Evidently this thread proves otherwise:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?130333-The-Restitution-Of-All-Things-AKA-Universalism
Are babies going to populate "hell"?
- Thread starter GregoryN
- Start date
Evidently this thread proves otherwise:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?130333-The-Restitution-Of-All-Things-AKA-Universalism
Let's say for the sake of discussion that babies are human beings.
We already know that it appointed for humans to die once. (Hebrews 9:27)
Jesus said, "Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.'" (John 3:7)
Babies and small children will be restored to life at the second resurrection.
"No more shall an infant from there live but a few days,
Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days;
For the child shall die one hundred years old. (Isaiah 65:20)
We already know that it appointed for humans to die once. (Hebrews 9:27)
Jesus said, "Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.'" (John 3:7)
Babies and small children will be restored to life at the second resurrection.
"No more shall an infant from there live but a few days,
Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days;
For the child shall die one hundred years old. (Isaiah 65:20)
glorydaz
Well-known member
Jesus was fully God and fully man. Human in every way. Scripture tells us Jesus was made like unto His brethren IN ALL THINGS. Are you going to ignore that?
Hebrews 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Heb. 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Heb. 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
It's an age old argument....based on a few select verses, and the idea of "federal headship", which I do not agree with. The "orthodox" position is no more agreed upon than soul sleep, so you might want to discuss the scripture instead of taking up a particular position.
Sin is not passed down through the genes from father to son. You have offered this verse yourself.
Ezek. 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. It did not enter Adam's progeny.
The very ground was cursed...all of creation was affected by sin entering the world. Nothing there about man's nature being affected by Adam's sin. In fact, Adam sinned just like we do, by choosing wrongly.
Rosenritter
New member
How long does the servant in this passage serve his master?
Exodus 21:5-6 KJV
(5) And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
(6) Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
Before we ever get to Revelation, there are two very well detailed (and long) passages naming the devil and placing him in the judgment, even when the kings of the earth are raised. The devil is cast down and destroyed by fire, using some very unmistakable terms of total destruction.
So how long did the servant serve his master? One year? Five years? Ten years? Or until he perished at the end of his days? I'm pointing this out because here we have a biblical example of what scripture means when it applies this term. Applying an action "for ever" to an object of finite duration does not grant infinite existence.
Rosenritter
New member
John 5:26-27 KJV
(26) For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
(27) And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
Jesus was not the same as any ordinary man. Jesus did was not perfect because he was "lucky" or avoided sinning enough times, he was perfect because he was God of the full character of God. God, in his character, is not sinful.
genuineoriginal
New member
That thread proves that Universalists have no idea at all about what scriptures say.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Your texts don't address this issue.
Please address the verses I gave you. They are very clear and cannot be ignored.
Heb. 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, 14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. |
He didn't cheat and use His divinity to remain sinless. Even Satan couldn't accuse Him of that. No, He was made flesh. He overcame all the same weaknesses of the flesh we have, as He was totally dependent on His Father.
Jesus was faced with the same temptations we are. He had the exact same human nature as the rest of us.
Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Yes, He was God, but He took on the form of a servant. Were He not just as we are, He could not have died for our sins.
Phil. 2:7-8 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Universalism completely rejects what scripture plainly teaches. There are multiple passages that discuss separating the sheep from the goats.
Mathew 25:46 is Christ's own words and they are clear. Given who Jesus is, I will always trust what He says over any argument a human can make.
Rosenritter
New member
Those passages are not applicable to the extent of your claim. God is a spirit, and the spirit of Jesus was the Holy Spirit. It does tell us that he was not begotten of man but of the Holy Spirit? It doesn't matter if you think it is "cheating" because this wasn't a game. This WAS God in human form progressing through human birth, with the full character and integrity thereof. This was not a game, Jesus already had life in himself before he was raised.
Joh 2:19-22 KJV
(19) Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
(20) Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
(21) But he spake of the temple of his body.
(22) When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
Act 2:24 KJV
(24) Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
I understand the passages above as telling us this: Jesus promised that he would raise his own body, Jesus was raised, Jesus is God, it was certainly not possible that Jesus could be held by death, being the Creator of all things and Lord of Life.
The supposed gain of "Baby salvation" doesn't merit reducing Jesus to a sinful creature that merely hadn't sinned yet. And as for Satan's trial of Christ, did you notice that each and every one of his answers could be read more than one way, with double meaning? There is the first layer that would apply as if he might merely be an ordinary man, but each one of those has a second meaning with even more force that applies if he actually was the Lord God Creator.
Attempting to make "all things" mean more than its intended meaning is a misuse of scripture. Are normal men able to heal the blind and the sick, raise the dead, and raise themselves from the dead? Besides, if you assign any other character to Jesus other than that of God (of whom Jesus is the image of that invisible God, if you have seen him you have seen the Father) you will be spinning an alternative theology that will unravel in a bad way.
genuineoriginal
New member
Yes.
John 14:10-12 10 [JESUS]Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.[/JESUS] 11 [JESUS]Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.[/JESUS] 12 [JESUS]Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.[/JESUS] |
Does the Bible say Jesus raised Himself from the dead, or does the Bible say the Father raised Jesus from the dead?
Rosenritter
New member
Jesus proclaimed that he would raise his body from the dead, and although his audience mistook the subject matter, they did understand that he was making the claim himself, and not that some other third party other than him would do the raising. I think Jesus knew what he was saying. Jesus was also, "before Abraham, I AM."
Joh 2:19-22 KJV
(19) Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
(20) Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
(21) But he spake of the temple of his body.
(22) When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
In another place it tells us that Christ was raised by the glory of the Father (Romans 6:4, compare also perhaps with John 17:5) and in one other place that God the Father raised Jesus Christ from the dead.
Gal 1:1 KJV
(1) Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead; )
All other statements to my knowledge say that God raised Jesus (or the Lord, or the Son) from the dead, including Peter's speech in Acts 2:24, Acts 2:32, Acts 3:15, Acts 3:26, Acts 4:10, Acts 5:30, Acts 10:40, Acts 13:30, Acts 13:33, Acts 13:37, Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 6:14, 1 Corinthians 15:15, Colossians 2:2, 1 Peter 1:21.
It can be easily shown that Paul recognized Jesus as God, even taking the Old Testament scriptures where it said "God" and substituting "Jesus" (compare Isaiah 45:23, Romans 14:11, Philippians 2:10) and likewise John is very clear that he considers the Word to be God.
I realize that this might be inconvenient for strict Trinity theology but that's not my concern. The point being that Jesus did say he would raise himself from the dead, he was raised from the dead, and statements that God raised him from the dead are reconciled in that Jesus is God.
As for the implication that Jesus and God the Father might not be so separate, again, that's not my problem. Creeds and theories need to take a backseat to the actual statements.
genuineoriginal
New member
Strange that Matthew's version of the event says that it was false witness to say Jesus said it.
Matthew 26:56-59 56 For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together. 57 And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, 58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. 59 But neither so did their witness agree together. |
When there is a single verse that does not agree with a majority of verses, I tend to go with what the majority of verses say and wonder if the single verse may have suffered from a copy or translation error.
Rosenritter
New member
Look carefully to compare Christ's words with the words they accused him of: there's a difference. The false witnesses say, "We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands," Whereas the gospel witness says, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The false witnesses put words in his mouth because they heard what they wanted to hear, and weren't careful to listen to what he actually said.
The gospel witness also makes it a point that this was an important passage, to emphasize what it was that he actually said. That itself is in indication that the phrasing and grammar of this gospel account is especially precise.
Regardless, there's no disagreement with these verses. If someone has an argument that Jesus is not God, then they will think there is a conflict of epic proportions. If someone reads the word "God" and thinks it means "God the Father, not Jesus" then they also will think there is a conflict of epic proportions. Yet any proper Trinitarian should know better than to make such a substitution. God is God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are persons of that God, and that leaves it with just one contradiction (of the Trinity Doctrine, not of Bible itself) where it "confuses the persons" ...
genuineoriginal
New member
There is only a confusion of persons if people forget what Jesus said about who was actually doing the works that Jesus did:
John 14:10 10 [JESUS]Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.[/JESUS] |
Typical blind remarks that don't address my posts on the subject which will never be refuted. If you think you can, take it to the appropriate thread & i will show you how wrong you are.
Rosenritter
New member
| John 14:10 10 [JESUS]Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.[/JESUS] |
That passage "confuses the persons" even more. Regardless, I'm content to accept all the passages as true and correct.
Rosenritter
New member
Wow, that really showed him.
No, you wont. You can't. Already you have totally ignored what Jesus said. This is our Lord and Savior speaking and you are ignoring it. That single statement by Jesus totally guts the universal salvation heresy.
genuineoriginal
New member
If you really want to be confused, try to imagine how this passage works out with Jesus praying to the Father that we will be one with Jesus and the Father in the same manner as Jesus is one with the Father.
John 17:21-22 21 [JESUS]That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.[/JESUS] 22 [JESUS]And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:[/JESUS] |
Rosenritter
New member
That admittedly does look somewhat confusing. It might be that the "even as" is not fully literal, speaking of us approaching the oneness that God Above and God Below shared, and/or it might be hint to an overlay/integration of the Holy Spirit with ourselves. If Jesus was fully filled with the Holy Spirit and that is something he ultimately desired for us that might make sense. Do you have any other ideas for that passage? I'm all ears, I'm interesting in hearing some other ideas here.