ORIGINAL SIN and UNIVERSALISM

[Chrissie]

My only short response is, yes, we are given the mind of Christ through an indwelling of the Holy Spirit; without which we reside in Adam (in a flesh that is spiritually discerned and depraved). Moreover, Paul infers we cannot comprehend the judgments of God beyond what He has revealed to us (see Rom. 11:33-34).

Did I say otherwise? Or is this just an inference to what you perceive as my "obvious" LACK of the Holy Spirit since I do not agree with you?

Without spiritual regeneration we are just creatures in the eyes of God. Outside of faith nothing is pleasing to God (since it's impossible for us to achieve the righteousness and holiness of God). At any rate I doubt this discourse will go anywhere, so good luck in your quest to figure out God? As for me I'll simply accept what He tells me & not question my maker.

Figure out God? I thought we were supposed to seek to KNOW GOD?

1Jo 4:7-8 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

I know what love is and I know that love never fails. I know that God did not command us to love and forgive our enemies despite the fact that will torment His for all eternity. Or annihilate them, as the case may be according to some.

I have no doubt that the God that I know is sovereign and works all things according to the counsel of His own will and I know that His will is for ALL MEN to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. I know what He has said and therefore what He will do. All glory and praise belongs to Him because without Him we can do nothing.

[bridgeforsale]

Did I say otherwise? Or is this just an inference to what you perceive as my "obvious" LACK of the Holy Spirit since I do not agree with you?

of course that must be it???

Figure out God? I thought we were supposed to seek to KNOW GOD?

1Jo 4:7-8 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

I know what love is and I know that love never fails. I know that God did not command us to love and forgive our enemies despite the fact that will torment His for all eternity. Or annihilate them, as the case may be according to some.

I have no doubt that the God that I know is sovereign and works all things according to the counsel of His own will and I know that His will is for ALL MEN to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. I know what He has said and therefore what He will do. All glory and praise belongs to Him because without Him we can do nothing.

knowing God and understanding His judgments are two different things, as Paul explains:

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
"Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?" (Rom. 11:33-34).

It's important to read the whole bible ... not just the dozen or so passages you like

[B21C9L15]

…it's true that all who are in Adam share in Adam's sin and guilt just as all who are in Christ share in Christ's righteousness and atonement.

No, that wasn’t Paul’s main point.

If it's not fair for us to share in Adam's guilt, then neither is it fair for us to share in Christ's righteousness

.

That is exactly the problem! Good to hear from your own self how unjust your doctrine is.

Paul’s point is to explain the real reason why are we condemned and how are we saved. And the perfect reason is because of our possession of Adamic nature, or of Christ’s image, the image of God. And part of what is being explained is about the mystery of sin. Having and Adamic nature would imply that sin is imputed in us, while in having Christ image, sin will not be imputed in us anymore. Thus in one single offence we are already condemned if we possess the Adamic nature, while in possessing Christ image, though we still commit many offences we are still justified. It is the Adamic nature that condemned us in one sin, while it is Christ’s image in us that will atone us of our sins. Without the “image of Christ” in us our sin will not be atoned. Christ’s atonement of our sins in the cross is a figurative demonstration of God’s power of salvation. It does not in anyway meant that that was that which saved us, but what is being demonstrated is. We come to understand salvation not merely basing on sin.

And, as you note, Paul also talks about how we all sin. So even if we didn't share in Adam's sin, we'd still be condemned on the basis of our own personal sin nature and the particular sins which we commit. So what you're saying about Romans 3:23 and Galatians 3:13 does not contradict what I'm saying about Romans 5. The two play together very nicely. Both/and.

You admitted the unfairness of your view why still have the nerve to say that your view is not affected? What is unfair does not in any way becomes right.

Federal theology only serves as a demonstration of the salvation of God, it is not the very thing itself. The problem with federal theology is the unfairness you admitted. But that problem will be resolved when you really come to understand the words of Paul: “Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?”

I believe that what you are missing to understand is that Adam and Christ are used as allegories, just like Jacob and Esau. You will also read how Paul describe the natural man and spiritual man in 1Cor 15:45-49, which the second Adam refers to Christ, “the Lord from heaven.” So through the “natural man” all is condemned, while through the “spiritual man” we are glorified.

In fact, the whole Israel is an allegory of the kingdom of God; the whole make up, the history, and its laws, are not accindental, they are all presdestined occurrences to demonstrate the Godhead. I meant predestine to mean somebody made these things to be.

[Chrissie]

of course that must be it???



knowing God and understanding His judgments are two different things, as Paul explains:

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
"Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?" (Rom. 11:33-34).

It's important to read the whole bible ... not just the dozen or so passages you like

If it makes you feel better to think that I am only familiar with a few scant verses of scripture, then by all means - bask in your own self-delusion.

[RBerman]

Paul’s point is to explain the real reason why are we condemned and how are we saved. And the perfect reason is because of our possession of Adamic nature, or of Christ’s image, the image of God. And part of what is being explained is about the mystery of sin. Having and Adamic nature would imply that sin is imputed in us, while in having Christ image, sin will not be imputed in us anymore. Thus in one single offence we are already condemned if we possess the Adamic nature, while in possessing Christ image, though we still commit many offences we are still justified. It is the Adamic nature that condemned us in one sin, while it is Christ’s image in us that will atone us of our sins. Without the “image of Christ” in us our sin will not be atoned. Christ’s atonement of our sins in the cross is a figurative demonstration of God’s power of salvation. It does not in anyway meant that that was that which saved us, but what is being demonstrated is. We come to understand salvation not merely basing on sin.

I agree that Paul is speaking of us possessing Adam's nature or Christ's nature. But his language refers to the historical people Adam and Christ. They really existed, and we are "in" one or the other of them.

I believe that what you are missing to understand is that Adam and Christ are used as allegories, just like Jacob and Esau. You will also read how Paul describe the natural man and spiritual man in 1Cor 15:45-49, which the second Adam refers to Christ, “the Lord from heaven.” So through the “natural man” all is condemned, while through the “spiritual man” we are glorified.

Jacob and Esau are not just allegories in Romans 9, though. Paul talks about what really happened to them (election to salvation for Jacob, election to damnation for Esau) as an illustration of the choice God makes for each man.

In fact, the whole Israel is an allegory of the kingdom of God; the whole make up, the history, and its laws, are not accindental, they are all presdestined occurrences to demonstrate the Godhead. I meant predestine to mean somebody made these things to be.

"Allegory" again is not a good word to describe something that really happened. The standard terminology is that Israel is a type of Christ, meaning that something about Israel presages some aspect of what Christ is like. There are lots of types of Christ in the OT. Noah's ark, King David, etc.

[RBerman]

Ants are not rational beings.

That's true but not relevant to my point that we're not qualified to judge God's choices, or often even to understand the "why."

Where does the word "true" even appear in the verse?

The phrase "true Israel" does not appear in Romans 9-11, though Paul does call the church "the true circumcision" in Philippians 3:3 and "the Israel of God" in Galatians 6:16.

I grew up Mormon but was inactive most of my adult life. I also attended a Baptist church growing up (as I spent alot of time with my grandparents who were Baptist) and I attended a Baptist church for awhile at the beginning of my studies after seeing The Passion. Currently I do not attend any organized church. I fellowhip with a few others who believe in UR (few and far between and you might know). But then there is always on-line fellowship (as I do consider it such and have been greatly blessed by it).

Would it be safe to say that you haven't spent large amounts of your life in the fellowship of what I would consider orthodox Christians? (Mormons don't count in my book, as you might have guessed.) As for me, I have studied the Bible since I was a kid growing up in church. I was a dyed-in-the-wool Arminian until high school, when I became convinced that the Bible taught Calvinism. I shed my dispensationalist understanding in favor of Covenant Theology during college. I don't think God has designed us to understand Scripture properly as "lone rangers." So many cults have started that way. But I'm actually encouraged by your story, since I consider universalism an improvement over Mormonism.

How do you understand verses that talk about a future judgment for those who have already died? If death is the judgment and has already occured, what do they mean?

2 Peter 2:4,9

if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment... then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment...

[Chrissie]

I agree that Paul is speaking of us possessing Adam's nature or Christ's nature. But his language refers to the historical people Adam and Christ. They really existed, and we are "in" one or the other of them.

That is true, but we are all summed up into both. First the natural (the first Adam) THEN the spiritual (the Last Adam). All who did "in Adam" shall be made alive "in Christ". Everyone who has born the image of the earthly shall bear the image of the heavenly and all that comes with that - not just a spiritual body, but immortality and incorruption and LIFE; there will be no more "death". The destruction of death is not the destruction of just natural death, but spiritual death (that which separates us from God).

Jacob and Esau are not just allegories in Romans 9, though. Paul talks about what really happened to them (election to salvation for Jacob, election to damnation for Esau) as an illustration of the choice God makes for each man.

True, but that election and that damnation is relevant to THIS WORLD, to the ages that we now live in. TO TIME, not eternity. And is allegorical in the same way that Cain and Seth and Isaac and Ishmael (and others) are allegorical - in relations to FIRST the natural, THEN the spiritual. By law it was the FIRST born son who was to receive the father's blessing, but God always blesses the SECOND born. Why?

"Allegory" again is not a good word to describe something that really happened. The standard terminology is that Israel is a type of Christ, meaning that something about Israel presages some aspect of what Christ is like. There are lots of types of Christ in the OT. Noah's ark, King David, etc.

Something can be both a type or figure and an allegory. Even Paul used the tern "allegory" when speaking of Isaac and Ishmael and those of the bond woman vs those of the free, that which came by the flesh and that which came by the promise. Yet, seeing it as an allegory doesn't preclude one from also seeing that Ishmael is a type or figure of the "first born" (natural) while Isaac is a type or figure of the "second born" (spiritual).

[Chrissie]

That's true but not relevant to my point that we're not qualified to judge God's choices, or often even to understand the "why."

Maybe not as carnally minded men, but we are told to add to our faith and grow in our understanding and to search out the deep things of God that they might be made known to us. Christ said that the spirit of Truth will lead us into all truth. Are you saying it's not possible to know those things that are revealed to us by God? Was God just joking when He said "get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding"? We can never understand the mysteries that are to be revealed to those who diligently seek and search out that which God has hidden?

The phrase "true Israel" does not appear in Romans 9-11, though Paul does call the church "the true circumcision" in Philippians 3:3 and "the Israel of God" in Galatians 6:16.

Ok, fine. Let's approach it that way then and say that the "true" circumcision if of the heart, rather than the flesh. How did Paul define the "true" Israel? Is it not that which is according to the spirit/promise (the seed of Christ) and not the seed of Abraham according to the flesh?

You say this doesn't include all men, but I say that Paul said that it does. That that which was according to the flesh has been "cast off" (blinded) so that salvation could be brought to the Gentiles and Paul speaks of the fulness of both and even equates it to the reconciliation of the world. You seem to want to be able to say that the world doesn't really mean the world and that any reference to their "fulness" is "limited" to just the "total" number who are "actually" saved - ignoring completely the will of God stated in 1 Tim 2:4 which you admit appears to teach universal salvation. But because you can't seem to find any others that do (even though they are all over the place ) you cannot believe that all men are saved.

Would it be safe to say that you haven't spent large amounts of your life in the fellowship of what I would consider orthodox Christians? (Mormons don't count in my book, as you might have guessed.) As for me, I have studied the Bible since I was a kid growing up in church. I was a dyed-in-the-wool Arminian until high school, when I became convinced that the Bible taught Calvinism. I shed my dispensationalist understanding in favor of Covenant Theology during college. I don't think God has designed us to understand Scripture properly as "lone rangers." So many cults have started that way. But I'm actually encouraged by your story, since I consider universalism an improvement over Mormonism.

I don't get into all the labels, I don't even know what they mean most of the time and a new one seems to pop up about every other week of so. It's really disheartening to me that people feel the need to put others in a box that they can put "a name" on so that they can decide by "the name" on the box (that they were the ones to give it, anyway, and usually incorrectly) whether or not to hate, condemn or even fellowship with that person. I have heard people who have accused me of denying the Trinity describe the Trinity as 3 separate and distinct beings who govern together in unison as a committee - sort of like the Supreme Courts. That sounds VERY Mormon to me but I was the one accused of showing my Mormon colors because I said that there was ONE GOD and that even according the doctrine of the trinity the "three persons" of God are ONE BEING. But I was called the heretic. GO FIGURE!! I can only assume that people will hold whatever they can over you and many have held Mormonism over me even though I have long since left and for the most part probably didn't even know as much as I should have about it even while I was there. And maybe that is because the priesthood belongs to the men and the women are not taught everything that the men are. I don't know. But enough rambling on that. Thanks for not belittling me because I came out of Mormonism. And I certainly hope that those who believe it to be "a cult" do not think that one who comes out of it is more likely to fall for some other "cult". I got tired of being told what to believe, especially when I couldn't come to terms with what it was I supposed to be professing my faith in. So perhaps I was never a "true" Mormon to begin with. I began questioning things at the age of 11 (as far back as I can recall anyway) and not just with Mormonism (or even primarily with Mormonism), but with the scriptures. I never could understand how everyone said the Pharaoh has a choice and hardened his own heart when the scriptures clearly said that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Even then I was questioning why God hardens some and has mercy of some - at HIS choosing, when we are supposedly supposed to choose for ourselves and that it is "our choice" that seals out "eternal" fate.

I have been praying since I was 11 years old, sometimes locked in the bathroom on my knees in tears for God to reveal Himself and the truth to me. It took me almost 30 years to get an answer that I knew was from God. First came the revelation that God does exist and that Jesus Christ is who the Bible says that He is - and not who Mormons claim that He is. That came after seeing The Passion of the Christ. Then 6 months later after day in and day out of studying - sometimes 12 hours a day in the scriptures - I came to see Universal Salvation and walked away from all the "hell-fire and brimstone" and "rapture" and "end-times" stuff that for awhile I was engrossed in and trying to understand.

OK, rambling again.

How do you understand verses that talk about a future judgment for those who have already died? If death is the judgment and has already occured, what do they mean?

2 Peter 2:4,9

if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment... then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment...

Because I view most things as IS, WAS and WILL BE. Man has been being judged since the foundation of the world, as Christ was crucified from the foundation of the world. Those who have not "been" judged or who are not "being" judged "will be" judged.

The wrath of God abides (and always has) on those who believe not. We only escape that wrath when we pass from death unto life. But because not all have passed from death unto life we cannot speak of "the resurrection of the dead" as if it is PAST. It is NOT PAST, but neither is it merely future. Jesus Christ IS the resurrection and the life.

Many claim that Paul said that he HAD NOT attained unto the resurrection of the dead, but that is not what Paul said. He said that He COUNTED IT NOT and therefore strove for it NOT AS THOUGH he had already attained? And tells us to "walk by the same rule"? Why? Well, for starters we are to endue to the end, not become complacent and puffed up (or whatever) and end up falling from grace. We are also not to bear witness OF OURSELVES. But Paul certainly did bear witness of others who were "already perfect" and "whose names are written in the lamb's book of life".

Paul was out preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, saying BE YE RECONCILED TO GOD and if ye have not yet been reconciled to God (though He has already been reconciled to us) then you are still dead in your sins, not knowing God, and not yet aware of the judgment that is coming for you (and is already even now abiding upon you).

As far as those verse in 2 Peter go, I believe that the angels which left their first estate, that God did not spare, but cast into darkness, reserved unto the day of judgment are the Jews.

We do not enter into THE DAY of Lord until the light is made to shine out of DARKNESS. Until then we walk IN THE NIGHT, in darkness, where those who sleep "sleep" (being "dead" in sin). That is why Christ comes "as a thief in the night"... that is who He is coming to - those who "sleep" IN THE NIGHT.... each in His own order.

[lee_merrill]

So it would be a mistake to read verse 33 as saying that God never brings grief on anyone.

Certainly, but he doesn't afflict "from the heart," is what I meant. And so this refers to all men, and similarly it would seem to "he does not cast off forever."

It's not a universal truism any more than the Proverbs are intended as comprehensive universal statements of truth.

Well, it is a universal truth (re Isa. 28:21 NIV), and there are universal truisms in Proverbs:

"For whoever finds me [wisdom] finds life and receives favor from the Lord. But whoever fails to find me harms himself; all who hate me love death."
(Pro 8:35-36 NIV)

Concerning "all Israel will be saved" in Romans 11, Paul just spent three chapters explaining that true Israel is the church. So sure, given that, all Israel will be saved.

But that hardly needed stating, "All who will be saved will be saved" would be a stretch as far as reading this verse! And Paul here contrasts Jew and Gentile, and here is referring to the nation of Israel, not to all believers:

"As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs ... (Rom 11:28 NIV)

As here, in the passage Paul is apparently thinking of:

"The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins," declares the Lord. (Isa 59:20 NIV, emphasis mine)

Blessings,
Lee

[RBerman]

Certainly, but he doesn't afflict "from the heart," is what I meant. And so this refers to all men, and similarly it would seem to "he does not cast off forever."

The argument in Lamentations 3 starts back in verse 25. Here's the context:

Lamentations 3:25-33

25 The LORD is good to those whose hope is in him,
to the one who seeks him;
26 it is good to wait quietly
for the salvation of the LORD.
27 It is good for a man to bear the yoke
while he is young.
28 Let him sit alone in silence,
for the LORD has laid it on him.
29 Let him bury his face in the dust—
there may yet be hope.
30 Let him offer his cheek to one who would strike him,
and let him be filled with disgrace.
31 For men are not cast off
by the Lord forever.
32 Though he brings grief, he will show compassion,
so great is his unfailing love.
33 For he does not willingly bring affliction
or grief to the children of men.

The whole passage is about the experience of God's people being chastened. I'm sure you know that the larger context is that Jerusalem has been razed by Nebuchadnezzar, and all but the poorest peasants have been carried off to Babylon. Jeremiah is addressing the topic of whether this disgrace and exile will be permanent. The answer is that God will eventually restore his people, because "The Lord is good to the one who seeks him." Not all men in a universal sense, but all men who seek him. This is a promise that if Israel repents, it will be restored. It's not a universal promise that God will restore those who never seek him.

Well, it is a universal truth (re Isa. 28:21 NIV), and there are universal truisms in Proverbs: "For whoever finds me [wisdom] finds life and receives favor from the Lord. But whoever fails to find me harms himself; all who hate me love death." (Pro 8:35-36 NIV)

I don't see how Isaiah 28:21 relates to our discussion. Individual proverbs may or may not be universal in scope. My point is that "It's in Proverbs" does not mean "It's a universal and comprehensive truth." We have to compare each proverb to the rest of Scripture to determine its proper scope.

But that hardly needed stating, "All who will be saved will be saved" would be a stretch as far as reading this verse! And Paul here contrasts Jew and Gentile, and here is referring to the nation of Israel, not to all believers:

"As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs ... (Rom 11:28 NIV)

As here, in the passage Paul is apparently thinking of:

"The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins," declares the Lord. (Isa 59:20 NIV, emphasis mine)

Well, Paul's point in Romans 9-11 is more specific than, "All who will be saved will be saved." It's more like, "The church will be composed of both Jews and Gentiles. This may surprise Jews, who are used to being the only chosen people, and it may surprise Gentiles, who see themselves comprising a larger and larger percentage of the church as time goes by. But God's elect includes people from both groups, regardless of which group predominates at any point in time."

[RBerman]

Maybe not as carnally minded men, but we are told to add to our faith and grow in our understanding and to search out the deep things of God that they might be made known to us. Christ said that the spirit of Truth will lead us into all truth. Are you saying it's not possible to know those things that are revealed to us by God? Was God just joking when He said "get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding"? We can never understand the mysteries that are to be revealed to those who diligently seek and search out that which God has hidden?

We can understand what's revealed by God. But I think you overestimate what's been revealed by God. From my discussions with Mormons, I see a tendency to over-emphasize direct teaching from the Holy Spirit and to give "I just know it's true" sorts of answers, when asked to back up their beliefs from the Bible or even the Book of Mormon. Now, so far you seem to be more dedicated to answering from the Bible, which I appreciate. I would just encourage you to maintain enough humility to admit that there are things about God which we don't understand, whether because God has chosen not to reveal them, or because if they were revealed they're beyond our human comprehension, at least at this point in eternal life. I hope you don't perceive this as belittling you for your Mormon background; as I said, I'd much rather you were a Universalist.

Ok, fine. Let's approach it that way then and say that the "true" circumcision if of the heart, rather than the flesh. How did Paul define the "true" Israel? Is it not that which is according to the spirit/promise (the seed of Christ) and not the seed of Abraham according to the flesh?

You say this doesn't include all men, but I say that Paul said that it does. That that which was according to the flesh has been "cast off" (blinded) so that salvation could be brought to the Gentiles and Paul speaks of the fulness of both and even equates it to the reconciliation of the world. You seem to want to be able to say that the world doesn't really mean the world and that any reference to their "fulness" is "limited" to just the "total" number who are "actually" saved - ignoring completely the will of God stated in 1 Tim 2:4 which you admit appears to teach universal salvation. But because you can't seem to find any others that do (even though they are all over the place ) you cannot believe that all men are saved.

I wouldn't say that 1 Timothy 2 teaches universal salvation, but I admit it 's easy to read it that way if (1) I didn't have the rest of the Bible to read on that topic and (2) I didn't believe that the Bible is internally consistent. As far as "the world," kosmos means what it means, as we've previously discussed. It just doesn't mean "all the people who have ever lived" as it would need to in your view.

I don't get into all the labels, I don't even know what they mean most of the time and a new one seems to pop up about every other week of so. It's really disheartening to me that people feel the need to put others in a box that they can put "a name" on so that they can decide by "the name" on the box (that they were the ones to give it, anyway, and usually incorrectly) whether or not to hate, condemn or even fellowship with that person. I have heard people who have accused me of denying the Trinity describe the Trinity as 3 separate and distinct beings who govern together in unison as a committee - sort of like the Supreme Courts. That sounds VERY Mormon to me but I was the one accused of showing my Mormon colors because I said that there was ONE GOD and that even according the doctrine of the trinity the "three persons" of God are ONE BEING. But I was called the heretic. GO FIGURE!! I can only assume that people will hold whatever they can over you and many have held Mormonism over me even though I have long since left and for the most part probably didn't even know as much as I should have about it even while I was there. And maybe that is because the priesthood belongs to the men and the women are not taught everything that the men are. I don't know. But enough rambling on that. Thanks for not belittling me because I came out of Mormonism. And I certainly hope that those who believe it to be "a cult" do not think that one who comes out of it is more likely to fall for some other "cult". I got tired of being told what to believe, especially when I couldn't come to terms with what it was I supposed to be professing my faith in. So perhaps I was never a "true" Mormon to begin with. I began questioning things at the age of 11 (as far back as I can recall anyway) and not just with Mormonism (or even primarily with Mormonism), but with the scriptures. I never could understand how everyone said the Pharaoh has a choice and hardened his own heart when the scriptures clearly said that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Even then I was questioning why God hardens some and has mercy of some - at HIS choosing, when we are supposedly supposed to choose for ourselves and that it is "our choice" that seals out "eternal" fate.

I have been praying since I was 11 years old, sometimes locked in the bathroom on my knees in tears for God to reveal Himself and the truth to me. It took me almost 30 years to get an answer that I knew was from God. First came the revelation that God does exist and that Jesus Christ is who the Bible says that He is - and not who Mormons claim that He is. That came after seeing The Passion of the Christ. Then 6 months later after day in and day out of studying - sometimes 12 hours a day in the scriptures - I came to see Universal Salvation and walked away from all the "hell-fire and brimstone" and "rapture" and "end-times" stuff that for awhile I was engrossed in and trying to understand.

Labels are only helpful as shorthand between those who agree on what they mean. If you don't know what a Calvinist believes and why, then me saying "I'm a Calvinist" doesn't help, and probably actually hurts our discussion. But if you know what a Calvinist is, then when I say "I'm a Calvinist" it saves a lot of time. In fact, your deepest questions play to the strengths of Calvinism. It's true that Pharaoh hardened his heart, and it's also true that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. I believe Calvinism explains this apparent contradiction better than any other theological system out there. I can tell that you've spent a lot of time studying the Bible, far more than any universalist with whom I've interacted. But I can also tell you haven't spent a lot of time in any good Christian fellowship, where questions like yours get answered all the time. I wish you could come to my church, or one like it.

Because I view most things as IS, WAS and WILL BE. Man has been being judged since the foundation of the world, as Christ was crucified from the foundation of the world. Those who have not "been" judged or who are not "being" judged "will be" judged...

That's not how I read 2 Peter 2, though. The angels have already been judged, are being (not just have been) punished, and await a final judgment yet to come. And 2 Peter seems to say that's what awaits wicked men too.

As far as those verse in 2 Peter go, I believe that the angels which left their first estate, that God did not spare, but cast into darkness, reserved unto the day of judgment are the Jews.

The angels are the Jews? That's quite a novel interpretation, and not one I can endorse. Why do you think that "angels" doesn't mean what we usually think of as "angels?"

Many claim that Paul said that he HAD NOT attained unto the resurrection of the dead, but that is not what Paul said. He said that He COUNTED IT NOT and therefore strove for it NOT AS THOUGH he had already attained? And tells us to "walk by the same rule"? Why? Well, for starters we are to endue to the end, not become complacent and puffed up (or whatever) and end up falling from grace. We are also not to bear witness OF OURSELVES. But Paul certainly did bear witness of others who were "already perfect" and "whose names are written in the lamb's book of life".

"The Lamb's book of life" was written before the foundations of the earth, before any of us were born. None of us achieve perfection in this life. The God's elect achieve perfection upon death, when they cast off sin. Those elected to damnation never cast off sin, but are eternally punished for it.

[Chrissie]

If God doesn't save those who don't seek Him, then we are ALL lost! It is not up to the sheep to seek the Shepherd; it is the Shepherd who is seeking His loft sheep. And we are told that the Good Shepherd will seek that lost sheep until He finds it.

I don't get that we believe that HE doesn't know where they are, either. Or that once found it is up to the sheep to decide whether or not to return to the fold.

No man can come to Christ UNLESS the Father draws (drags) Him and Christ said ""And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw (drag) ALL MEN unto me"

I know you don't see "the world" as "all men" but for the sake of argument let's assume that the world includes all men...

If God was in Christ reconciling "the world" unto himself, creating "one new man" in Christ Jesus, then wouldn't that "one new man" include "all men" (as "all men" are included in "the world" that has been reconciled to God)?

If the Jews were blinded so that we might obtain mercy and it is through our mercy that they obtain mercy and it is all according to the grace of God (which is without repentance) such that God hath concluded ALL in unbelief so that he might have mercy on ALL, then how is that "all" do not receive mercy?

Again, I do not know how anyone can read those words, as they are written, and not see that all men are saved by the grace of God.

Can God not heal the blind? Make the deaf to hear or the lame to walk? Can God not overcome the natural man? Is it not through God that the natural man is regenerated and made "a new creature" in the first place?

We do not write God's laws on our own hearts. Christ must do that and once HE does that and we are able to put on the mind of Christ, we are able to walk in the newness of LIFE and in the power of HIS RESURRECTION.

But "every man in his own order"... "to be testified in due time".

We are not "created" (in the image and likeness of God) UNTIL God sends forth HIS SPIRIT (seen in a figure in Adam when God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils and he became "a living soul".

The soul that sinneth IT SHALL DIE... but DEATH (the last enemy) is DESTROYED. All that remains then is LIFE / CHRIST and is it not true that "the second man" IS THE LORD FROM HEAVEN (ONE HEAD and ONE BODY).

That ONE BODY includes all who are in "the world", as it was "the world" that was reconciled to God through Christ, in whom that ONE NEW MAN was formed.

As a Calvisint, I assume that you probably agree with much of this, as it pertains to the Sovereignty of God, but you only apply it to "the elect" which is some number less than "all men", even though Paul did not say that only the "remnant according to the election of grace" that were reserved unto God were saved. He made it clear that those who were blinded (also by election, if you will) had not stumbled that they should fall.

[Chrissie]

We can understand what's revealed by God. But I think you overestimate what's been revealed by God. From my discussions with Mormons, I see a tendency to over-emphasize direct teaching from the Holy Spirit and to give "I just know it's true" sorts of answers, when asked to back up their beliefs from the Bible or even the Book of Mormon.

Which has NEVER described me ; it was for that very reason that I do not believe that I ever had a "true" testimony of the Mormon church or it's teachings, especially of Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. I could not say "I know" that this man is a prophet of God and the one who provided a restoration of the "true" church to the earth "in these last days" because I did not "know" and did not even "feel" (to my own satisfaction) that that was true so I could not SAY it. All of the "burning in the bosom" stuff never went over well with me, as if I was supposed to rely on "getting the chills" (or something) to determine what was or wasn't the "truth" where God was concerned. The problem being, of course, that if you don't "feel" it it's because there is something wrong with you, you lack a sincere heart, you are caught up in sin that you just don't want to admit, etc, etc, etc. It can't possibly be because God didn't try to tell you that the Mormon church is His ONLY TRUE CHURCH. You just aren't listening - or you just aren't worthy.

Now, so far you seem to be more dedicated to answering from the Bible, which I appreciate.

Thank you!! I do stick with the scriptures and there is not one thing that I believe that is not based upon what is written in the scriptures - though my interpretation may vary from yours, the basis for everything that I believe is scripture and scripture alone.

I would just encourage you to maintain enough humility to admit that there are things about God which we don't understand, whether because God has chosen not to reveal them, or because if they were revealed they're beyond our human comprehension, at least at this point in eternal life.

I don't claim to know all things. Nor do I claim to be right about all things that I believe. I have had my mind changed for me quite a number of time. Not just in leaving Mormonism, but in coming to UR and even since coming to UR. I see "new" things all the time, though they have been there all along. When that happens (even yesterday someone pointed out to me something about Stephen that I had never noticed before). When that happens, those things either "confirm" what I think I already know or they tear down something that I thought I already knew but didn't because I have obviously missed something. So far, I have had my mind opened up (or closed) to a whole lot of different things, but nothing has yet to shake my believe in UR. That seems to be reaffirmed time and time again. And that doesn't mean that I am not open to being corrected. I am. But so far nothing has proven to me (to my own satisfaction, of course - which is based on the whole of scripture) that God will not save all men.

I hope you don't perceive this as belittling you for your Mormon background; as I said, I'd much rather you were a Universalist.

Not a problem!

I wouldn't say that 1 Timothy 2 teaches universal salvation, but I admit it 's easy to read it that way if (1) I didn't have the rest of the Bible to read on that topic and (2) I didn't believe that the Bible is internally consistent.

Well, I believe that the bible is internally consistent and I believe that it consistently teaches that all men will ultimately be saved; that judgment/damnation/condemnation takes place here and within the ages, not in eternity with the Father.

As far as "the world," kosmos means what it means, as we've previously discussed. It just doesn't mean "all the people who have ever lived" as it would need to in your view.

My belief is not based solely on the words "the world". How about when it says "all men"? How about when it speaks of "all things", even "all things in heaven and in the earth and under the earth"? How about "every knee" and "every tongue"?

Labels are only helpful as shorthand between those who agree on what they mean. If you don't know what a Calvinist believes and why, then me saying "I'm a Calvinist" doesn't help, and probably actually hurts our discussion. But if you know what a Calvinist is, then when I say "I'm a Calvinist" it saves a lot of time.

I agree, when you give the label to yourself, knowing that is how you identify yourself and how you want others to identify you.

My little ramble (sorry) was for those who try to label you based on what you have said (not always even getting that right) so that THEY can "put a name on it" FOR YOU, which is generally to their own benefit and not yours, so that they can "accuse" you (based on that label they THEY gave you, generally of something that they don't like or have already identified - or had identified for them - as heresy).

But truthfully, the furthest that I can go with myself is a "Christian" who believes in Universal Salvation. I guess you could call that a Christian Universalist. The problem still remains, though, that I do not believe like many of the other Christian Universalist that I know or have come across so my saying even that may not be all that helpful even to those who are familiar with Universalist thought.

In fact, your deepest questions play to the strengths of Calvinism. It's true that Pharaoh hardened his heart, and it's also true that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. I believe Calvinism explains this apparent contradiction better than any other theological system out there. I can tell that you've spent a lot of time studying the Bible, far more than any universalist with whom I've interacted. But I can also tell you haven't spent a lot of time in any good Christian fellowship, where questions like yours get answered all the time. I wish you could come to my church, or one like it.

That's not necessarily true. Though I do not go to church I do still read and interact with other Christians regularly and I am familiar with the answers and explanations that are out there. Most, if not all of them, I think. I still do not agree with them. I simply see what "they" are missing in the answers that they are giving. The same things that I was missing before I came to see UR. The same thing that I was missing when not comparing spiritual things with spiritual and was seeing only the "natural" application of certain teaching (like who "the dead" are, for example).

That's not how I read 2 Peter 2, though. The angels have already been judged, are being (not just have been) punished, and await a final judgment yet to come. And 2 Peter seems to say that's what awaits wicked men too.

Exactly! That blindness has not yet been lifted and the same thing that God did to the them He can do to those of us who have now been grafted in.

The angels are the Jews? That's quite a novel interpretation, and not one I can endorse. Why do you think that "angels" doesn't mean what we usually think of as "angels?"

Because "the angels of God" are "the sons of God" and "the sons of God" are those who are led by the spirit of God.

So perhaps not the whole Jewish nation but those who were led by the spirit of God - Moses, Joshua, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, for example.

Even Paul was received "as an angel of God, even as Christ himself". Stephen's face was seen "as it had been the face of an angel" (this was what someone pointed out to me yesterday - that I mentioned earlier). The "stars" who are "in His right hand" in the book of Revelation ARE "the angels of the churches". When we are resurrected from the dead we are "as the angels of God in heaven"? It is "the angels" that worship God and "the angels" who desire to look into these things. It is "the angels" who are sent to reap. And it was His disciples that Christ sent to reap.

"The Lamb's book of life" was written before the foundations of the earth, before any of us were born.

I agree. AMEN!

Eph 1:3-12 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together IN ONE ~ALL THINGS~ IN CHRIST, both which are IN HEAVEN, and which are ON EARTH; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

That doesn't sound like "all things" including "all men" to you?

None of us achieve perfection in this life. The God's elect achieve perfection upon death, when they cast off sin.

That depends on how one means "perfection". God's measure of perfection (at least as it pertains to us, here and now) is measure by whether or not we love our neighbor as ourselves. Isn't that what "be ye perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect" is talking about? Loving one another? Who was Paul talking about when he said "Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded"?

We are made "perfect" only by and through Jesus Christ "the perfect man" (whose body we are) and we are only now "growing" into "the perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ".

So no, in the true sense of the word, we are not "perfect", but we are being "perfected" IN LOVE, and that is what we need to be walking in in order to know "perfection" (Christ).

Those elected to damnation never cast off sin, but are eternally punished for it.

Not true. For one "aionios" doesn't mean "without end" and "kolasis" means correction. Punishment for the sake of punishment is not corrective in nature and serves no purpose.

God chastens and scourges EVERY SON whom he receives and when His judgment are in the earth (are we not formed out of the dust of the ground? ) the inhabitants of the earth ( ) WILL LEARN RIGHTEOUSNESS.

These are getting long again...

I can be long-winded, you know.... and this is me trying to keep it short.

[RBerman]

Chrissie, you are a curious mix of Calvinism and something else. I love it that you understand that salvation is wholly an act of God's free grace. I agree that God doesn't save those who seek him of their own accord. God changes the hearts of some men, making them desire to seek him. Then they seek him, and then they find him. This preserves the concepts of human free will and divine sovereignty. But God doesn't change the hearts of everyone. Some hearts stay hard; some eyes stay blind. Those hearts belong to people who suffer God's wrath not only with their physical deaths, but with their subsequent punishment, final judgment, and eternal punishment.

As far as Romans 11, you need to read its "all" in the context of Romans 9, where Paul says that not all receive mercy. If he has to repeat his qualifications every time he uses a word like "all," Romans would be a very long book!

[Chrissie]

Chrissie, you are a curious mix of Calvinism and something else. I love it that you understand that salvation is wholly an act of God's free grace. I agree that God doesn't save those who seek him of their own accord. God changes the hearts of some men, making them desire to seek him. Then they seek him, and then they find him. This preserves the concepts of human free will and divine sovereignty. But God doesn't change the hearts of everyone. Some hearts stay hard; some eyes stay blind. Those hearts belong to people who suffer God's wrath not only with their physical deaths, but with their subsequent punishment, final judgment, and eternal punishment.

As far as Romans 11, you need to read its "all" in the context of Romans 9, where Paul says that not all receive mercy. If he has to repeat his qualifications every time he uses a word like "all," Romans would be a very long book!

Hi RBerman,

I have read the whole thing (including Chapter 9) . I am just not seeing it the same way that you are. I get that God "hated Esau" and "love Jacob". But why? Is it just a coincidence that Esau was the eldest (or first born) and Jacob was the younger (or second born)?

Look at the pattern that exists throughout scripture concerning the first born (which typifies the natural man) and the second born (which typifies the spiritual man). It is "the second born" (that which is born of the spirit) that is blessed/loved of God. And though the pattern is shown in contrasting "two men" (Cain vs Abel/Seth.... Ishmael vs Isaac.... Esau vs Jacob) those "two men" typify something in each one of us - that which comes FIRST (the natural man, born of the flesh/water) versus that which comes AFTER (the spiritual man, born of the spirit).

It is not that which is born of the flesh (the natural man) that is counted for the seed. It is that which is born of the spirit (the spiritual man) that is counted for the seed. We see this as far back as we can go - straight back to Adam in Genesis, where CAIN WAS NOT COUNTED in "the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him". Neither was Abel (who typifies our crucified Lord, Jesus Christ - murdered by THE FIRST BORN - NATURAL MAN). Only Seth who was given "instead of Abel" (typifying THE BODY OF CHRIST/CHURCH) is counted in the generations of Adam "in the day that God created man, in the likeness of God".

Again, I just see this as relevant to all men, not just some. We have all been found "in Adam" and we will all be found "in Christ", once ALL FLESH is destroyed. And the only ONE who shall remain is THE SECOND MAN - which is THE LORD FROM HEAVEN.... ONE HEAD and ONE BODY.