ECT This should start a decent discussion: Universal Atonement

[TFTn5280]

Hebrews 10:26 -31 allows for the loss of one who was saved, or, at least, one who was once a participant in all the blessings of atonement. Verse 26 suggests that continual sin is a rejection of God’s provisions, if we consider the v 28 as “context” for verse 26.

While the Hebrew writer frames the harshness of God’s judgment, as some would read verses 30 and 31, I believe that this judgment is only “fearful” because it is final; it is not “fearful” because some are lost who hoped to be saved.

The implied disciple, in verse 26, has decided to return to his squalor, and has chosen that as his lifestyle. Like the prodigal’s father, our Father, will allow this decision to be final.

John 3:18 tells us, “if we are disbelievers, we are condemned already.” Romans 2 gives us the reality that a person can live “the life” without knowing the teachings of Truth, and find himself justified on the Final Day (Ro 2:16). And James combines personal faith with effort (works). All this is to say that God honors all men with his act of reconciliation, in Christ, that this function of God works for all, whether or not they have been given the Truth, but there is no sacrifice that repairs a man’s “destiny” if he chooses to service his sinful nature to the exclusion of God’s presence.

Romans 7:25 suggests that we never escape – on a personal/existential level – our own sinful proclivity. The struggle between our flesh and our mind, however frustrating, is proof that we are alive in Christ. There is therefore, no condemnation for those in Christ.

It is a truth buried in dialectic, that, although the Living Christ is everywhere and in all things via reconciliation, we can walk away from him.

Thanks, JS, I'll hold comment until others weigh in.

 

[Nang]

although the Living Christ is everywhere and in all things via reconciliation, we can walk away from him.

This is not the problem.

The Truth is: multitudes are never called or drawn by God, to faith in the Living Christ.

Exodus 33:19; Romans 9:16, 18; John 6:44

 

[jsjohnnt]

I know that the few is a reference to the social contruct prevalent in that day, a reference to the many in the one, he being that one, the many or, said another way, the all, were included in him. He alone was qualified to pass through that gate, and he alone able to walk that straight path which led to salvation, the salvation of all. For more on the one and the many, see my commentary of Romans 5.15-19 found close to the beginning of this thread. Ya really ought to read it.

I take back what I said about pride. You really didn't get it. My apologies.

I get it. I know how to read, you know. I just do not believe that in the Matthew 7 text he was talking about him being both the gate and the "few as in one" who passes through that gate.

Certainly, no one to whom he was talking, the undereducated sitting on the hillside listening to him teach, would have understood him any differently that what I posit.

 

[TFTn5280]

I get it. I know how to read, you know. I just do not believe that in the Matthew 7 text he was talking about him being both the gate and the "few as in one" who passes through that gate.

Certainly, no one to whom he was talking, the undereducated sitting on the hillside listening to him teach, would have understood him any differently that what I posit.

Perhaps, but that didn't negate nor disqualify the teaching that he alone was the one who was capable of doing these things. He is the One for the many. They had a context to get that. We not so much so.

 

[TFTn5280]

I get it. I know how to read, you know. I just do not believe that in the Matthew 7 text he was talking about him being both the gate and the "few as in one" who passes through that gate.

Certainly, no one to whom he was talking, the undereducated sitting on the hillside listening to him teach, would have understood him any differently that what I posit.

BTW, you being able to read, surely realize I didn't say he was the gate. But as you say, he may have been. I have thought more of the gate being the OT Law, and Jesus saying things like be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect, he being the only one qualified to enter through that gate and walk the straight walk to life.

 

[Arsenios]

In reconciliation, God approached man... thus the reconciliation was God to man...

...God humbles himself, takes on the form of man, so that man, as man, can experience reconciliation. To me, that is God reconciling Himself to us, to our flesh and blood, to our suffering, to our need for help.

Maybe I can say this better -

IF God had reconciled God to man, Christ would have sinned and died, because THAT is the human condition...

Instead, by taking on human nature, he reconciled man to God, by elevating human nature to God...

If man is to be reconciled to God, man must change...

If God is to be reconciled to man, God must change...

In Christ, human nature changed, and therein was reconciled to God...

THAT is what the Incarnation of our Lord was about...

Arsenios

 

[jsjohnnt]

This is not the problem.

The Truth is: multitudes are never called or drawn by God, to faith in the Living Christ.

Exodus 33:19; Romans 9:16, 18; John 6:44

James 4:8New King James Version (NKJV)
8 Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.”

Such is a promise made to all want to participate in the gospel. So why the apparent conflict between John 3:16 and Romans 9:18?

I am not saying that the following is the solution, but it is the solution for me:

In Jewish writings, God is at the center of everything, whether we perceive that outcome to be a good outcome or a harmful outcome. To argue that "God hardens hearts and condemns bases on on this hardening" is miss the point of Jewish writing style. In this case, Romans 9:18 or in case where God "hardened the hear of Pharoah," Jewish scribes are speaking of God’s permissive will, not his causative will.

To disagree is to render such passages as John 3:16 and the inclusive “whoever believes,” nonsensical; either “whoever believes” is true or not.

We should never use scripture to defeat scripture, right? Yet, we all do this from time to time, myself included. When there does not seem to be agreement between biblical statements, I would suggest that a student should immediately look for a solution that allows seemingly “opposing biblical statements” to stand as they are written.

I am not going to get into a [biblical] food fight with you. While “revelational truth” is consistent and linear in nature, scripture is not written in terms of a linear and singular “Grand Revelation.” It is all that, but that is not how it is presented. In short, the bible is not a systematic theology, especially in the New Testament. This fact is the very reason we all keep going back to the divine text . . . . . to seek understanding that comes from God, Himself (II Pet 1:20-21).

Anyway, I believe that if we, you and I and the others, keep at it, we will all come to a united understanding of the truth, at some level.

 

[Arsenios]

when Christ said, "and few there be who find it," (Matthew 7:14), I believe he was talking about a Jewish circumstance. The picture of the heavenly scene in Revelations, is that of a population, in heaven, beyond our ability to count. Do not sound like "few" to me . . . . but the Jewish community has almost entirely reject Jesus as Christ, even to this day. As a matter of fact, they are often abusive about it.

Well, He was certainly speaking TO the Jews,
but He was speaking ABOUT the Kingdom of Heaven,
and entry through the Gate (Christ) into it,
and the walk of afflictions its Way...

Paul describes and prescribes it for you and me here:
1 Cor 9-16 :

For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last,
as it were appointed to death:
for we are made a spectacle
unto the world, and to angels, and to men.
We are fools for Christ's sake,
but ye are wise in Christ;
we are weak,
but ye are strong;
ye are honourable,
but we are despised.
Even unto this present hour
we both hunger, and thirst,
and are naked,
and are buffeted,
and have no certain dwelling place;
And labour,
working with our own hands:
being reviled,
we bless;
being persecuted,
we suffer it:
Being defamed,
we intreat:
we are made as the filth of the world,
and are the offscouring of all things
unto this day.
I write not these things to shame you,
but as my beloved sons I warn you.
For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ,
yet have ye not many fathers:
for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
Wherefore I beseech you,
be ye followers of me.

Does this describe your life?

Do you believe Paul?

Arsenios

 

[jsjohnnt]

Maybe I can say this better -

IF God had reconciled God to man, Christ would have sinned and died, because THAT is the human condition...

Instead, by taking on human nature, he reconciled man to God, by elevating human nature to God...

If man is to be reconciled to God, man must change...

If God is to be reconciled to man, God must change...

In Christ, human nature changed, and therein was reconciled to God...

THAT is what the Incarnation of our Lord was about...

Arsenios

Good response. But (there is always a "but, " isn't there), I would argue that our "sinful nature" allows us to be tempted. Whether or not we sin, is up to us. God cannot be tempted (James 1) but, in his humility, God in Christ was tempted, but without sin. You can take it from there.

 

[Arsenios]

By the way, the "few" who pass through the narrow gate is ONE, Jesus Christ.

Thomas - Christ IS the Gate...

And He IS the Way...

And He IS the Truth...

He is the only one who could pass through that gate, and he did, and he brought all who were in him with him through it. No one was excepted, some will awake in glorification to "heaven," others to meet the second death ~ this alone sans a savior ~ but none can escape the resurrection which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. If Christ did not die for all, why are all raised in his resurrection? Is there another that we don't know about, another conqueror over death of whom we're unaware? There is no "limited" in atonement. When Christ died, he changed the nature of death forever. The grave does not get to hold any of us any longer. We are all included in his resurrection. How appropriate in this season of remembrance!

The Gate, Which IS Christ, is NARROW...
The Way, Which IS Christ, is AFFLICTED...

FOR US...

Christ has no need to pass through a narrow gate or an afflicted way...
He established these in Himself FOR us...
That WE should pass through into the Kingdom of Heaven, Christ, and walk therein...

Arsenios

 

[jsjohnnt]

Well, He was certainly speaking TO the Jews,
but He was speaking ABOUT the Kingdom of Heaven,
and entry through the Gate (Christ) into it,
and the walk of afflictions its Way...

Paul describes and prescribes it for you and me here:
1 Cor 9-16 :

For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last,
as it were appointed to death:
for we are made a spectacle
unto the world, and to angels, and to men.
We are fools for Christ's sake,
but ye are wise in Christ;
we are weak,
but ye are strong;
ye are honourable,
but we are despised.
Even unto this present hour
we both hunger, and thirst,
and are naked,
and are buffeted,
and have no certain dwelling place;
And labour,
working with our own hands:
being reviled,
we bless;
being persecuted,
we suffer it:
Being defamed,
we intreat:
we are made as the filth of the world,
and are the offscouring of all things
unto this day.
I write not these things to shame you,
but as my beloved sons I warn you.
For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ,
yet have ye not many fathers:
for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
Wherefore I beseech you,
be ye followers of me.

Does this describe your life?

Do you believe Paul?

Arsenios

Not sure why you highlighted all that or brought the Corinthian passage into play, at this point. Whatever Christ meant to say, in Matt 7, he said years before Corinthians was written, and without a similar addendum to his Matt 7: 13,14 as he was presenting his teaching. How would those sitting on the hillside understand his statement. THAT is the question, as I see it, that must drive our exegesis. Occam razor, my friend, occam razor.

 

[TFTn5280]

Thomas - Christ IS the Gate...

And He IS the Way...

And He IS the Truth...



The Gate, Which IS Christ, is NARROW...
The Way, Which IS Christ, is AFFLICTED...

FOR US...

Christ has no need to pass through a narrow gate or an afflicted way... He established these in Himself FOR us... That WE should bass through into the Kingdom of Heaven, Christ, and walk therein...

Arsenios

For my (perhaps changing) interpretation of the gate see my edited response to JSJOHNNT

 

[Arsenios]

Not sure why you highlighted all that or brought the Corinthian passage into play, at this point.

Because you said the Way of Affliction which He named was only for the Jews, so I showed you it was Paul's teaching to the Gentiles as well...

Whatever Christ meant to say, in Matt 7, he said years before Corinthians was written, and without a similar addendum to his Matt 7: 13,14 as he was presenting his teaching. How would those sitting on the hillside understand his statement? THAT is the question, as I see it, that must drive our exegesis. Occam razor, my friend, occam razor.

Christ is teaching the Way of Affliction in the Christian Walk...

He affirms it in Revelation...

He affirms it when He said: "In the world, you WILL FIND TRIBULATION, but the Peace which I give unto you is NOT of this world..."

Arsenios

 

[jsjohnnt]

I know that the few is a reference to the social contruct prevalent in that day, a reference to the many in the one, he being that one, the many or, said another way, the all, were included in him (their ontological status included in his ontology, see Col 1.17). He alone was qualified to pass through that gate, and he alone able to walk that straight path which led to life (in Matthew) or salvation (in Luke), the salvation of the all. For more on the one and the many, the many in the one see my commentary of Romans 5.15-19 found close to the beginning of this thread. Ya really ought to read it.

I take back what I said about pride. You really didn't get it. My apologies.

I know that the few is a reference to the social contruct prevalent in that day, a reference to the many in the one, he being that one, the many or, said another way, the all, were included in him (their ontological status included in his ontology, see Col 1.17). He alone was qualified to pass through that gate, and he alone able to walk that straight path which led to life (in Matthew) or salvation (in Luke), the salvation of the all. For more on the one and the many, the many in the one see my commentary of Romans 5.15-19 found close to the beginning of this thread. Ya really ought to read it.

I take back what I said about pride. You really didn't get it. My apologies.

__________________________________

jsjohnnt: Guess I thought you agreed with me that the “gate” is Christ, making the “few” something other than Christ. Poor guess on my part. What or who is the “gate,” in your thinking?

Oh, btw, thanks for the apology. I feel so much better.

 

[patrick jane]

Well, He was certainly speaking TO the Jews,
but He was speaking ABOUT the Kingdom of Heaven,
and entry through the Gate (Christ) into it,
and the walk of afflictions its Way...

Paul describes and prescribes it for you and me here:
1 Cor 9-16 :

For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last,
as it were appointed to death:
for we are made a spectacle
unto the world, and to angels, and to men.
We are fools for Christ's sake,
but ye are wise in Christ;
we are weak,
but ye are strong;
ye are honourable,
but we are despised.
Even unto this present hour
we both hunger, and thirst,
and are naked,
and are buffeted,
and have no certain dwelling place;
And labour,
working with our own hands:
being reviled,
we bless;
being persecuted,
we suffer it:
Being defamed,
we intreat:
we are made as the filth of the world,
and are the offscouring of all things
unto this day.
I write not these things to shame you,
but as my beloved sons I warn you.
For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ,
yet have ye not many fathers:
for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
Wherefore I beseech you,
be ye followers of me.

Does this describe your life?

Do you believe Paul?

Arsenios

are you saying our life should match that of Paul's for us to believe him ? - atrol:

 

[Arsenios]

Good response. But (there is always a "but, " isn't there), I would argue that our "sinful nature" allows us to be tempted.

This is the very "sinful nature" Christ took on His very Person in His incarnation,
And elevated it to the Right Hand of the Most High...
After healing it of all its infirmities...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

are you saying our life should match that of Paul's for us to believe him ? - atrol:

Here is Paul's answer to you:

Wherefore I beseech you,
be ye followers of me.

Does this describe your life?

Do you believe Paul?

Arsenios

 

[Nang]

James 4:8New King James Version (NKJV)
8 Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.”

Do you believe James contradicts Paul?

Or was James addressing a dispersed church, while Paul described the universal condition of mankind?

Such is a promise made to all want to participate in the gospel. So why the apparent conflict between John 3:16 and Romans 9:18?

I am not saying that the following is the solution, but it is the solution for me:

In Jewish writings, God is at the center of everything, whether we perceive that outcome to be a good outcome or a harmful outcome. To argue that "God hardens hearts and condemns bases on on this hardening" is miss the point of Jewish writing style. In this case, Romans 9:18 or in case where God "hardened the hear of Pharoah," Jewish scribes are speaking of God’s permissive will, not his causative will.

To disagree is to render such passages as John 3:16 and the inclusive “whoever believes,” nonsensical; either “whoever believes” is true or not.

We should never use scripture to defeat scripture, right? Yet, we all do this from time to time, myself included. When there does not seem to be agreement between biblical statements, I would suggest that a student should immediately look for a solution that allows seemingly “opposing biblical statements” to stand as they are written.

I am not going to get into a [biblical] food fight with you. While “revelational truth” is consistent and linear in nature, scripture is not written in terms of a linear and singular “Grand Revelation.” It is all that, but that is not how it is presented. In short, the bible is not a systematic theology, especially in the New Testament. This fact is the very reason we all keep going back to the divine text . . . . . to seek understanding that comes from God, Himself (II Pet 1:20-21).

Anyway, I believe that if we, you and I and the others, keep at it, we will all come to a united understanding of the truth, at some level.

As far as any of us are diligent to let Scripture interpret itself, according to the entirety of the Scriptures, will any of us come to knowledge of God's Truth.

Any and all of us can, or should certainly understand, that the Holy Word of God never contradicts itself. If any inspired teaching seems at odds with the whole, the trouble resides in our finite minds; not in the perfect words of God.

 

[jsjohnnt]

Because you said the Way of Affliction which He named was only for the Jews, so I showed you it was Paul's teaching to the Gentiles as well...



Christ is teaching the Way of Affliction in the Christian Walk...

He affirms it in Revelation...

He affirms it when He said: "In the world, you WILL FIND TRIBULATION, but the Peace which I give unto you is NOT of this world..."

Arsenios

While you are absolutely right about Paul and his teaching as to the Gentiles, still, I hold (exegetically speaking) to the fact that Matt 7 was not about the Gentiles. When we conflate biblical statements and their particular context(s), we run the risk of making more of a given passage of scripture than was intended at the time it was written or spoken.

 

[jsjohnnt]

Do you believe James contradicts Paul?

Or was James addressing a dispersed church, while Paul described the universal condition of mankind?



As far as any of us are diligent to let Scripture interpret itself, according to the entirety of the Scriptures, will any of us come to knowledge of God's Truth.

Any and all of us can, or should certainly understand, that the Holy Word of God never contradicts itself. If any inspired teaching seems at odds with the whole, the trouble resides in our finite minds; not in the perfect words of God.

Nang, please review by statement, making note of my use of "apparent" or "seeming" and see if that does not help in understanding what I wrote. The bible is full of seeming contradictions or difficulties. James versus Paul is one of the most discussed, perhaps, but there are dozens, if not a hundred or three such examples. We work to solve these problems because we know or believe that the biblical message is not self contradictory. You and I agree on this, I am certain.