-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Of course it does. Eternal existence restored was promised in Gen 3:15. Would you not think that God would know that He will keep His promise to send someone to correct the condemnation to Adam. It is why we can speak of the immortality of the soul, even in the OT. Everyone went to Sheol or Hades.
But that does not negate the fact that the condemnation of death would have been permanent. Otherwise why would it be so important for Christ to be Incarnated, assume our mortal human nature to give it life.
There are many Church Fathers that stated it, but no one wrote a better explanation than Athanasius who was at the Church Council that clarified Christ's humanity and why the Incarnation is central. "On the Incarnation". I believe it is available on the net to read. But if not that you can also check the findings of the Council of Chalcedon that rejected the idea that Christ was not man as we are.
But that does not negate the fact that the condemnation of death would have been permanent. Otherwise why would it be so important for Christ to be Incarnated, assume our mortal human nature to give it life.
There are many Church Fathers that stated it, but no one wrote a better explanation than Athanasius who was at the Church Council that clarified Christ's humanity and why the Incarnation is central. "On the Incarnation". I believe it is available on the net to read. But if not that you can also check the findings of the Council of Chalcedon that rejected the idea that Christ was not man as we are.
Last edited:
First of all...this is a CHRISTIAN forum, to exalt CHRIST only. When man made agendas get introduced, it's like spinning your wheels in mud, getting you nowhere and creating a huge mess! Why not speak of JESUS and not care about what is heresy, or satanic or what is calvinism, etc. Jesus will not ask you about a calvinistic satanic heresy, but HE will ask you "Oh, is that YOUR name I see in the Lamb's book of LIFE? Wasn't my blood good enough for you? What say ye now?
There are a couple of problems, here are the main ones:
Genesis 3:15 is not, in my opinion, a simple statement that mankind will exist eternally (in heaven and in hell) as a result of the atonement. It's commonly read as a prophecy of Christ's victory over the devil in the atonement, but I'm actually not convinced that's entirely what it means - certainly, this verse is not spoken of as fulfilled anywhere in the NT, expect maybe in passing in Romans 16:20. But let's proceed as if it is a prophecy of some sort that foretells Christ's victory over the devil. It still does not specify that the atonement secures eternal existance, simply that Christ triumphs over the devil - it's not even specifically addressing correcting the condemnation on Adam (interesting that it then talks about the judgements immediately after the Protoevangelium). That could potentially mean a lot of things.
What you get out of 3:15 is what you put in. All Christians who take it as a prophecy affirm that Christ triumphs over the devil, but would not necessarily agree that it is specifically saying the fall destroyed all eternal existance for mankind (even in judgement), but was prophecying that Christ would bring back eternal existance (even in judgement). I see the fulfilment of that victory in Revelation 21, when the devil, his followers, and those who still live in their sins are cast into the lake, or the 'second death'. That is the final moment of victory. But it still does not prove what you want it to prove.
The other problem is that you read Genesis 3 (post the fall) as saying man is condemned to non existance , but read other parts of the Hebrew texts that speak of Sheol as saying people exist eternally. If we are saying the atonement applies retrospectively, why does it apply to people in the time of, say, Psalms, but not to Genesis post the fall? It seems if were are consistent we should say that either all people post the fall but before the atonement had eternal existence in some form, or that none of them did. If they all did, why then does God in 3:15 (by your reading) say they don't, and why then did, say, David think they did?
As for Athanasius, I would have preferred you had given a specific citation, but I'm actually not sure how it's relevant anyway. We are not concerned here about Christ's humanity (which I affirm), or why the fact that he was incarnate is crucial (it is). What I'm interested in is where, in the Fathers, is the statement that the atonement specifically and solely secured man's eternal existence in either heaven or hell?
Genesis 3:15 is not, in my opinion, a simple statement that mankind will exist eternally (in heaven and in hell) as a result of the atonement. It's commonly read as a prophecy of Christ's victory over the devil in the atonement, but I'm actually not convinced that's entirely what it means - certainly, this verse is not spoken of as fulfilled anywhere in the NT, expect maybe in passing in Romans 16:20. But let's proceed as if it is a prophecy of some sort that foretells Christ's victory over the devil. It still does not specify that the atonement secures eternal existance, simply that Christ triumphs over the devil - it's not even specifically addressing correcting the condemnation on Adam (interesting that it then talks about the judgements immediately after the Protoevangelium). That could potentially mean a lot of things.
What you get out of 3:15 is what you put in. All Christians who take it as a prophecy affirm that Christ triumphs over the devil, but would not necessarily agree that it is specifically saying the fall destroyed all eternal existance for mankind (even in judgement), but was prophecying that Christ would bring back eternal existance (even in judgement). I see the fulfilment of that victory in Revelation 21, when the devil, his followers, and those who still live in their sins are cast into the lake, or the 'second death'. That is the final moment of victory. But it still does not prove what you want it to prove.
The other problem is that you read Genesis 3 (post the fall) as saying man is condemned to non existance , but read other parts of the Hebrew texts that speak of Sheol as saying people exist eternally. If we are saying the atonement applies retrospectively, why does it apply to people in the time of, say, Psalms, but not to Genesis post the fall? It seems if were are consistent we should say that either all people post the fall but before the atonement had eternal existence in some form, or that none of them did. If they all did, why then does God in 3:15 (by your reading) say they don't, and why then did, say, David think they did?
As for Athanasius, I would have preferred you had given a specific citation, but I'm actually not sure how it's relevant anyway. We are not concerned here about Christ's humanity (which I affirm), or why the fact that he was incarnate is crucial (it is). What I'm interested in is where, in the Fathers, is the statement that the atonement specifically and solely secured man's eternal existence in either heaven or hell?
Why dont you believe Christ died as a penal substitute for you ? (OSAS). Your posts clearly shows you hate the Gospel of Free and Sovereign Grace and deny Christ can keep His people until the consummation of all things .
Christ promised forgiveness (OSAS) and YOU dont accept that therefore you are under the Law and need to repent .
Christ promised forgiveness (OSAS) and YOU dont accept that therefore you are under the Law and need to repent .
Nicki01,
the works of the devil are death and sin. Heb 2:14, I John 3:8. so if Christ defeated death and sin, then He defeated the devil. It also specifically states it is overcoming the condemention through Adam in Rom 5:12 and the solution is life to all men in Rom 5:18. It is again stated in I Cor 15:12-22.
Apparently death means something different in your view. If Christ does not come, what existence does man have in your view?
What is inconsistant in saying that if Christ does not ever come to redeem this world, individual man has no existance after death. This depends on your answer to the above question.
But since scripture tells us Christ will come to reverse that condemnation, then why would not God assume that it is a fact and we have the idea of the immortal soul (Christ's resurrection) and that it exists in Hades for a time until the judgement.
What we know is that the soul is not naturally immortal. We are created beings, both body and soul. Only God is immortal and man and the world become immortal thorough His grace and will. (resurrection of Christ, I Cor 15L:52-54) Death also is not a natural phenonemon but a work of the devil. It is not part of God's creation and exists independently from it, like a disease upon His creation.
it is specifically the Incarnation that means death is overcome to our human nature because Christ assumed that human nature to specifically defeat death. A better book to read is John Romanides, The Ancestral Sin. He takes the Church Fathers of the first two centuries and synthesizes all of the statements regarding the fall of man, creation, creation of man, and the salvation of man from the fall. It also shows how the west under RCC, (Augustine, Anselm and others) departed from scripture and the Patristics understanding of scripture, as well as Protestants in general who basicly adopted the RCC root theologies.
I am interested in your understanding of the existance of man if Christ never defeats death.
the works of the devil are death and sin. Heb 2:14, I John 3:8. so if Christ defeated death and sin, then He defeated the devil. It also specifically states it is overcoming the condemention through Adam in Rom 5:12 and the solution is life to all men in Rom 5:18. It is again stated in I Cor 15:12-22.
Apparently death means something different in your view. If Christ does not come, what existence does man have in your view?
What is inconsistant in saying that if Christ does not ever come to redeem this world, individual man has no existance after death. This depends on your answer to the above question.
But since scripture tells us Christ will come to reverse that condemnation, then why would not God assume that it is a fact and we have the idea of the immortal soul (Christ's resurrection) and that it exists in Hades for a time until the judgement.
What we know is that the soul is not naturally immortal. We are created beings, both body and soul. Only God is immortal and man and the world become immortal thorough His grace and will. (resurrection of Christ, I Cor 15L:52-54) Death also is not a natural phenonemon but a work of the devil. It is not part of God's creation and exists independently from it, like a disease upon His creation.
it is specifically the Incarnation that means death is overcome to our human nature because Christ assumed that human nature to specifically defeat death. A better book to read is John Romanides, The Ancestral Sin. He takes the Church Fathers of the first two centuries and synthesizes all of the statements regarding the fall of man, creation, creation of man, and the salvation of man from the fall. It also shows how the west under RCC, (Augustine, Anselm and others) departed from scripture and the Patristics understanding of scripture, as well as Protestants in general who basicly adopted the RCC root theologies.
I am interested in your understanding of the existance of man if Christ never defeats death.
Pure Calvinism and absolute predestination which you have not shown to even be tenable in scripture without the false suppositions.
Christ did not die a penal substitute for me or anyone else. There is a substitution, but it is Christ taking on our humanity so that He could defeat death, the condemnation all men had through Adam. It has nothing to do with saving someone from hell which is the pen/sub Calvinistic theory. Also Christ did not die for particular men, namely some who were predetermined (predestinated to be saved before the foundations of the earth). He died for all men, gave life to all men so that God and man could again be reunited in an eternal union. Rom 5:18, I Cor 15:12-22,
Tell me if Christ can keep "His own people" why could He not keep Adam?
Christ did not die a penal substitute for me or anyone else. There is a substitution, but it is Christ taking on our humanity so that He could defeat death, the condemnation all men had through Adam. It has nothing to do with saving someone from hell which is the pen/sub Calvinistic theory. Also Christ did not die for particular men, namely some who were predetermined (predestinated to be saved before the foundations of the earth). He died for all men, gave life to all men so that God and man could again be reunited in an eternal union. Rom 5:18, I Cor 15:12-22,
Tell me if Christ can keep "His own people" why could He not keep Adam?
Last edited:
Except there is a second death. If you want we can go into detail on Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15, but the point I'm making is that there is no clear statement in Genesis 3:15 to the effect that the judgement is that mankind ceases to exist after death, and that the atonement in part effects the possibility instead of people going to hell/Sheol/Hades. The more specific problems I'll address next.
All mankind is condemned to hell, with no possibility of eternal life, because all mankind are by nature objects of wrath.
What is inconsistent is that you claim that the integral component of the judgement in Genesis 3 is that man is condemned to non existance after death, but then acknowledge that when the OT speaks of Sheol, it is referring to a place after death in which there is some measure of awareness. So, before anyone was aware of the atonement in Christ, there is an understanding of some sort of post death existance - certainly, it wasn't clearly understood that people just stopped existing.
Perhaps so we can be clear on what you mean - do you believe Adam and Eve ceased to exist after death, or not? Is there anyone who has simply ceased to exist at death, in any shape or form?
As for the the soul not being naturally immortal, it depends entirely on what you mean. The NT, at least, almost always discusses eternal life (immortality) in the context of eternal life in Christ, with God, and never in the context of eternal condemnation. So I don't think living in Sheol/Hell counts as 'immortality' in any shape or form, even though you are still extant - the Bible seems to draw a distinction between existence and life. Death itself is not used interchangeably as 'non existance' (such as in the case of Revelation's 'second death').
But even then, I'm still not what difference this makes to our discussion, because either way, we are both acknowledging the same outcomes for people, we're just disagreeing on semantics and what specifically comes under the rubric of what was accomplished by the 'atonement'.
Yes.
Can you give me some specific citations from the book, so I know what it's actually saying? I'm not entirely sure how original sin specifically is relevant to the discussion, so perhaps a citation or two would help.
As I said, man exists without eternal life if there is no atonement. Man is condemned to hell, to separation and non-communion with God, forever, with no possibility of otherwise.
All mankind is condemned to hell, with no possibility of eternal life, because all mankind are by nature objects of wrath.
What is inconsistent is that you claim that the integral component of the judgement in Genesis 3 is that man is condemned to non existance after death, but then acknowledge that when the OT speaks of Sheol, it is referring to a place after death in which there is some measure of awareness. So, before anyone was aware of the atonement in Christ, there is an understanding of some sort of post death existance - certainly, it wasn't clearly understood that people just stopped existing.
Perhaps so we can be clear on what you mean - do you believe Adam and Eve ceased to exist after death, or not? Is there anyone who has simply ceased to exist at death, in any shape or form?
As for the the soul not being naturally immortal, it depends entirely on what you mean. The NT, at least, almost always discusses eternal life (immortality) in the context of eternal life in Christ, with God, and never in the context of eternal condemnation. So I don't think living in Sheol/Hell counts as 'immortality' in any shape or form, even though you are still extant - the Bible seems to draw a distinction between existence and life. Death itself is not used interchangeably as 'non existance' (such as in the case of Revelation's 'second death').
But even then, I'm still not what difference this makes to our discussion, because either way, we are both acknowledging the same outcomes for people, we're just disagreeing on semantics and what specifically comes under the rubric of what was accomplished by the 'atonement'.
Yes.
Can you give me some specific citations from the book, so I know what it's actually saying? I'm not entirely sure how original sin specifically is relevant to the discussion, so perhaps a citation or two would help.
As I said, man exists without eternal life if there is no atonement. Man is condemned to hell, to separation and non-communion with God, forever, with no possibility of otherwise.
nicko1,
Second death is the eternal spiritual death, or loss of relationship permanently.
That presupposes a definition of death again. Without Christ's redemptive salvation from death, man simply dies, returns to dust as stated in Gen 3:19. Neither the body or soul is naturally immortal, but created. Created from the dust of the earth.
It might be inconsistent based on your understanding of death in the first place.
What is inconsistent is saying that a form of cancer is certain death, but that a cure is found that prevents death from that cancer.
NO and NO. However that is not the goal of the devil. Death is the work of Satan. It was his goal to destroy God's creation. Death is the destruction of God's creation. Ps 103:4 tells it better.
Again, if the soul is immortal naturally, then it existed as God. Which is not taught anywhere in scripture. In the NT is does speak of immortality but it is bestowed upon man, all men because Christ defeated death. I Cor 15:52-54. We are given immortality of both body and soul by grace (Christ) and God's will.
It is immortal only if you believe that Christ did indeed come, Incarnated, and defeated death for creation. It has not been consummated but that was the hope in the OT that Christ would come the first time as the Messiah. We live in the hope that He comes again, triumphant. Second death is not physical, but relational (spiritual).
It is not really sematics, but dogmatics. I don't know specifically what you believe since Protestants are all over the map, but many actually believe God created death, an impossibility, first the giver of life and creating man to be eternal would not create the dissolution of man. Death is actually the absence of life. Another view is that God is actually condemning man to death rather than man being taken by Satan who has the power of death as his prime tool to enslave man.
First it is NOT original Sin which is one of the largest false teachings of the west both RCC and most Protestants. It is why this discussion of atonement comes up. For Calvinists atonement is synonomous with man being declared not guilty of sin and attains eternal life based on predestination. For others it means that Christ provided for man's salvation and only faith effects the atonement. Huge differences.
I could give you citations but the book is so chock full of quotations I would be quoting pages because of the context.
But how does he exist? How do you get man from death to life in order that man can have eternal life or hell? Do you believe Satan exists? Do you believe that death was his domain.
If atonement is ONLY a sacrifice for sin, and is effected by faith, then those in Christ will still perish. I Cor 15:18. Death is man's primary problem. If not defeated, part of the atonement, then everything else is moot. God can have a relationship with man in this life, but there is no next life, no eternity. There is also no new heaven or new earth. Again, no one to occupy either place. It is either both or nothing, Heb 2:9, I John 2:2.
Second death is the eternal spiritual death, or loss of relationship permanently.
That presupposes a definition of death again. Without Christ's redemptive salvation from death, man simply dies, returns to dust as stated in Gen 3:19. Neither the body or soul is naturally immortal, but created. Created from the dust of the earth.
It might be inconsistent based on your understanding of death in the first place.
What is inconsistent is saying that a form of cancer is certain death, but that a cure is found that prevents death from that cancer.
NO and NO. However that is not the goal of the devil. Death is the work of Satan. It was his goal to destroy God's creation. Death is the destruction of God's creation. Ps 103:4 tells it better.
Again, if the soul is immortal naturally, then it existed as God. Which is not taught anywhere in scripture. In the NT is does speak of immortality but it is bestowed upon man, all men because Christ defeated death. I Cor 15:52-54. We are given immortality of both body and soul by grace (Christ) and God's will.
It is immortal only if you believe that Christ did indeed come, Incarnated, and defeated death for creation. It has not been consummated but that was the hope in the OT that Christ would come the first time as the Messiah. We live in the hope that He comes again, triumphant. Second death is not physical, but relational (spiritual).
It is not really sematics, but dogmatics. I don't know specifically what you believe since Protestants are all over the map, but many actually believe God created death, an impossibility, first the giver of life and creating man to be eternal would not create the dissolution of man. Death is actually the absence of life. Another view is that God is actually condemning man to death rather than man being taken by Satan who has the power of death as his prime tool to enslave man.
First it is NOT original Sin which is one of the largest false teachings of the west both RCC and most Protestants. It is why this discussion of atonement comes up. For Calvinists atonement is synonomous with man being declared not guilty of sin and attains eternal life based on predestination. For others it means that Christ provided for man's salvation and only faith effects the atonement. Huge differences.
I could give you citations but the book is so chock full of quotations I would be quoting pages because of the context.
But how does he exist? How do you get man from death to life in order that man can have eternal life or hell? Do you believe Satan exists? Do you believe that death was his domain.
If atonement is ONLY a sacrifice for sin, and is effected by faith, then those in Christ will still perish. I Cor 15:18. Death is man's primary problem. If not defeated, part of the atonement, then everything else is moot. God can have a relationship with man in this life, but there is no next life, no eternity. There is also no new heaven or new earth. Again, no one to occupy either place. It is either both or nothing, Heb 2:9, I John 2:2.
Yes.
...which is itself a presupposition. I can't see how you're pulling a developed idea of contingent immortality from this verse, which is itself meant to be partially poetic. Notice God also says they are currently dust - yet they live, breathe, and commune with God. There's no argument to be made from that text for your position.
Read what I wrote. What I am saying is that it is inconsistent to read Genesis 3 one way, and then read other OT texts another way, for no reason. Your argument is essentially that God is explicitly saying people will die and cease to exist, but not only does this idea not sit easily with other OT conceptions of Sheol, but it has never actually happened to a single person anyway.
So, then we are agreed at least that whatever the difference in our views on the immortality or not of the human 'soul', it actually makes no difference in the outcome for mankind whatsoever. I might disagree with you that the atonement itself is what is responsible for post-death existence, but it makes no practical different in terms of what happens to any given person.
No, it does not follow. Immortality is not the same as eternality to begin with, but ignore the fact that, at least in theory, God could make something that cannot cease to exist without lessening himself or elevating something to his level.
Well, you obviously believe in eternal judgement and eternal life, so you believe it is taught. I also believe any immortality on the part of humans solely comes about because God made it so, not just because it somehow 'happened' apart from him. The difference is I'm not convinced the atonement is the exclusive instrument of that. But again, this still makes no differnence in terms of what actually happens to people.
Yes, Paul is talking of eternal life with God, which you've already distinguished from eternal judgement. I'm interested, do you believe people in hell are also victorious in Christ and are not corrupted?
Not entirely sure what most of this has to do with what I posted. The point of all death is it separates from God's life and prescence. I'm not at all sure that there is truly any 'hope' in eternal judgement. The second death may well be primarily spiritual, but I'm not sure that makes it any 'better'.
But we're not even at the point of talking about guilt or anything along those lines. FWIW, I don't honestly see that much difference between EO and other views of original/ancestral sin. The only difference to me is that EO emphasises individual sin, rather than simply inheriting the debt of the sin from the previous generation, but the likes of Calvin certainly don't say that people are not culpable for their own sin, and judged for their own sin. I don't honestly see an appreciable difference. Still don't see what this has to do with contingent immortality.
He exists because he's made in the image of God, with his breath, alone of creation. The judgement of death does not necessarily entail non existance after death - it just means that man experiences death. I believe Satan exists. I don't believe death is his domain, because he doesn't truly have a 'domain'. He's just out to wreck creation, and will come under God's final judgement.
No, I think the atonement is not just a sacrifice for sin, because the atonement is twinned with the resurrection. You can't seperate the two. But it is true that those in Christ will still die, because all men are destined to die once, but will only suffer one death. So death's sting is cut out - it will not win over those who are in Christ.
As a side note, I don't think a lack of atonement would mean no new heaven or earth. There's no particular reason God could not just nuke everything and start again. He did it all once out of nothing. The difference would be no redemption from this creation.
But yes, the resurrection is one secures our own resurrection.
...which is itself a presupposition. I can't see how you're pulling a developed idea of contingent immortality from this verse, which is itself meant to be partially poetic. Notice God also says they are currently dust - yet they live, breathe, and commune with God. There's no argument to be made from that text for your position.
Read what I wrote. What I am saying is that it is inconsistent to read Genesis 3 one way, and then read other OT texts another way, for no reason. Your argument is essentially that God is explicitly saying people will die and cease to exist, but not only does this idea not sit easily with other OT conceptions of Sheol, but it has never actually happened to a single person anyway.
So, then we are agreed at least that whatever the difference in our views on the immortality or not of the human 'soul', it actually makes no difference in the outcome for mankind whatsoever. I might disagree with you that the atonement itself is what is responsible for post-death existence, but it makes no practical different in terms of what happens to any given person.
No, it does not follow. Immortality is not the same as eternality to begin with, but ignore the fact that, at least in theory, God could make something that cannot cease to exist without lessening himself or elevating something to his level.
Well, you obviously believe in eternal judgement and eternal life, so you believe it is taught. I also believe any immortality on the part of humans solely comes about because God made it so, not just because it somehow 'happened' apart from him. The difference is I'm not convinced the atonement is the exclusive instrument of that. But again, this still makes no differnence in terms of what actually happens to people.
Yes, Paul is talking of eternal life with God, which you've already distinguished from eternal judgement. I'm interested, do you believe people in hell are also victorious in Christ and are not corrupted?
Not entirely sure what most of this has to do with what I posted. The point of all death is it separates from God's life and prescence. I'm not at all sure that there is truly any 'hope' in eternal judgement. The second death may well be primarily spiritual, but I'm not sure that makes it any 'better'.
But we're not even at the point of talking about guilt or anything along those lines. FWIW, I don't honestly see that much difference between EO and other views of original/ancestral sin. The only difference to me is that EO emphasises individual sin, rather than simply inheriting the debt of the sin from the previous generation, but the likes of Calvin certainly don't say that people are not culpable for their own sin, and judged for their own sin. I don't honestly see an appreciable difference. Still don't see what this has to do with contingent immortality.
He exists because he's made in the image of God, with his breath, alone of creation. The judgement of death does not necessarily entail non existance after death - it just means that man experiences death. I believe Satan exists. I don't believe death is his domain, because he doesn't truly have a 'domain'. He's just out to wreck creation, and will come under God's final judgement.
No, I think the atonement is not just a sacrifice for sin, because the atonement is twinned with the resurrection. You can't seperate the two. But it is true that those in Christ will still die, because all men are destined to die once, but will only suffer one death. So death's sting is cut out - it will not win over those who are in Christ.
As a side note, I don't think a lack of atonement would mean no new heaven or earth. There's no particular reason God could not just nuke everything and start again. He did it all once out of nothing. The difference would be no redemption from this creation.
But yes, the resurrection is one secures our own resurrection.
Nicko1,
Yes, it is a supposition, but one based on the rest of scripture. Let's leave Christ's redemption aside for a moment.
Death is a process. Corruption, decay leads to death. We have a biological existence now in that we breathe, a gift from God also. But we are mortal beings. We live is a state of death. We need to kill everything in order to maintain that biological existence. Life as scripture uses it is immortality. It was the purpose of God that man attain immortality through love and obedience. Adam was not created a perfected human being but was created to grow, to mature to acquire immortality. Which is why the two trees are in the Garden. Mortality and immortality. Adam chose mortality on the deception of Satan who is the originator of death. Adam did not die biologically immediately, but eventually succumbed to death. An unnatural circumstance since God created man to be eternal and immortal with Him.
I don't see the inconsistancy because the rest of scripture supports it. If death is not an issue in creation, then Christ is not needed to bring life back to this creation. If death is natural and God created the world to be dissolved then you have a point.
You're making the assumption, I believe, that death is of God in the first place. You argument leaves out Satan whose intention was to destroy God's creation through death.
There is an underlying thread of this war between God and Satan all through Scripture. You already stated that in Gen 3:15. Death was brought to this world by Satan and through man's nature. Man became mortal. God in His wisdom knew this would happen and had planned on Christ to be the agent by which death and Satan would be defeated. He would be Incarnated, become man, bear our human nature to raise it to life. Christ comes into this world, according to God's timetable. The Church Fathers have stated that God deceived Satan twice, once in the fact that the Holy Spirit Incarnated Christ with Mary. Christ became man but not by the normal generation. Then when Satan realized that Christ was also God, we have the temptations of Christ, same as with Adam. When Christ was killed, Satan seemed to have victory in hand again. But alas, Christ is risen and risen with man's nature, thus defeating death permanently. The only thing Satan has left is to continue to decieve people away from Christ. He is still waging the war, but will only win battles in decieving man, but has already lost the war. When Christ comes again it is to consummate the victory over death which was His resurrection.
Which is correct because we are not God and even if we had no knowledge of God (no revelation) according to some it would happen anyway. But the fact is, a correct understanding of who God is, why man was created, what He is being saved from and why is of utmost importance. Differing views on any of these leads to false conceptions of who God is, who Christ is and what was actually accomplished and why.
Just to give you an example. The whole growth of Original Sin, later tied into Satisfaction theory of atonement, then pen/sub added, makes a direct denial of who Christ is, denies the Incarnation, denies the original intent of God creating man.
Or, Christ is not saving man from hell. There is no such thing as instant "salvation" by satisfaction and faith in perpetuity in this life with nothing else being valid for man, except gain some rewards.
Adam would have been already perfected as a human being. Adam would have been incapable of sinning. Unless you think that when we are in eternity, being immortal we will still be able to sin, disobey God? So, by your statement, man does have the option to cease to exist even as an immortal being?
What I meant is that the natural immortality of the soul or man is not taught in scripture. And I have already stated that because of the fall, Christ was needed to fulfill man's vocation of attaining immortality. So, it is by Christ or by grace, however you wish to state it.
I Cor 15 is the chapter that discusses the purpose of Christ's Incarnation and resurrection. Vs 12-22 are quite emphatic that the resurrection and granting life to all men is the most essential incredient of the atonement. Faith is worthless in granting life, as vs 18 states. Then it is repeated in vs 52:54.
yes, I Cor 15:52-54 is all men are made immortal and incorrupible. Christ really and surely defeated death and sin. The ONLY thing that is relevant for us is our relationship which was again made possible. Man in hell is not going to die, being mortal, or be suseptible to corruption. It is eternal and immortal. Sin does not exist, they will have no commuion with God because they rejected that communion with God in this life. They rejected God's call to repentance and to be healed and walking in the Spirit, being molded into the likeness of Christ.
I have already shown just how the differences play out in how people see salvation. Respective of Calvinists, they are a confused lot respective of salvation. You say they teach man's liable for sin, primarily because scripture is so strong on that issue. But theologically it is impossible for man to have any responsibility in the Calvinist view. If God selects certain one's to be saved, has some special regeneration to be aware of God so that it is irresistable and simple faith saves one in perpetuity is one side. For the other side, God did not select to salvation, does not regenerate them, and because of the predestination concept, they cannot be responsible for a state of being that is decreed by God. Which is why the whole Calvinistic system is so convulted with inherent contradictions with scripture.
which does not answer the question. What is death you have not answered. Why does man experience death? Was it the purpose of God that man experience death? So, you do not believe Heb 2:14 which says death is the work of Satan?
Scripture says we will still die once to rid this body of sin. Our sin originates in the flesh, our mortal nature which is confirmed in I Cor 15:56. Which is why Paul has this explanation of sowing in corruptibility and being raised in incorruptibility. Death is cut out for those in hell as well. Which is why or how they can suffer the second death, the spiritual death.
He did just that, start again. Several early Church Fathers used the term, recapitulation regarding Christ's atonement. Christ recreated man and the world. The consumation occurs at His second coming.
I'm sure God could have used a different method, but the one revealed to us is that Christ is the means of God correcting the fall of man and creation to the wiles and works of the devil. II Cor 5:18-19, Rom 3:24, Col 1:20. Why would God nuke everything when His creation was good. Satan enticed man to sin and took him and the world captive through death. Purge death and sin, and God's creation is back to the original state.
Yes, it is a supposition, but one based on the rest of scripture. Let's leave Christ's redemption aside for a moment.
Death is a process. Corruption, decay leads to death. We have a biological existence now in that we breathe, a gift from God also. But we are mortal beings. We live is a state of death. We need to kill everything in order to maintain that biological existence. Life as scripture uses it is immortality. It was the purpose of God that man attain immortality through love and obedience. Adam was not created a perfected human being but was created to grow, to mature to acquire immortality. Which is why the two trees are in the Garden. Mortality and immortality. Adam chose mortality on the deception of Satan who is the originator of death. Adam did not die biologically immediately, but eventually succumbed to death. An unnatural circumstance since God created man to be eternal and immortal with Him.
I don't see the inconsistancy because the rest of scripture supports it. If death is not an issue in creation, then Christ is not needed to bring life back to this creation. If death is natural and God created the world to be dissolved then you have a point.
You're making the assumption, I believe, that death is of God in the first place. You argument leaves out Satan whose intention was to destroy God's creation through death.
There is an underlying thread of this war between God and Satan all through Scripture. You already stated that in Gen 3:15. Death was brought to this world by Satan and through man's nature. Man became mortal. God in His wisdom knew this would happen and had planned on Christ to be the agent by which death and Satan would be defeated. He would be Incarnated, become man, bear our human nature to raise it to life. Christ comes into this world, according to God's timetable. The Church Fathers have stated that God deceived Satan twice, once in the fact that the Holy Spirit Incarnated Christ with Mary. Christ became man but not by the normal generation. Then when Satan realized that Christ was also God, we have the temptations of Christ, same as with Adam. When Christ was killed, Satan seemed to have victory in hand again. But alas, Christ is risen and risen with man's nature, thus defeating death permanently. The only thing Satan has left is to continue to decieve people away from Christ. He is still waging the war, but will only win battles in decieving man, but has already lost the war. When Christ comes again it is to consummate the victory over death which was His resurrection.
Which is correct because we are not God and even if we had no knowledge of God (no revelation) according to some it would happen anyway. But the fact is, a correct understanding of who God is, why man was created, what He is being saved from and why is of utmost importance. Differing views on any of these leads to false conceptions of who God is, who Christ is and what was actually accomplished and why.
Just to give you an example. The whole growth of Original Sin, later tied into Satisfaction theory of atonement, then pen/sub added, makes a direct denial of who Christ is, denies the Incarnation, denies the original intent of God creating man.
Or, Christ is not saving man from hell. There is no such thing as instant "salvation" by satisfaction and faith in perpetuity in this life with nothing else being valid for man, except gain some rewards.
Adam would have been already perfected as a human being. Adam would have been incapable of sinning. Unless you think that when we are in eternity, being immortal we will still be able to sin, disobey God? So, by your statement, man does have the option to cease to exist even as an immortal being?
What I meant is that the natural immortality of the soul or man is not taught in scripture. And I have already stated that because of the fall, Christ was needed to fulfill man's vocation of attaining immortality. So, it is by Christ or by grace, however you wish to state it.
I Cor 15 is the chapter that discusses the purpose of Christ's Incarnation and resurrection. Vs 12-22 are quite emphatic that the resurrection and granting life to all men is the most essential incredient of the atonement. Faith is worthless in granting life, as vs 18 states. Then it is repeated in vs 52:54.
yes, I Cor 15:52-54 is all men are made immortal and incorrupible. Christ really and surely defeated death and sin. The ONLY thing that is relevant for us is our relationship which was again made possible. Man in hell is not going to die, being mortal, or be suseptible to corruption. It is eternal and immortal. Sin does not exist, they will have no commuion with God because they rejected that communion with God in this life. They rejected God's call to repentance and to be healed and walking in the Spirit, being molded into the likeness of Christ.
I have already shown just how the differences play out in how people see salvation. Respective of Calvinists, they are a confused lot respective of salvation. You say they teach man's liable for sin, primarily because scripture is so strong on that issue. But theologically it is impossible for man to have any responsibility in the Calvinist view. If God selects certain one's to be saved, has some special regeneration to be aware of God so that it is irresistable and simple faith saves one in perpetuity is one side. For the other side, God did not select to salvation, does not regenerate them, and because of the predestination concept, they cannot be responsible for a state of being that is decreed by God. Which is why the whole Calvinistic system is so convulted with inherent contradictions with scripture.
which does not answer the question. What is death you have not answered. Why does man experience death? Was it the purpose of God that man experience death? So, you do not believe Heb 2:14 which says death is the work of Satan?
Scripture says we will still die once to rid this body of sin. Our sin originates in the flesh, our mortal nature which is confirmed in I Cor 15:56. Which is why Paul has this explanation of sowing in corruptibility and being raised in incorruptibility. Death is cut out for those in hell as well. Which is why or how they can suffer the second death, the spiritual death.
He did just that, start again. Several early Church Fathers used the term, recapitulation regarding Christ's atonement. Christ recreated man and the world. The consumation occurs at His second coming.
I'm sure God could have used a different method, but the one revealed to us is that Christ is the means of God correcting the fall of man and creation to the wiles and works of the devil. II Cor 5:18-19, Rom 3:24, Col 1:20. Why would God nuke everything when His creation was good. Satan enticed man to sin and took him and the world captive through death. Purge death and sin, and God's creation is back to the original state.
F
PREDESTINATION--- Ephesians 1:5 & 11, Romans 8:29 & 30. I ask you this question. In John 6:39, Who were those that God gave to Jesus? Does the verse say that Jesus would not lose even one of those that he died for? If he died for all mankind, would not all mankind be saved eternally? Which way would this verse harmonize with the other scriptures better; a) God died for all mankind, and all mankind will be saved eternally, or b) Jesus died only for those that God gave him and they will all live with him in heaven?
Yes, all men are saved eternally. Is not hell eternal, or do you hold to either annihilation or Universalism where they will eventually be saved, meaning having eternal life (with Christ).
Other texts you can use for universal redemption is Rom 5:18, I Cor 15:12-22, 52-54, Heb 2:9, Heb 2:14-17, Rom 11:32,
Redemption of the world, II Cor 518-19, Rom 3:24, Col 1:20. Also Christ is the Savior of the world, John 4:42, I John 4:14.
The things that were given to Him is found in Col 1:20 where it also states He redeemed everything.
Vs 40 is your text of delineation, those that see and believe will be raised and have everlasting life, or as Rom 6:23, states eternal life. In scripture salvation does not mean eternal life. Salvation is what Christ did by His Incarnation, death and resurrection. Eternal life is relational, our relationship with Him which is a life long journey to inherit that eternal life.
Unless Christ reverses the fall, there is no possibility of eternal existence, heaven or hell. Christ defeats death and sin, the works of the devil. Can be summed in two verses. Heb 2:9, I John 2:2. or the fact they are the works of the devil, Heb 2:14, I John 3:8.
Other texts you can use for universal redemption is Rom 5:18, I Cor 15:12-22, 52-54, Heb 2:9, Heb 2:14-17, Rom 11:32,
Redemption of the world, II Cor 518-19, Rom 3:24, Col 1:20. Also Christ is the Savior of the world, John 4:42, I John 4:14.
The things that were given to Him is found in Col 1:20 where it also states He redeemed everything.
Vs 40 is your text of delineation, those that see and believe will be raised and have everlasting life, or as Rom 6:23, states eternal life. In scripture salvation does not mean eternal life. Salvation is what Christ did by His Incarnation, death and resurrection. Eternal life is relational, our relationship with Him which is a life long journey to inherit that eternal life.
Unless Christ reverses the fall, there is no possibility of eternal existence, heaven or hell. Christ defeats death and sin, the works of the devil. Can be summed in two verses. Heb 2:9, I John 2:2. or the fact they are the works of the devil, Heb 2:14, I John 3:8.
Maybe some of the confusion arrives at the word; Elect.
Jesus did die to take away the sins of the world. However, Jesus also said those who are his sheep will know his voice and follow him.
We see that while Jesus died for the sins of the world, his good news does not resonate as truth to all people of the world.
Jesus did die to take away the sins of the world. However, Jesus also said those who are his sheep will know his voice and follow him.
We see that while Jesus died for the sins of the world, his good news does not resonate as truth to all people of the world.
All those texts have already been explained. Your problem is trying to impose a man made theory upon scripture which is why nothing aligns with scripture.
A limited atonement is an impossibility given the Incarnation of Christ. Limited atonement denies the Incarnation and consequently most of salvation. It denies the fall of man as scripture explains it. It denies the salvation from the fall, it denies that man will ever have an eternal existence, thus denies the resurrection of all men in the last day.
Your base doctrine, predestination, as understood by all nuances of the Reformed view is not found it scripture. Calvin adopted it from Augustine who incorporated some of his pagan Manichean/Gnostic views into Christianity, including Original Sin theory. It is a very systematic philosophical theory but has noting to do with scripture, accept adopting some proof texts that use the word they need to fit the theory.
God did not decree "eternal life" for some and benignly condemned the rest to hell. Your view does not even, per scripture have a hell to which He supposedly condemns most of His creation.
You are correct on one thing. My unbelief of Calvinism is permanent.
A limited atonement is an impossibility given the Incarnation of Christ. Limited atonement denies the Incarnation and consequently most of salvation. It denies the fall of man as scripture explains it. It denies the salvation from the fall, it denies that man will ever have an eternal existence, thus denies the resurrection of all men in the last day.
Your base doctrine, predestination, as understood by all nuances of the Reformed view is not found it scripture. Calvin adopted it from Augustine who incorporated some of his pagan Manichean/Gnostic views into Christianity, including Original Sin theory. It is a very systematic philosophical theory but has noting to do with scripture, accept adopting some proof texts that use the word they need to fit the theory.
God did not decree "eternal life" for some and benignly condemned the rest to hell. Your view does not even, per scripture have a hell to which He supposedly condemns most of His creation.
You are correct on one thing. My unbelief of Calvinism is permanent.
Sorry you hate the gospel. I hope it is the Will of God to save you from your unbelief
http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/109950-predestination.html