheep ( John 10:26 ).
People do not "hear", or willingly receive, God's words because they are not "of" God ( John 8:43-47 ).

You may wish to look at that again, my friend.

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

Romans 5 tells us who we are in Christ.
Part of Romans 8, all of Romans 9, Romans 10 and Romans 11 tell us why we are in Christ.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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

I don't get your point. How does that fact show that what I said is right or wrong?

 

[Guojing]

No, we didn't have to make a choice to be "in Christ";
God chose all believers "in Christ" before the foundation of the world and they were made accepted in the beloved ( Ephesians 1:4-6 ), by His grace.

They are His workmanship, created "in Christ" ( Ephesians 2:10 ).

Are you in a reformed church, or/and subscribe to TULIP?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Are you in a reformed church, or/and subscribe to TULIP?

I don't think he would have said this, if he was: "God saw what we would become, and acted accordingly to provide a people for Himself and reserve the rest to everlasting punishment." Reformed Theology doesn't say he looked forward in time to decide who to choose.

 

[Magnanimity]

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.

You have not established that the "narrow way" in the gospels is in any sense a reference to salvation. You appear to have assumed it. As I've said, the best and brightest from the church fathers see no such connection when commenting on those portions of the gospels. As I've also said, the one and only time in the NT that Christ was asked whether few are saved, he did not answer the question with a "yes."

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?

Sure, it’s incredibly important. Which immediate context did you have in mind? That many people found this to be a hard saying for some mysterious reason (v.60)? That some disciples left him after this (v.66)? Or, when he had every opportunity to correct their misgivings (like they expressed in verse 52) by saying something like, “No, you misunderstand me. I don’t really mean eat my body and drink my blood,” he didn’t do so. Rather, he simply continued asserting the importance of eating his flesh and drinking his blood in order to have life. Is any of that the immediate context you were looking for?

Funny that, if the thinking you outline above was what Jesus intended to assert.

Funnier still is how the entirety of Christians prior to the Reformation understood that Christ was really present-body, soul and divinity-within the elements of the bread and wine in the Eucharist. 1500 years of such a profound error..? And still today, it is a vast majority of Christendom that believes in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Catholics, Orthodox, etc). Yet, you think it's clear from the scriptures that Christ never taught such a thing...? Curious.

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.

Very well, please provide the occasion when Christ says to his disciples, "this is the symbol of my body" when breaking the bread or "this is symbolically my blood" when passing the cup. Shouldn't be that hard to find. St Paul references the Eucharistic words of Christ too--maybe check there. Buena suerte.

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

You referenced Matthew 7:13-14 and John 3:36 as supporting a belief in the eternal separation of humans. The referencing of various scriptures is not enough to further discussion or make any progress in an argument. You need to explain why it is that you believe the scriptures you reference support your beliefs. And when someone presents other passages that counter your position, you'll need to somehow assimilate the existence of those passages too. That's all part and parcel to dialogue, right?

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.

Not impossible, just really difficult.

 

[Guojing]

I don't think he would have said this, if he was: "God saw what we would become, and acted accordingly to provide a people for Himself and reserve the rest to everlasting punishment." Reformed Theology doesn't say he looked forward in time to decide who to choose.

He said what I quoted from him. That is TULIP.

 

[Clare73]

" For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming." ( 1 Corinthians 15:21-23 ).

The highlighted tells me the context for the "all" in the second part of the verse, "in Christ shall all be made alive."
I also agree with what @Hammster said.

In addition, the "every man" in verse 23 is defined by the highlighted in the last half of the verse.
Otherwise, if taken as just one verse, I see that it is too easy to think that all men are going to be made alive in Christ...

Which they are not.

Side note:

Based on what I see in other passages, to be "in Adam" is to be a spiritually dead sinner.
To be "in Christ" is to be a sinner saved by God's grace and mercy alone ( Romans 9:14-24 ) and a sinner justified by His blood and made alive by the working of the Holy Spirit;
In other words, no longer a sinner in God's eyes ( Romans 5:1-11, Romans 8:1-33 ), but a son or daughter.

The issue is in Ro 5:18-19.

 

[Navair2]

Are you in a reformed church, or/and subscribe to TULIP?

I was raised Independent Baptist after hearing the preaching of God's word in 1978, and attended such churches for over 25 years.
I am not "Reformed", nor was I ever involved in that tradition.

I do indeed agree with the Canons of Dordt, but I do not agree with many other teachings that John Calvin put forth... like infant baptism, persecuting one's enemies, and "a-millennialism".

I do agree with the "bondage of the will".

 

[Navair2]

Reformed Theology doesn't say he looked forward in time to decide who to choose.

At this point in my understanding, to do anything other than to foresee, as prophecy, what we would become, would be to sponsor sin.

However, I am not averse to God setting up situations ( like casting Satan down from Heaven and allowing him to tempt Eve in the Garden ) and using them for His own ends ( "Supralapsarianism", I think some people call it ).
But to directly cause men to sin?

That is completely unscriptural, as I see it ( James 1:17-19 ).

As far as "foreknowledge" as described in Romans 8:29?
I see that as a specific "knowledge" in the light of Jeremiah 1:5 and Psalms 139...

A love for a person, even when they were dead in sins ( Ephesians 2:1-7 ).
A vessel of mercy afore prepared unto glory ( Romans 9:22-24 ).

 

[Guojing]

I was raised Independent Baptist after hearing the preaching of God's word in 1978, and attended such churches for over 25 years.
I am not "Reformed", nor was I ever involved in that tradition.

I do indeed agree with the Canons of Dordt, but I do not agree with many other teachings that John Calvin, John Knox and Martin Luther put forth... like infant Baptism, persecuting one's enemies, and "a-millennialism"

I do agree with the "bondage of the will".

So what exactly do you mean when you stated "No, we didn't have to make a choice to be "in Christ";
God chose all believers "in Christ" before the foundation of the world and they were made accepted in the beloved ( Ephesians 1:4-6 ), by His grace?"

Do you believe we have to believe Christ's death burial and resurrection for our sins (1 Cor 15:1-4), before we are saved, or not?

 

[Navair2]

Do you believe we have to believe Christ's death burial and resurrection for our sins (1 Cor 15:1-4), before we are saved, or not?

I don't see salvation happening the way you might;
It's not conditioned on our belief, it's conditioned on His own purposes and grace, that were given to us in Christ before the world began ( 2 Timothy 1:9 ).

Belief of the Gospel, and by extension, His every word, is not something a dead sinner is willing to do.
Therefore, belief cannot influence the Lord to save anyone.

He marks out His own, "calls" them at some point in their life by His word, and they hear;
Because they are Christ's sheep, given to Him by His Father.

Why do people believe and not believe on Christ?

" But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand." ( John 10:26-28 ).

 

[public hermit]

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive

This is essentially a conditional statement.
It is upon the basis that all die in Adam that all also are made alive in Christ. Or better, if all had not died in Adam, then there would have been no need to make all (or any) alive in Christ.

If all died in Adam, then all are made alive in Christ.

The same set of people are being referenced in both the antecedent and the consequent. So, if "all" doesn't mean all in the consequent, then it doesn't mean all in the antecedent.

Modus tollens: If all are not made alive in Christ, then all did not die in Adam.

But, of course, all did die in Adam (according to the fans of eternal torment).

Therefore, all means all in both instances.

 

[Guojing]

I don't see salvation happening the way you might;
It's not conditioned on our belief, it's conditioned on His own purposes and grace, that were given to us in Christ before the world began ( 2 Timothy 1:9 ).

Belief of the Gospel, and by extension, His every word, is not something a dead sinner is willing to do.
Therefore, belief cannot influence the Lord to save anyone.

He marks out His own, "calls" them at some point in their life by His word, and they hear;
Because they are Christ's sheep, given to Him by His Father.

Why do people believe and not believe on Christ?

" But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand." ( John 10:26-28 ).

So I believe your point is that only those who are "marked" out by the Father, from the beginning of time, can make the choice to believe.

Am I correct in my interpretation?

 

[Navair2]

So I believe your point is that only those who are "marked" out by the Father, from the beginning of time ( Ephesians 1:4-5, Romans 8:29-30, Romans 9:22-24 ), can make the choice to believe.

Am I correct in my interpretation?

Yes, you are.

I hold that after God graciously open's their hearts, so that they will believe ( Acts of the Apostles 16:14 ) that His people will respond to His call.
If that never happens, then we as men automatically choose to reject God's words.

On a side note,
I've inserted Scripture references in your quote above that support this.

 

[Guojing]

Yes, after God graciously open's their hearts, so that they will believe ( Acts of the Apostles 16:14 ).
If that never happens, then we as men automatically choose to reject God's words and remain in our trespasses and sins.

On a side note, I've inserted Scripture references in your quote above that support this.

So that is basically a key doctrine of TULIP, or what reformers, also believe in.

They are the ones with no problems explaining the dilemma I posed with Romans 5:12-19.

In fact they love that particular passage, because it proves their doctrines of limited atonement and Irresistible grace.

 

[Navair2]

So that is basically a key doctrine of TULIP, or what reformers, also believe in.

I am aware of that.
As I've said, I agree with the "Canons of Dordt",
and I will add that I agree with them, unreservedly, in all five "points" with no hesitation...

But I did not always.

They are the ones with no problems explaining the dilemma I posed with Romans 5:12-19.

In fact they love that particular passage, because it proves their doctrines of limited atonement and Irresistible grace.

I see no dilemma.
To me, it, among several others, does indeed support "Irresistible Grace" as well as "Limited / Definite Atonement" / "Particular Redemption".

But I also see that an even clearer passage for "Irresistible Grace" is Paul's journey on the road to Damascus.

 

[Guojing]

I am aware of that.

I see no dilemma.
To me, it, among several others, does indeed support "Irresistible Grace" as well as "Limited / Definite Atonement" / "Particular Redemption".

Yes, I do empathize with reformers, even though I don't hold their doctrines. I believe all of us, TULIP or not, believe in "some form" of limited atonement.

To put it simply, most of us Christians tend to believe the standard view of how God saved us.

• Jesus came to die for our sins as our substitute, thus providing a way in which we can be reconciled with God.
• All of us must individually accept this free gift from God.
• Those who accept it are declared righteous and will be in heaven.
• Those who reject the gift will remain unrighteous and will be in hell.

Thus, our view of the atonement is that, it is unlimited in scope but limited by our free choice. Every human can be saved but not everyone will be saved because we still need to exercise faith to accept the gift, thus we rule out the concept of universal salvation.

Those who believe in the concept of limited atonement, however, believes that Jesus only died for a limited group that was chosen by God the Father, before the foundation of the world. This is called the elected group and they believe that only this group of people can respond to the preaching and accept Jesus as their savior.

If you are not part of the elected group, you have no ability to respond to the message. This is known as the concept of total depravity. Seen from this perspective, the idea of limited atonement has the view that atonement is unlimited in the sense that the grace is irresistible to the elect, but limited in its scope as it applies only to the elected group

 

[Gregory Thompson]

This is essentially a conditional statement.
It is upon the basis that all die in Adam that all also are made alive in Christ. Or better, if all had not died in Adam, then there would have been no need to make all (or any) alive in Christ.

If all died in Adam, then all are made alive in Christ.

The same set of people are being referenced in both the antecedent and the consequent. So, if "all" doesn't mean all in the consequent, then it doesn't mean all in the antecedent.

Modus tollens: If all are not made alive in Christ, then all did not die in Adam.

But, of course, all did die in Adam (according to the fans of eternal torment).

Therefore, all means all in both instances.

Another possible interpretation, thank you for your contribution.

 

[Mark Quayle]

At this point in my understanding, to do anything other than to foresee, as prophecy, what we would become, would be to sponsor sin.

"Sponsor sin"? You can't choose words carefully here, lol. He does or he does not cause all things.

However, I am not averse to God setting up situations ( like casting Satan down from Heaven and allowing him to tempt Eve in the Garden ) and using them for His own ends ( "Supralapsarianism", I think some people call it ).
But to directly cause men to sin?

That is completely unscriptural, as I see it ( James 1:17-19 ).

Who said, "to directly cause men to sin?" Can God not cause something specific to happen without directly causing it? In most things by far, it seems God uses means (i.e. secondary causes, tertiary and so on) to accomplish what he causes. God caused all things, including that sin be, but that doesn't mean he is the author of sin.

It seems a good study of sin is in order here.

As far as "foreknowledge" as described in Romans 8:29?
I see that as a specific "knowledge" in the light of Jeremiah 1:5 and Psalms 139...

A love for a person, even when they were dead in sins ( Ephesians 2:1-7 ).
A vessel of mercy afore prepared unto glory ( Romans 9:22-24 ).

Here you seem to contradict what you said earlier. Here you say, as do I, that foreknowledge does not mean "looks into the future to find out" but at first you defined foreseeing, as prophesy. I don't get it.

But let me throw a point of logic in here. Logic must prevail throughout (not that any man is capable of it, and we all assume things drawn on our POV.) If Cause-and-effect prevails, then there is no such thing as true spontaneity or autonomy, uncaused causing, on the part of creatures-- effects, all of them. Certainly we do cause, as do most effects, but we and what we do are still effects. Also, there is no such thing as something happening by mere chance.

If one feels the need to mentally separate God from sin, that is fine --God does so too. Nevertheless, nothing can happen without God causing it. To my mind, even to say he started the ball rolling deistically, works out to the same thing. God knew what he was doing when he created. He knew precisely what would happen and did it anyway. Even more, not being bound by time, for him to cause deistically works out to causing theistically, since to him it is all one and the same kind of thing --it is only in our minds that it is not. NONE of this constitutes blame on his part. This is why I say a good study of the Doctrine of Sin is in order.