When all does not mean all.

[aiki]

No. Not a post-modern view.
A view with roots in the early church. A majority view at that time. (especially in the east)

"The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge"
by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96
German theologian- Philip Schaff writes :

"In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."

You don't seem to understand to what I was referring when I suggested a post-modern view in the thinking of a fellow poster. It was the belief that a multiplicity of views means the truth is unknowable that was, in my view, post-modern in its character.

Yes, there has always been a variety of perspectives on many aspects of Christian doctrine, hotly debated over the centuries. This was true even in the earliest days of the Church. Paul did not shrug his shoulders, however, and say that the truth revealed in Christ to the world and taught to him directly by Christ could not therefore be known or did not exist. No, Paul was very clear that there were many false brethren and teachers among the first Christian believers and that this meant they had to know the truth well, not adopt the notion that the truth was unknowable. The same attitude was expressed by James, Peter and John, as well.

 

[Clare73]

You don't seem to understand to what I was referring when I suggested a post-modern view in the thinking of a fellow poster. It was the belief that a multiplicity of views means the truth is unknowable that was, in my view, post-modern in its character.

Sounds a lot like modern (last 50-75 years) hermeneutics.

Yes, there has always been a variety of perspectives on many aspects of Christian doctrine, hotly debated over the centuries. This was true even in the earliest days of the Church. Paul did not shrug his shoulders, however, and say that the truth revealed in Christ to the world and taught to him directly by Christ could not therefore be known or did not exist. No, Paul was very clear that there were many false brethren and teachers among the first Christian believers and that this meant they had to know the truth well, not adopt the notion that the truth was unknowable. The same attitude was expressed by James, Peter and John, as well.

You'd never know it according to some here who employ hermeneutics which handle the God-breathed Holy Scriptures
as though they were mere human literature.

Scripture is just all so vague, not much of its truth can be really known.

It's what they're now being taught in the seminaries (actually, cemeteries, where Biblical faith goes to die).

 

[Gregory Thompson]

This seems to be a thinly veiled slap at Universal Restoration.

You have tried to make 1 Corinthians 15:22 a Damnationist verse.

The verse has two halves. The first half begins with "For as in", the second half begins with, "even so in". This means "in the same way". It is a comparative. In the same way ALL, even so ALL...

All means all.
Here's another scripture for comparison. More difficult to squirm your way out of this one. All people means all people. And how many were made sinners? (the many = all)

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.

Actually, it was written in an ambiguous fashion so as to create a discussion.

Of the 3 positions I tend to believe God will do more than we can imagine.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

So, the correct course of action when our man-made doctrines don't agree with scripture is to discount scripture? Wow.

Since the doctrine of eternal torment contradicts the scripture, maybe the doctrine of eternal torment is wrong. (instead of the scripture)

Tone is always lost over the internet, but the resulting misunderstanding makes for great discussions.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

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?

All doesn't mean all/every person all the time as context determines if it is all inclusive or if its not. Plus a little common sense reveals in the cases below it CANNOT mean every single individual.

2 Chronicles 9:23
“And all the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom, that God had put in his heart.”

Did the ones in the America’s and China too ?

Psalm 103:2-3
“Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits, who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases”

Does every single person get healed?

Matthew 2:3
“When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him”

Was every single person concerned?

Matthew 3:5-6
“Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him, and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins

Did all the Roman and Jewish leaders get baptized, what about the Samaritans?

Matthew 4:24
“So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them.”

Did every single human with a sickness get healed?

Matthew 26:52
“All who take the sword will perish by it.”

Has everyone who committed violent acts die by them?

Luke 2:1
“In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.”

Did those in China and the Americas register?

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

This only applies to those in Christ not all the world

hope this helps !!!

 

[Saint Steven]

Actually, it was written in an ambiguous fashion so as to create a discussion.

Of the 3 positions I tend to believe God will do more than we can imagine.

There is nothing ambiguous about "all does not mean all".
That is a standard anti-Universal Restoration apologetic.

 

[Saint Steven]

Tone is always lost over the internet, but the resulting misunderstanding makes for great discussions.

What does tone have to do with it?
You discounted the plain meaning of scripture based on a man-made doctrine.
Where's the tone in that?

Saint Steven said: ↑
So, the correct course of action when our man-made doctrines don't agree with scripture is to discount scripture? Wow.

Since the doctrine of eternal torment contradicts the scripture, maybe the doctrine of eternal torment is wrong. (instead of the scripture)

 

[Gregory Thompson]

There is nothing ambiguous about "all does not mean all".
That is a standard anti-Universal Restoration apologetic.

What does tone have to do with it?
You discounted the plain meaning of scripture based on a man-made doctrine.
Where's the tone in that?

Saint Steven said: ↑
So, the correct course of action when our man-made doctrines don't agree with scripture is to discount scripture? Wow.

Since the doctrine of eternal torment contradicts the scripture, maybe the doctrine of eternal torment is wrong. (instead of the scripture)

I find as far as what scripture is able to communicate to our limited minds (Isaiah 55:8-9) Eternal Torment, Universal Reconciliation, and Annihilationism fall short in the imagination department. As a result, I go with an Ephesians 3:20 conclusion.

The OP and the subject of the thread were designed to create a conversation, that's it. So I got one, thanks for participating.

 

[Randy777]

We believe in a resurrection of the righteous to life and a resurrection of the unrighteous to judgment.

“Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.

The 2nd death is in my bible. You may not believe in it but don't state it has no foundation in scripture as in the traditions of man.

Not only is it not all but the ratio isn't even equal.
It is also written...
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it

Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.

I think the meaning is clear. You may argue about Gehenna but if its better to cut off then end up there it can't be a paradise.

And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell (Gehenna)

The hades Jesus spoke of was a place of torment.
The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.

The lake of fire was prepared for satan and his angels. Also the unrighteous receive the same punishment as in rise to be condemned.

There are eternal consequences for rejecting Christ and doing evil.

 

[Saint Steven]

I find as far as what scripture is able to communicate to our limited minds (Isaiah 55:8-9) Eternal Torment, Universal Reconciliation, and Annihilationism fall short in the imagination department. As a result, I go with an Ephesians 3:20 conclusion.

The OP and the subject of the thread were designed to create a conversation, that's it. So I got one, thanks for participating.

I think it was clear to everyone in the conversation that you were singling out Universal Restoration. How does "all does not mean all" affect Eternal Torment? How does "all does not mean all" affect Annihilationism? It doesn't.

Especially married with the SINGLE text you chose, which are part and parcel with the standard anti-Universal Restoration apologetic. If you are claiming it wasn't malicious, then you are admitting it was poorly conceived. Take your pick.

 

[zoidar]

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?

Everybody is going to be raised from the dead, but I'll go with the meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:22 that all in Adam died (everybody) and all in Christ (believers) will be made alive.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I think it was clear to everyone in the conversation that you were singling out Universal Restoration. How does "all does not mean all" affect Eternal Torment? How does "all does not mean all" affect Annihilationism? It doesn't.

Especially married with the SINGLE text you chose, which are part and parcel with the standard anti-Universal Restoration apologetic. If you are claiming it wasn't malicious, then you are admitting it was poorly conceived. Take your pick.

However, the way I phrased my post used some of the absurd in it to follow through with the logic, so how can you be entirely sure this is what I intended when I posted. You cannot.

And I'm not really sure what your point is, the official doctrine of the site is eternal torment, thus the "since eternal torment"

in a sense it could totally be for Universal Reconciliation. However, I already stated my intent, I just wanted to start a conversation.

 

[Saint Steven]

However, the way I phrased my post used some of the absurd in it to follow through with the logic, so how can you be entirely sure this is what I intended when I posted. You cannot.

And I'm not really sure what your point is, the official doctrine of the site is eternal torment, thus the "since eternal torment"

in a sense it could totally be for Universal Reconciliation. However, I already stated my intent, I just wanted to start a conversation.

That's funny, actually... "since eternal torment" - lol
As if it just showed up one day. How true.
As soon as we had a Bible, there it was. Imagine that. Where did that come from? (indeed)

 

[Gregory Thompson]

That's funny, actually... "since eternal torment" - lol
As if it just showed up one day. How true.
As soon as we had a Bible, there it was. Imagine that. Where did that come from? (indeed)

(since we're joking) Hell came from the pits of hell of course.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

One logical step I take is in the gospel where it is said "kill them before my eyes" regarding those who didn't want God as king. This is the second death.

The second death is the consuming fire presence of God.

Since those who are dead are freed from sin, this means those in the second death will have sin separated from them and come out as a blank slate, so the "sinner" dies - but the soul returns to God.

One thing ultimate reconciliation doesn't do, is relate how the time period being in torment will be so long, that their personality won't survive. So Ultimate Reconciliation and Eternal Torment when applied completely to scripture aren't all that different - except with ET phones home, it means God remains angry forever, unlike the God of the Psalms.

 

[Saint Steven]

(since we're joking) Hell came from the pits of hell of course.

Exactly. It sure wasn't God's idea. - lol

1 John 4:18
There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

 

[Saint Steven]

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.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of what value is the "all does not mean all" claim if it is only applies to the second "all" in the key verse? This is a twisting of scripture to accommodate a doctrinal position.

Michael Collum said: ↑
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive @Michael Collum

 

[Butterball1]

Butterball1:

Death is not contrasted to resurrection. Death is contrasted to life--which is the opposite of death.

1 corinthians 15:21 "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead."

The physical DEATH resulting from Adam is being contrasted to the physical RESURRECTION of all that physically died as a consequence of Adam sinning.

1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die (physically die - Hebrews 9:27), even so in Christ shall all be made alive (resurrection of the same "all" that died physically - John 5:28-29)

Butterball1:
We die as a result of inherited sin. That is what scripture says.

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:23 -- King James Bible)

Your above comment, that one's death it is "NOT because we inherited sin or a sin nature from Adam" is not in harmony with scripture.

Alter2Ego

No verse says man inherits Adam's sin. The man made idea of original sin is totally contrary to what the Bible teaches about sin, transgressions and sinners.

1 John 3:4 sin is the transgression of the law

Romans 4:15 where no law is, there is no transgression

Romans 7:8-9 For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

According to the Bible, for one to be a sinner requires that there be a law (Rom 4:15) and that law be transgressed (1 John 3:4) by an accountable person (Romans 7:8-9). Therefore sin is not just an idea or substance that is passed from person to person apart from law and transgression of that law. The way the Bible defines sin makes the false notion of original sin an impossibility.

Therefore all die (men, women, children) as a CONSEQUENCE of Adam sinning. A drunk driver crosses the center dividing line and kills innocent people in another vehicle. They died as a CONSEQUENCE of the drunk driver's sin, they did not die because they inherited the drunk driver's sin. Therefore all will physically die as a CONSEQUENCE of Adam's sinning and that same all will be resurrected as a consequence of Christ's resurrection. Christ was not born having inherited Adam's sin nor was His physical death due to having inherited Adam's sin.

Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
"Death" here is contrasted to "eternal life" hence death here is speaking of spiritual death (which some will NOT experience) as opposed to physical death which all will experience.

Revelation 20:6 - "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."


a "second" death implies there is a first death. The first death being physical death all men will experience (Hebrews 9:27). The second death being spiritual death, eternal separation from God which some will experience for not all will experience the second death.

A "first' resurrection" implies a second resurrection. The first resurrection being when one is water baptized the old man of sin dies, one is buried in a watery grave and resurrected (raised up from) that watery grace to walk in newness of life, new birth (Romans 6:3-7). The second resurrection will be the general resurrection of all men both good and evil (john 5:28-29). Hence those that take part in the first resurrection (water baptism, new birth) the second death (spiritual death) hath no power over them.

 

[Butterball1]

Good, ok, so far I'm with you.



I would agree, so the question would be how to properly judge when an anthropomorphism is occurring. And on the basis of what, could we make such judgments?



I could agree with this in the sense that one might want to say that God is all of these things at all times. An infinite and perfect being is not capable of change. He has no imperfection. He lacks nothing. There is nothing to be improved or added to him.

So, it really comes down to what one means by "longsuffering." I gave a definition from the Oxford dic. that has patience as intrinsic to it, which is "the ability to stay calm and accept a delay or something annoying without complaining." Nothing could be a "delay" to One who sees the end from the beginning. But, if all you mean by longsuffering is that God "stays calm" and doesn't "get annoyed" or "complain," then sure. All of that would be necessarily true of the infinite and perfect God.

But, for us finite beings, patience implies that we're waiting for something that we're not sure will come about. And none of that applies to God. He doesn't wait, and he isn't unsure of anything, nor is he capable of getting annoyed. There could be no sense in which God is reactive. Reaction implies finitude and lack.



Since all beings of intelligence in the physical order are beings-of-becoming, there is no proper analogy between any being in the universe (like a human) and God, with regard to intelligence. Beings-of-becoming apprehend things in a reactive and unfolding way. Let's say that I come to know that my son just arrived home from school. How did I just come to know that? I saw him pull the vehicle down the driveway. So, for my intellect, knowledge is developing and reactive to the world around me. But, we would not say that any of this applies properly to God. So, God doesn't know things in the way that you or I do. We wouldn't even say that he feels grace, compassion and love the way that you or I do. But, I agree that there is a sense in which we could say that he feels all those things in an unchangeable way--something like when the psalmist says, "His mercy endures forever."

You do not seem to have a problem with love, grace, mercy, etc being inherent in God's nature but you do have a bias in that you personally do not want longsuffering to be part of God's nature. That personal bias being exposed in the fact there would be no reason for God to be longsuffering toward the lost if everyone has already been determined to be saved. I cited many verses that speak to the fact God is longsuffering.

You post "But, for us finite beings, patience implies that we're waiting for something that we're not sure will come about. And none of that applies to God. He doesn't wait, and he isn't unsure of anything, nor is he capable of getting annoyed. There could be no sense in which God is reactive. Reaction implies finitude and lack."

Jonah 3:3 God was willing to be patient with Nineveh for 40 days graciously giving them time to repent. They did repent else they would be destroyed. When they did repent we see God repented, Jonah 3:10. You claimed "there could be no sense in which God reacts" yet we have God reacting to Nineveh repenting, we have God changing His course of action in dealing with Nineveh going from destroying Nineveh in 40 days to showing mercy to Nineveh.

We know from Jeremiah 18:8-10 God has a predetermined course of action He takes....mercy upon those who choose to repent...no mercy upon those that refuse to repent. Hence God 'repenting' does NOT mean God changed His mind but He changed His course of action to fit an already predetermined course of action. What purpose or sense was there in God showing patience, mercy and repentance towards Ninevah? Why didn't God just immediately destroy Nineveh not giving them time to repent, for after all, they are going to be saved anyway.......assuming Universalism is true. Why "would" Jesus desire/want (preceptive will) those Jews be saved (Matthew 23:37) if God has already determined they will for a fact all be saved? God's longsuffering, God repenting makes no sense with Ninevah if God already decided all to be saved.
The fact God has a 1) a preceptive will in desiring, wanting men to repent and be saved and is 2) longsuffering towards men giving man time to repent are all part of God's inherent nature. Again, it makes no sense in God having a preceptive will (desire Nineveh be saved) yet not be longsuffering (destroy Nineveh immediately showing no mercy, no desire Ninevah be saved). God's preceptive will and longsuffering make no sense if Universalism is true.
Anthropomorphisms are used to help man's understanding and not used to create nonsensical ideas.

 

[Randy777]

Everybody is going to be raised from the dead, but I'll go with the meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:22 that all in Adam died (everybody) and all in Christ (believers) will be made alive.

A resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous
Jesus=>and come out--those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.

Paul before Felix
as these men=>Paul's accusers (Jews)
..and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. So I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man.

Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”

Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”

The resurrection of those who belong to Jesus from the ends of the heavens and a gathering from the ends of the earth are caught up alive. There are Christians noted in the 1st Resurrection in REV. Therefore those not raised that day must be those who suffer. As in the 2nd resurrection noted in REV.