Is the sin of Adam stronger than the cross and resurrection of Christ?

[Jerry Shugart]

I do however believe in the power of God's love to persuade everyone eventually and fully bring creation to a fulfillment that can truly be worthy as an expression of the will of God as goodness itself.

The gospel speaks of the love of God and it is by the gospel, which comes in the power of the Holy Spirit, which the LORD uses to bring men to salvation. It is only those who resist the Holy Spirit who are not saved.

Therefore, everyone who hears the gospel has no excuse for not believing it. And the Lord certainly does not want to drag unbelievers kicking and screaming to a place of salvation.

The Lord cannot be faulted because those who should believe refuse to believe.

 

[6days]

I do not understand Adam as necessarily a historical person

Even many atheists understand that if they can get Christians to believe Adam was a myth, that the gospel is destroyed.

Take the crypto-creationist argument somewhere else

You are funny. You don't want anyone to disagree with your false doctrine?

It is becoming impossible to have an actual theological discussion on this site. Ask a question, and the best you get in return is a proof text citation from the Bible.

Entire chapters such as Romans 5 &12 have been referenced showing your belief system / theology is false.

Paul refers to both Jesus and Adam as historical people.

You destroy the gospel when you pick and choose what to believe. IE that "first Adam " was mythical

No creed, no theological tradition, no church fathers or theological thinkers.

We can discuss various people ideas then weigh it against what God's Word tell us. Some of the early church fathers... some theological thinkers...some church traditions are more scriptural than others.

 

[Angel4Truth]

That seems to be the necessary conclusion that one must draw from the doctrine of limited atonement. If the disobedience of one man lead to death and sin for all men, how is the obedience, sacrifice and resurrection of Christ not leading to the restoration and salvation of all men? .

You left off part of it:

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned

The restoration to all men doesn't come because all do not want restoration and salvation and reject it.

 

[Selaphiel]

You are funny. You don't want anyone to disagree with your false doctrine?

Feel free to think that. More concerned that so many here are incapable of of thinking theology besides braindead proof texting. That is neglecting a great tradition of thought in favor childlike nonsense. This is not even an elitistic attitude, because people are perfectly capable of at least looking into such material. But modern evangelicalism has become shallow and infantile, abhorring any serious reflection on the faith.

You destroy the gospel when you pick and choose what to believe. IE that "first Adam " was mythical

The meaning of the text holds up just fine with an allegorical understanding of Adam. Myth and allegory are not the same thing.

We can discuss various people ideas then weigh it against what God's Word tell us. Some of the early church fathers... some theological thinkers...some church traditions are more scriptural than others.

That is simply nonsense. The church lived without an established NT canon for over 300 years. The canonization of the NT happened in interaction with establishment of the creeds, liturgy and teachings of the church. Scripture may have special status, but reducing Christianity to scripture is biblicism, which is idolatry.

Also, any honest study of scripture using historical methods developed in academic biblical studies reveals that scripture alone absent guides, hermeneutical keys and regulating creeds and liturgy is easily reduced to a mish mash of nonsense.

The restoration to all men doesn't come because all do not want restoration and salvation and reject it.

This has been adressed several times. Why the arbitrary cut off point at death if souls remains in torment due to eternal separation from God?

 

[Selaphiel]

.
The Lord cannot be faulted because those who should believe refuse to believe.

Do you believe the offer ends at death? If so, why? Is it perfect goodness to holding back the invitation at a certain point if you are claiming to "love itself"?

 

[Angel4Truth]

This has been adressed several times. Why the arbitrary cut off point at death if souls remains in torment due to eternal separation from God?

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

 

[whitestone]

In the order of creation Colossians 1:15 KJV Christ is the firstborn of very creature,,,so the one who is the forgiveness is created before the one who is to be forgiven...so Adam, whom we descend from, is preceded in creation by the very one who would later die on that cross for the forgiveness of sin.

 

[6days]

The meaning of the text holds up just fine with an allegorical understanding of Adam. Myth and allegory are not the same thing.

If Adam is allegorical (or mythical) the gospel is destroyed. Various Bible authors, and even Christ refer to Genesis as historical events and real people. If Adams sin and punishment of death is allegorical then Christs physical death and resurrection only need to be allegorical.

“Since the doctrines of Creation, the Fall and Redemption stand in an absolute historical continuum, we get a distorted worldview when we play games with Genesis.

“The apologist seeks to present biblical truth with coherence. In my experience, one cannot even formulate a compelling response to classic questions like the problem of evil and pain without a clear stand with Scripture on the creation issue.

“I have never been able to see how anyone who wants to defend the faith and proclaim the Gospel can compromise the foundation stones of that defence and then expect clear-thinking people to find a proclamation of salvation in Christ compelling.”
Joe Boot, President of Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

Dr Georgia Purdom, biologist says "many Christians have compromised on the historical and theological importance of Genesis. If Adam and Eve aren’t real people who sinned in the Garden of Eden, and as a result we are all not sinners, then Jesus Christ’s death on the cross was useless. ...the literal truth of Genesis is so important to the authority and truthfulness of Scripture. It is the very foundation of the Gospel."

JESUS speaking "Haven't you read the Scriptures? They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.'"

That is simply nonsense. The church lived without an established NT canon for over 300 years. The canonization of the NT happened in interaction with establishment of the creeds, liturgy and teachings of the church. Scripture may have special status, but reducing Christianity to scripture is biblicism, which is idolatry.

Notice when Christ is questioned He uses scripture as the absolute authority... not teachings of the church.

Re NT canon... Most if not all NT Books were accepted as God's Word long before 300AD.

 

[bling]

You are putting a whole lot of words in my mouth here. I have not said that God needed to do anything. I do not see how that even pertains to the question I asked.

God creates out of love, of course God does not need creation. That does not change that creation (and once again, the entire creation history, not the beginning) is God's self-revelation to another, out of love.

When you talks about “God's self-revelation to another”, it sounds very intellectual and an exchange of “knowledge”. You give the “reason” for God creation to be “Love”, but what is the objective doing it the way God did do it? Why does God have to go through the trouble of making man and putting man on earth? Would it not be more “reveling” for God to make us spiritual beings that could see Him in heaven?

But that does not resolve the question that I asked. Is a parent that lets his or her sick child roast his or her face in the fireplace because the parents respect the autonomy of the child a good parent? No, it is a morally bankrupt person.

The Bible is not addressing mentally challenged individuals that cannot come to their own senses and make a free will choice, so your analogy does not apply but this does:

the Father (God) in the prodigal son story (Luke 15: 11-32) gave the son the money even after the son virtually told the Father: “I wish you were dead so I could get my inheritance” (and with the Father knowing the son well enough to know what he would do with it ). The Father did not send servants after the son but allowed the son to stay in the foreign land waste all his money and end up starving to death in a pigsty.

Our earthly objective is not to be “happy” here on earth, but for us to reach the point of humbly accepting God’s charity.

That being said, what you have said here is not mutually exclusive with what I said. The point is, so many Christians view the book as closed when someone dies. If people subscribe to conscious eternal separation from God after death, then that is morally horrendous.

Annihilation is another topic.

But a God that sums up all of creation with eternally damned souls has either failed morally and cannot be called "the good" in any meaningful sense, or that God is not free.

Quit blaming God for man failing. Man was made as good as man can be made, but he does not start out with Godly type Love. All mature adults have the best place and situation for obtaining Godly type love, by simply humbly accepting the Creator’s help (charity), but most seem to prefer being macho, accepting the punishment they fully deserve, not willing to surrender to their enemy (God) and thus will not humbly accept charity.

 

[Shasta]

I have not mentioned original sin in my argument. The argument does not depend upon the doctrine of original sin at all. You read original sin into the topic due to the formulation of the question. What I ask is whether sin and death is stronger than the author of life.

The argument is that creation is the act where God reveals who is to someone outside of himself. The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo states that God does this without restraint or limitation, that is: God is not limited by anything outside of God. So creation is the expression of the will of God. The end of history and the final judgment with the totality of history is thus the expression of who God is to someone else.

If creation end in the eternal separation of even one soul from God, then it is legitimate to ask whether this is due to a fault in God's moral character (God lets someone be damned and eternally separated from God). Or God is limited in power, he is unable to restore all and thus his will is constrained by something.

Nor does this universalism deny free will, it does not even deny jugdment. What it questions is the eternal nature of separation, whether God is unable to express Gods will as the good when creation reaches its goal and fulfillment.

"Go back to the Bible" is not an argument, it simply is an avoidance of the question.

You mistake the issue here to be one of God's power. For instance you compare God's omnipotence shown in His ability to bring the cosmos into existence to His ability to save whomever He wills. This does not take into account man's moral nature which he possesses by virtue of his being made "in the image of God." Like God, man, in the much narrower field of sovereignty can make choices, even when those decisions are opposed to the will of His maker. Does this discretionary delegation of authority compete with God's omnipotence? Certainly not, for it is God Himself Who gave us that ability.

It is God's will to bring about the highest good for all men. The caveat is that man must freely choose Him over themselves. It is the willing surrender of our drive to fulfill and serve ourselves that makes it possible for us to enjoy God's good will throughout the ages. The most obvious reading of scripture demonstrates that we can refuse or consent to His good pleasure. The will of God is not merely that all men come to Him but that all men FREELY choose to do so.

Now we can ask the question "if such is the case is Project Humanity worth? Another way of asking this is: would a merciful God invent a race that can be lost? Is the final end is worth the price of suffering? Many say no but now even many (thinking) Atheists admit that (theoretically) all earthly suffering might be worth it if it brought about some greater good. The problem is we may not be in a position to be able to calculate the balance of good and the suffering. I believe that ultimately the project is worth it. The fact that some choose misery cannot dampen the Joy to come for those who do not. As Lewis said "hell cannot blackmail heaven"

 

[serpentdove]

He must punish the wicked or he is a corrupt judge (Ac 17:30).

 

[Zeke]

6days;4395759]If first Adam was not a real historical person, then there is no need for the historical "Last Adam".
If physical death was not a consequence of sin, then Christ did not need to physically die, then defeat "the final enemy" with the resurrection.

The seed as in one that falls to the ground and dies represent the Divine part of each man played by Jesus who was all spiritual, like the prodigal son who was considered dead to his Divine parentage awakens from that state while tolling in the flesh, the spirit, Jesus, said let the dead bury the dead. Paul restates this inward process of death and resurrection inwardly Romans 5 through 7, also 1Cor 15:35-58 which takes place in Gods kingdom which is in mans conscience imprisoned in flesh and isn't observed by the natural eye Luke 17:20-21.

1 Cor.15:45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit."

If you take this literally being history of two separated bodies of flesh then your in observation mode, and one of those two is a phantom of tradition that can't be observed.

Same concept as the allegory taught in Galatians 4:24-26, the first of the flesh born into the world of matter, also carries the Divine seed from above that is born in man, that seed is in a state of death like a seed that lies fallow until the right time and season comes along for that type of seed.

Even many atheists understand that if they can get Christians to believe Adam was a myth, that the gospel is destroyed.
atheists.org/atheism: "if Adam and Eve and the Talking Snake are myths, then Original Sin is also a myth, right? Well, think about it."

Yet what is sin really? like death it relates a state of mind of the natural man being ignorant of his own Divine inward heritage, religion and theology taken literally help keep man in bondage to the first Adam who represents a state that would be observed as great among men but the least in heaven Matt 11:11, same with the story of Moses who was great but couldn't enter the promised land of the Divine Seed. The teaching of the snake is a myth/metaphoric that teaches a inward journey of the Divine soul/Jonah depicted in dramatic fashion through each culture since time begin for the Divine Seed that falls from heaven and dies in flesh.

Plus there is no Jew, Gentile, Male or Female in Christ because they are mental states of Conscience, trapped in this time lock which is ticking away the on the personality created by this worlds temporal kingdom for Divine children of light , Galatians 4:26.

Loss the tradition and literal interpretation 2Cor 3:6.

 

[6days]

The seed as in one that falls to the ground and dies represent the Divine part of each man played by Jesus who was all spiritual...

Only in your mumbo jumbo new age philosophy.

If you take this literally being history of two separated bodies of flesh then your in observation mode, and one of those two is a phantom of tradition that can't be observed.

Of course we can't observe Adam. We also can't observe Napoleon. But we do have the historical accounts of them.

Yet what is sin really?

Disobedience

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Do you believe the offer ends at death?

"And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence" (Lk.16:22-26).​

Is it perfect goodness to holding back the invitation at a certain point if you are claiming to "love itself"?

The LORD knows that those who turn their eyes away from the light will continue to do that:

"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved" (Jn.3:17-20).​

 

[Selaphiel]

"And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot" (Lk.16:22-26).​

Fine, we have this story, but let us reflect on it. Simply citing a story doesn't really resolve the issue as far as I am concerned. Is this just? Is this what you associate with a person who is not only said to be good and loving, but goodness and love itself? I say no.

The LORD knows that those who turn their eyes away from the light will continue to do that:

"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved" (Jn.3:17-20).​

If God knows that, then they are not really free, are they? Seems to me that is absurd to say that a being knows what a free being X will do or not do for all eternity unless he knows that they cannot. If all my concrete future steps are knowable, then I am not really free. So by this approach, your freedom argument from before crumbles. It also questions the power of God's love. Is his goodness and love not strong enough to eventually win everyone over?

It is God's will to bring about the highest good for all men. The caveat is that man must freely choose Him over themselves. It is the willing surrender of our drive to fulfill and serve ourselves that makes it possible for us to enjoy God's good will throughout the ages. The most obvious reading of scripture demonstrates that we can refuse or consent to His good pleasure. The will of God is not merely that all men come to Him but that all men FREELY choose to do so.

There is no "obvious reading of scripture". Those who claim that tends to do it on the expense of actually seriously and honestly studying the texts and being willing to critically engage with the texts. The texts of scripture themselves are not obvious in pretty much any respect, there are various theologies and opinions in the various works of scripture. And there certainly are passages in scripture that are not very optimistic about the freedom of men to choose God. We hear about people whose hearts have been hardened by God, whose ears and eyes have been closed. We hear about vessels of wrath created for destruction.

Sorry, but appealing to the clear sense of scripture is not very convincing to me. It is not convincing to pretty much anyone who has taken the trouble to study these texts with anything that even resemebles a critical and academic methodology.

Quit blaming God for man failing. Man was made as good as man can be made, but he does not start out with Godly type Love. All mature adults have the best place and situation for obtaining Godly type love, by simply humbly accepting the Creator’s help (charity), but most seem to prefer being macho, accepting the punishment they fully deserve, not willing to surrender to their enemy (God) and thus will not humbly accept charity.

All well and good, but it doesn't really answer the topic. Is there a final cut off for accepting this? If so, why? Why would a being that is goodness and love give up on certain souls for all eternity? Such an act makes the attributes of goodness and love meaningless, many human parents don't even ever give up on their loved ones.

 

[Selaphiel]

I'm not really interested in scripture citations unless you can back it up with reasoning. Proof texting absent reasoning and blind acceptance of isolated text fragments in a collection of scriptures is empty fideism.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I'm not really interested in scripture citations unless you can back it up with reasoning. Proof texting absent reasoning and blind acceptance of isolated text fragments in a collection of scriptures is empty fideism.

OK, two can play that game.

Do you believe the offer ends at death?

What reasoning can you employ to prove that one's existence continues after physical death?

Is it perfect goodness to holding back the invitation at a certain point if you are claiming to "love itself"?

Again, what reasoning can you employ to prove that one's existence continues after physical death?

You want to stack the deck by using what the Christians say about what the Bible reveals and then you forbid Christians to use the same source which you yourself use.

 

[kmoney]

That seems to be the necessary conclusion that one must draw from the doctrine of limited atonement. If the disobedience of one man lead to death and sin for all men, how is the obedience, sacrifice and resurrection of Christ not leading to the restoration and salvation of all men? Or even to the entirety of the cosmos.

That is universalism, I'm quite aware. But when reflecting upon the doctrines of God as the good and the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, universalism seems to be a logical necessity. If the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is correct, that means that nothing whatsoever can be thought to restrict or confine God as he expresses and reveals himself in the act of creation. The consequence of that is the end of creation is the self-disclosing of God. If God is not only one who does good things every now and then, but the good itself, this entails ultimate universal restoration, apokatastasis of creation.

Why? Because if the act of creation leads to the eternal damnation of even one single soul, then the moral price of God's act of self-disclosing in creation is morally bankrupt, and thus he cannot be the Good. If the eternal damnation of a soul was necessary, then the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is false, because then you are claiming that something limits or restricts God's will in the act of creation (act of creation here obviously refering to the entire act of creation from beginning to end, not just some vague cause in the past).

I do not think universalism is susceptible to the common criticisms either. It does not deny evil, but it absolutely refuses to define evil as anything more than privatio boni, a depravation of goodness. Nor does it deny moral responsibility (which is a curious objection anyway when it comes from the faith only camp), but moral responsibility is freed up to be genuinly for the sake of love of God and neighbor, not spiritual gain. What it does entail is an absolute faith in God as the good and as love.

Should add that this is inspired by a lecture by the theologian David Bentley Hart.

Is your use of 'limited atonement' here supposed to include a view that says Christ's sacrifice is available to all but only until their physical death?

I agree with you that extending the offer only until physical death seems somewhat arbitrary and doesn't seem that harmonious with the idea that God is love. However, I think you can take a middle ground between universalism and not allowing any salvation after physical death. The middle ground being that God continues to offer life after death but that people are still free to reject it. So, in theory, it's possible someone would be forever damned by their own choice and universalism is never realized.

Based on the options you're giving I guess I'd say that God is limited by giving his Creation free will.

I agree with your last paragraph about common criticisms of universalism. I think the best argument against it is the lack of scriptural support, nor much support in the history of orthodox Christianity.

One parable that came to mind while thinking about this is the parable of the workers in the vineyard. And I think this could spawn other questions about Romans 5 and in what way exactly Adam's sin affected mankind. Which you and Jerry briefly got into.

 

[6days]

You (Selaphiel)want to stack the deck by using what the Christians say about what the Bible reveals and then you forbid Christians to use the same source which you yourself use.

yes.... It seems odd someone wants to promote a certain theology, but doesn't want people to use scripture against his beliefs.

 

[6days]

Based on the options you're giving I guess I'd say that God is limited by giving his Creation free will.

Sure... I agree.

God is 'limited' by His charater to what is perfect. For Ex. God can not lie.