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

Derf

Well-known member
IMO, Derf, the making alive is as Christ (the firstfruit of all to be made alive, v.23) was made alive, i.e. unto immortality & incorruption.
I think I agree with you. But it brings up other questions.

Do you think that anyone, after being raised from the dead in that way (i.e. as Christ was made alive), would not be found written in the book of life?

And if one is raised immortal and incorruptible, but NOT found written in the book of life, what would happen to him?
 

GregoryN

New member
I think I agree with you. But it brings up other questions.

Do you think that anyone, after being raised from the dead in that way (i.e. as Christ was made alive), would not be found written in the book of life?

And if one is raised immortal and incorruptible, but NOT found written in the book of life, what would happen to him?

I'd opine that when the last one is "in Christ" made alive (1 Cor15:22b) unto immortal life & incorruption, there will be no one who doesn't have his name in the book of life. What do you think? Could some never be written in the book of life & spend eternity elsewhere than in the holy city? Such as in the heavens or somewhere on earth?
 

Derf

Well-known member
I'd opine that when the last one is "in Christ" made alive (1 Cor15:22b) unto immortal life & incorruption, there will be no one who doesn't have his name in the book of life. What do you think? Could some never be written in the book of life & spend eternity elsewhere than in the holy city? Such as in the heavens or somewhere on earth?

Revelations 20 describes such a scenario. There's a first death for everyone. There is a resurrection. There is a checking of the books of past deeds. Then there's a checking of the book of life. The final result is those not in the book of life (note that there ARE some) will be thrown into the lake of fire.

Note that the lake of fire is called the "second death". But there's some disagreement about what a "second death" would look like. It is apparently a worse thing than the first death. There is no scripture that offers a relief from that second death that I know of (please provide if you know one). Some think that the lake of fire death is a permanent cessation of life, but others think that it is a torturous existence. You seem to be of the second opinion.

Here's where my thoughts have been leading of late. It seems to me that the evidence of salvation is life after death, or resurrection from death. If so, then all people, in two groups, seem to receive this evidence of salvation. Both are mentioned in Rev 20. The first group are those that have shown their love/devotion to Jesus Christ before the first death by being martyred or at least persecuted for His name's sake. The second group is everybody else. The first group has this said about them: "on such the second death hath no power" (Rev 20:6). The second group has some that are in the book of life and some that are not. SO we at least see that there is a resurrection that is applied to some that are NOT in the book of life. I think this book is a book that is written to show who is not allowed to continue to live (similar to when Moses offered to be blotted out of "God's book" in Exodus 32:33).

What I'm wondering is if there is any difference in the resurrection bodies of the two groups. If we all are "sown corruptible", are we all "raised incorruptible"? This verse seems to suggest it:
42 So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: [1Co 15:42 KJV]
Note that it doesn't distinguish between the believers and the non-believers in this resurrection. It just says "resurrection of the dead". So if we see that some non-believers are resurrected (because they are eventually thrown in the lake of fire), then we have to ask ourselves whether these bodies they are resurrected with are #1. just the same as the previous bodies (and not according to 1Cor 15:42), or #2. incorruptible bodies that are according to 1 Cor 15:42, or #3. something else entirely.

If #1, then you expect the bodies to burn up in the lake of fire immediately, and the person so treated to disappear in moments, in which case, I wonder why bother resurrecting them in the first place.

If #2, then you would expect the bodies to NEVER burn up, as they are incorruptible. This seems to fit the scenario presented by the traditional version of hell.

If #3, I don't know what to think. If the new bodies are corruptible, why would God make new, corruptible bodies of some unknown variety, that are just going to be burned up? This would lead me to think the new bodies are incorruptible, but not "glorified" bodies--and then they will not burn up in the lake of fire forever.

What I don't think we see in the Revelation account is that anyone ever leaves the lake of fire. Maybe they do, and it just doesn't say--the lake of fire seems to be a permanent thing--either permanent destruction or permanent agony.
 

Derf

Well-known member

GregoryN

New member
Only if you beg the question of the OP.

Btw, I appreciate your "IMO". I probably don't include that enough. We are all offering our opinions on things where there is disagreement, and to spit out our opinions as if they are fact is great hubris.

What "question of the OP" are you referring to?

BTW, it seems, AFAIK, this present thread is not appropriate for discussing certain topics, & they should be discussed in this thread, as per the remark here:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Universalism&p=5266014&viewfull=1#post5266014
 

Derf

Well-known member
What "question of the OP" are you referring to?

BTW, it seems, AFAIK, this present thread is not appropriate for discussing certain topics, & they should be discussed in this thread, as per the remark here:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Universalism&p=5266014&viewfull=1#post5266014

I didn't really state that very well. But "question" goes with "beg" rather than with OP, as in the fallacy of "begging the question". And the OP presented an argument (poorly worded as a statement of undeniable fact) that the "all" coupled with Adam was more inclusive than the "all" coupled with "in Christ".

Your begging of the question is in regard to the opposite view--that both "alls" are referring to exactly the same group of people--everybody.

Thus, before you can use those verses to show that they refer to a relief from a second death, you have to first show that they say that all are going to be saved, which is opposite the OP. Without such, you have no case.

And while that is certainly the topic of the reference you gave, and an interesting thread I'm sure, I'm not prepared to jump into that fray just yet. Though I have to admit that this thread, due to the lack of conversational skill of its author, is about dead in the water.
 

beloved57

Well-known member
derf

And the OP presented an argument (poorly worded as a statement of undeniable fact) that the "all" coupled with Adam was more inclusive than the "all" coupled with "in Christ".

Thats false. Please show that in the OP ?
 

Derf

Well-known member
derf

Derf said:
And the OP presented an argument (poorly worded as a statement of undeniable fact) that the "all" coupled with Adam was more inclusive than the "all" coupled with "in Christ".

Thats false. Please show that in the OP ?

Which part? The "poorly worded" part is merely an opinion, meant to spur you into putting more thought, and maybe a little bit of humility, into your posts. It can't be absolutely false or true.

The 'that the "all" coupled with Adam was more inclusive than the "all" coupled with "in Christ"' part is your basic premise in your OP. Why would I have to show you what you said in your OP.

Don't be lazy, B57! You actually need to read my posts to understand them--don't just glance over them. You haven't quite caught on yet, but I agree with your OP.
 

beloved57

Well-known member
derf

Which part?

And the OP presented an argument (poorly worded as a statement of undeniable fact) that the "all" coupled with Adam was more inclusive than the "all" coupled with "in Christ".
 

Derf

Well-known member
derf



And the OP presented an argument (poorly worded as a statement of undeniable fact) that the "all" coupled with Adam was more inclusive than the "all" coupled with "in Christ".

Ok, then you seem to be arguing with yourself, now.

You are saying that the "all" coupled with "in Christ" has the same or more people in it than the "all" coupled with Adam?

Let's define some terms. The "all" coupled with "in Christ" appears to be referring to the saved. The "all" coupled with Adam is all humanity, since we are all descended from him.

There are two option I've presented for you new position:
1. That there are MORE people in the "all" coupled with "in Christ" than that coupled with Adam
2. That there are the same number of people in the "all" coupled with "in Christ" as that coupled with Adam

If option 1, you are now arguing that there are some people that exist or have existed that are NOT descended from Adam, but that still need to be saved. Would you like to explain where these people came from?

If option 2, you are now arguing for universalism. And while I don't consider you to understand all of the things you post for Calvinism, I kind of thought you were not the universalist type.

Which one of these options are you clamoring for?

I might add that to pick either of these two options absolutely confirms my opinion about your poor wording of the OP.
 

beloved57

Well-known member
derf quoted this of mine

its only specifying mankind in Christ, which isnt inclusive of the children of the devil or of the wicked one.

Yes I stated that, however I didnt state:

that the "all" coupled with Adam was more inclusive than the "all" coupled with "in Christ".

You never mentioned in this quote the the children of the devil or of the wicked one.

So when you say someone says something be specific and precise

So yes the children of devil or the wicked one werent originally in Adam nor Christ, though they did become part of Adams natural offspring after the fall, but Adam wasnt originally their Federal Head as he was to the Elect in their natural creation in the image of God. If you want to discuss this I have a thread about it. If not I have said what I needed to say to clarify my statement which you quoted wrongly ! Heres the thread:

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?130469-Who-were-the-all-Adam-represented-in-his-sin&highlight=
 

Derf

Well-known member
derf quoted this of mine



Yes I stated that, however I didnt state:



You never mentioned in this quote the the children of the devil or of the wicked one.

So when you say someone says something be specific and precise

So yes the children of devil or the wicked one werent originally in Adam nor Christ, though they did become part of Adams natural offspring after the fall, but Adam wasnt originally their Federal Head as he was to the Elect in their natural creation in the image of God. If you want to discuss this I have a thread about it. If not I have said what I needed to say to clarify my statement which you quoted wrongly ! Heres the thread:

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?130469-Who-were-the-all-Adam-represented-in-his-sin&highlight=

If you could include the whole quote tag of any post you are quoting (like this from your post:
Code:
[QUOTE="beloved57, post: 0"]
), it would help me not to miss your replies.

I have to laugh that this has taken so much time to get you to agree with yourself.

But I must admit I'm surprised that now you have ventured into the first option territory by claiming that the children of the devil and the wicked ones somehow became part of Adam's natural offspring. Thus, according to you, Adam's "natural offspring" includes more than his "natural offspring". Do you know what "natural offspring" means? Does it matter to you that your thread has become a tangled web of conflicting statements from you?

What you are preaching is certainly not Calvinism, despite your signature. But perhaps it leads people down that road when it stops making sense.

And your beloved57/Nanja mutual admiration society reference is quite entertaining as well. Thanks for sharing.
 

beloved57

Well-known member
If you could include the whole quote tag of any post you are quoting (like this from your post:
Code:
[QUOTE="beloved57, post: 0"]
), it would help me not to miss your replies.

I have to laugh that this has taken so much time to get you to agree with yourself.

But I must admit I'm surprised that now you have ventured into the first option territory by claiming that the children of the devil and the wicked ones somehow became part of Adam's natural offspring. Thus, according to you, Adam's "natural offspring" includes more than his "natural offspring". Do you know what "natural offspring" means? Does it matter to you that your thread has become a tangled web of conflicting statements from you?

What you are preaching is certainly not Calvinism, despite your signature. But perhaps it leads people down that road when it stops making sense.

And your beloved57/Nanja mutual admiration society reference is quite entertaining as well. Thanks for sharing.
Did you see the link?

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk
 

Derf

Well-known member
Did you see the link?

You almost got it. Every beginning quote tag needs an ending one, like this (only use standard brackets "[]" all the way through instead of braces "{}"):

{QUOTE=Derf;5281626}
Blah, blah, blah...
{/QUOTE}

yes, I saw the link, except it didn't work correctly. Maybe something got lost in the cut and paste?? But I found the thread and was duly unimpressed. That's why I made the comment:
And your beloved57/Nanja mutual admiration society reference is quite entertaining as well. Thanks for sharing.

I don't see any warrant whatsoever for such a departure from scripture as you are proposing. It seems to arise from a desire to maintain a Calvinist doctrine in the face of prevailing logic. Just my opinion.
 
Top