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

[bling]

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.

We cannot know so we cannot “give up”, but God could know when a person reaches the point at which they will never change, everything possible has been done that could cause that person to accept God’s help, but they will never do it. You could say: “If God puts a gun to their head than they will be willing to accept His help”, but God is offering pure charity of Love and if you do not accept His charity as pure charity, you will not be getting the Charity (Love).

Look at the story of the Rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), here you have at great person cost to God a rich man provided with the very best opportunity to experience pure Godly type Love with Lazarus being tripped over every day. The Rich man never ceases this easy opportunity, so what better opportunity could God provide?

You “assume” that God is at fault in some way because a mature adult has repeatedly refused God’s Charity (Love) and thus would accept it under some other conditions? But God has set up every individual that will reach maturity with the best opportunity for them to accept His charity. God cannot force them to accept it or it would not be Love.

 

[Zeke]

Only in your mumbo jumbo new age philosophy.


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


Disobedience

Nothing new age about the Esoteric interpretation of scripture, the Johnny come lately of the Roman historic version is the new age mumbo jumbo you have swallowed hook line and sinker.

 

[Ktoyou]

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,

creatio ex nihilo to you too:mmph:

 

[Ktoyou]

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.

Nor do i and i have pointed this out many times. What you are espousing as reasoning is not exegesis, rather it is baloney shaded in words many may not know the meaning. This makes you less apt at explaining your reasoning.

This is not a college class, so speak in simple terms about what you believe!

 

[6days]

Nothing new age about the Esoteric interpretation of scripture, the Johnny come lately of the Roman historic version is the new age mumbo jumbo you have swallowed hook line and sinker.

Exegesis interpretation of scripture helps us see how various Bible authors, and even how Christ interpreted and relied on scripture as the plain truth,,,and the absolute authority. Jesus was not a Johnny come lately as He taught about a literal Hell... and a literal human at the beginning of creation. Moses was also not a Johnny come come lately as he recorded the geneaologies from Adam onwards.
Neither were any of the early church fathers Johnny come lately such as .....

Ephrem the Syrian (306-373): "‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,' that is, the substance of the heavens and the substance of the earth. So let no one think that there is anything allegorical in the works of the six days. No one can rightly say that the things that pertain to these days were symbolic."

Theophilus (c. 185): “On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth came from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it.”

Origen (c. 200): “the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that.”

Clement of Alexandria (150-216): "From Adam to the deluge are comprised two thousand one hundred and forty-eight years, four days"

 

[glorydaz]

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.

This is an interesting thread. I don't really believe in universal salvation, but have to admit that I sometimes wonder. How is it that every knee will bow and every tongue confess God? It almost sounds too good to be true. Evil people bowing and confessing God? Why would they if they knew they were hell bound? :think:

Isaiah 45:22-23 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

Romans 14:7-12 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.​

 

[Ben Masada]

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

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

Are you implying that the cross and "resurrection" of Jesus were sinful events? By the way, what was the sin of Adam? I have read about the so called "sin of Adam" but every time I review it, it sounds to me as a Catch-22. You know, the command that must be obeyed by doing the opposite. But never mind about that for now. What was the sin of Adam in your understanding?

 

[bling]

This is an interesting thread. I don't really believe in universal salvation, but have to admit that I sometimes wonder. How is it that every knee will bow and every tongue confess God? It almost sounds too good to be true. Evil people bowing and confessing God? Why would they if they knew they were hell bound? :think:

At some point there is no other one to turn to but God: your money will not help you, your walls are worthless, your army has fallen, and the sword is at your neck, so certainly you will bow your knees and say truly God is God. The problem is if you reach that point you have gone too far to have your “acceptance” be a humble free will choice, since there is no real “choice” (with likely alternatives).

You could say: “If God puts a gun to their head than they will be willing to accept His help”, but God is offering pure charity of Love and if you do not accept His charity as pure charity, you will not be getting the Charity (Love).

 

[kmoney]

Are you implying that the cross and "resurrection" of Jesus were sinful events?

I'm not sure who you are responding to but why do you ask that?

 

[Bright Raven]

No!

John 19:30 Modern English Version (MEV)

30 When Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished.” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.

 

[kmoney]

No!

John 19:30 Modern English Version (MEV)

30 When Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished.” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.

What was finished?

 

[Bright Raven]

What was finished?

http://www.gotquestions.org/it-is-finished.html

 

[oatmeal]

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.

For those who choose to believe God, the cross and resurrection is stronger.

 

[Totton Linnet]

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"?

Your message to the slayer of children is then "Go in peace, it will be well with you"

...I think the wicked will be punished.

 

[kmoney]

Your message to the slayer of children is then "Go in peace, it will be well with you"

...I think the wicked will be punished.

Not really. How does the possibility or repentance and salvation after physical death mean that Sela and/or God is telling murderers to go in peace and it's well with them? How does it invalidate the possibility of any punishment?

 

[kmoney]

Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.


Does the sin of Adam 'touch' every person?
Does the sacrifice of Christ 'touch' every person?

If the answer to Adam is yes and the answer to Christ is no then it would seem on some level Adam's sin was more powerful. Or is there a way in which Christ's sacrifice touches every person but doesn't necessarily lead to universal salvation?

Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

 

[Cons&Spires]

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

A very good question to one who believes in the doctrine of Infused Righteousness (an almost entirely catholic belief)

Sin boldly, but hold God higher, because the gift of the crucifixion is higher than your own sin.

 

[Ben Masada]

Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Does the sin of Adam 'touch' every person?
Does the sacrifice of Christ 'touch' every person?

If the answer to Adam is yes and the answer to Christ is no then it would seem on some level Adam's sin was more powerful. Or is there a way in which Christ's sacrifice touches every person but doesn't necessarily lead to universal salvation?

Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

I don't know what you mean by "the sin of Adam" because, sin by definition is the transgression of the Law and the Law aka the command of God not to eat of the tree of knowledge was obeyed within the concept of the Catch-22. Then, I see no connection between the "sin-not-sin" of Adam and the crucifixion of Jesus.

 

[Ben Masada]

I'm not sure who you are responding to but why do you ask that?

Because, somehow, I see no connection between one thing and the other. Where on earth has any thing that happened in the Garden of Eden with what happened in the Calvary?