ECT This should start a decent discussion: Universal Atonement

[Cross Reference]

Calm down, CR. I was actually responding to Arsenios' comment and tagged yours by mistake.

And mine. Sorry.

Although in looking back at it, it speaks to the same issue you raise. Adam did not have to sin ~ however inevitable it was that he would.

Can we not suppose that by one correct choice the angels of Heaven would have come to his side __ just like they did at the conclusion of Jesus' 3 temptations.

Cain did not have to slay his brother, even though he was born on the fallen side of Adam.

But as we see with Adam, a unfallen condition was no strength to him against Satan's deceptions. I'll let you suggest why not and perhaps why the man Jesus won His battle in the same arena.

However, because he was born under the curse of Adam, he was subject to death whether he sinned himself or not.

Irrelevant in this. We're going deeper into something that might bring fresh undestanding in the why of things.

Vanity, it seems to me, feeds on the desire to be one's own sovereign.

I like that. You hit on something. Didn't Jesus say we were as "gods". Doe it not say we were created in His image. That has to mean than just the physical, right?

 

[jsjohnnt]

In vanity is where the issue of choice originated. You must understand that vanity is not sin in order to get a grasp on this. Remember how God spoke to Cain, to warn him of the same issue before killing Abel? That's it!

You make a good point about Cain's sin against his brother, but I do not see how that [valid] opinion goes to, or should I say "against" my statement that if Adam did not have a choice at the time, he would have sinned immediately. It was choice that allowed him time between creation and sin, no? I believe that Adam would have eventually sinned, but, because something is inevitable (Adam was going to sin), does not mean that he was forced into that circumstance. Neither can we blame Adam for our demise. Romans 5:12 makes it clear (my opinion) that just as death entered the world and death trough sin, and in this way, death came to all, because all [have] sinned.

BTW, it think it more than interesting that "eis" is part of the syntax, here: " . . . and in this way, death came into (eis) all men . . . " I have a theory about "eis" and it is this: I am thinking that "eis" is often an ontological marker. You may disregard my theory. But what say you on the foregoing?

 

[Arsenios]

Good post, I think. You wrote: It is instead pandemic and wonton immersion in God... How many men and women do you know like this?" Of course, the answer to your question, as you know, is the very issue that demands that the flow of the blood of the Lamb be continual in an aorist sort of way.

They are called Saints...

They are hard to find...

I have met a few...

They don't talk about it...

Usually...

They live in the language of the Age to Come...

That language is Silence...

Aorist not aortal...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

The instant we make Jesus our example and link righteousness to obedience (ours now), we place ourselves under the very law that he ~ and only he ~ fulfilled, the covenant of which Paul calls faulty and obsolete (Heb 8).

If that is true, then why does Christ command the Apostles to disciple all the Nations in obedience to all His Commandments?

Adam disobeyed God... Do we heal from that wound without obedience?

How can we follow Christ without obedience to Christ?

Furthermore, had we only needed the Holy Spirit to live in obedience to the Law, then Christ died in vain.

Are you equating obedience to the instructions of Christ to His Apostles with obedience to the Levitical Law of the Jews?

It is true that both are obedience, but in terms of belief only, it is the Levitical Law-abiding Jews who only need faith, but it is those who are NOT as the Jews who need THE Faith as discipled BY the Apostles... Law abiding Jews are saved simply BY faith because they are already discipled, and the Gentiles are saved THROUGH the Faith of Christ as it is discipled TO them BY the Apostles... It is the discipling of the Faith that prepares the Gentiles for Salvation BY Grace, but the Jews are already [if they are practicing] discipled...

God should have just sent his Spirit and saved his Son the anguish. NO! Christ did what was impossible for any of us (post Adam at least) to do. PERIOD.

Restoration to the Garden is but ONE phase of what Christ did for us, and this he established in Himself when he offered Himself to His Father on the Cross... We regain Adam, by the remission of our sins, through the crucifixion of Christ, into which we are baptized... But we are also entered INTO Christ's Holy Body, and in this we surpass Adam in the Garden, because we are ontologically JOINED with Christ-God, and not merely created humans receiving forgiveness and a lot of Grace...

It was not primarily as example that he came.

But is WAS... That is what you are not getting yet... He came that we should walk as He walked... And IN ORDER TO DO SO, we HAD to be cleansed from our sins first, and THEN ONLY could we be made ONE with Christ...

He came because we have each of ourselves found ourselves in a dilemma that we cannot possibly ever resolve: our own human condition. Because He was human as we are, He could represent us in that very condition. Because he was God as well, he could represent us there successfully. As man, he could sin; as God, he was able not to.

As man, He was obedient to the Father unto death on the cross... And He suffered... As the Person Who IS BOTH Logos AND Man, He could not sin... He did not come to "represent us" in our fallen condition to the Father at all, but instead to ELEVATE us FROM that condition, which we will exit by death, and which we DO exit by our Baptism INTO His death...

Arsenios

 

[jsjohnnt]

They are called Saints...

They are hard to find...

I have met a few...

They don't talk about it...

Usually...

They live in the language of the Age to Come...

That language is Silence...

Aorist not aortal...

Arsenios

Saint and sinner are saved. There is no such thing as a good person. Even the good we think to do, has the smell of menstrual rags. Again, that is why the blood of the Lamb is a continual flow ("keeps on cleansing" I Jo 1:7).

 

[Cross Reference]

If that is true, then why does Christ command the Apostles to disciple all the Nations in obedience to all His Commandments?

Speak of the two commands that are summed in one.

Adam disobeyed God... Do we heal from that wound without obedience?

One only heals by living out the Great commandment. It is a relationship.

How can we follow Christ without obedience to Christ?

How do you feel about the Great commandment as being the answer??

Are you equating obedience to the instructions of Christ to His Apostles with obedience to the Levitical Law of the Jews?

Great commandment vs Mosacial law?? Ceremonial part notwithstanding, they both are the same. One does not teach the faith of Christ. Either one has it or doen't have it. It is exampled.

It is true that both are obedience, but in terms of belief only, it is the Levitical Law-abiding Jews who only need faith, but it is those who are NOT as the Jews who need THE Faith as discipled BY the Apostles... Law abiding Jews are saved simply BY faith because they are already discipled, and the Gentiles are saved THROUGH the Faith of Christ as it is discipled TO them BY the Apostles... It is the discipling of the Faith that prepares the Gentiles for Salvation BY Grace, but the Jews are already [if they are practicing] discipled...

Incomplete at best unless you mean to say both are save unto something and not merely from something.

Restoration to the Garden is but ONE phase of what Christ did for us, and this he established in Himself when he offered Himself to His Father on the Cross... We regain Adam, by the remission of our sins, through the crucifixion of Christ, into which we are baptized... But we are also entered INTO Christ's Holy Body, and in this we surpass Adam in the Garden, because we are ontologically JOINED with Christ-God, and not merely created humans receiving forgiveness and a lot of Grace...

Which places a great responsibility upon us than what Adam was given.

But is WAS... That is what you are not getting yet... He came that we should walk as He walked... And IN ORDER TO DO SO, we HAD to be cleansed from our sins first, and THEN ONLY could we be made ONE with Christ...

. . .and then we could only BEGIN to be made one with Christ.

As man, He was obedient to the Father unto death on the cross... And He suffered... As the Person Who IS BOTH Logos AND Man, He could not sin...

Then was not ever as man __ nor as God.

He did not come to "represent us" in our fallen condition to the Father at all, but instead to ELEVATE us FROM that condition, which we will exit by death, and which we DO exit by our Baptism INTO His death...

Arsenios

Jesus made it possible for man to be as He was at that point in time for to become as He presently is in this point in time. That is what God was after as His motivation for having created man and testing him to prove him for handling His Glory. That's it. Start from that "elementary" point.

 

[Cross Reference]

You make a good point about Cain's sin against his brother, but I do not see how that [valid] opinion goes to, or should I say "against" my statement that if Adam did not have a choice at the time, he would have sinned immediately. It was choice that allowed him time between creation and sin, no? I believe that Adam would have eventually sinned, but, because something is inevitable (Adam was going to sin), does not mean that he was forced into that circumstance. Neither can we blame Adam for our demise. Romans 5:12 makes it clear (my opinion) that just as death entered the world and death trough sin, and in this way, death came to all, because all [have] sinned.

BTW, it think it more than interesting that "eis" is part of the syntax, here: " . . . and in this way, death came into (eis) all men . . . " I have a theory about "eis" and it is this: I am thinking that "eis" is often an ontological marker. You may disregard my theory. But what say you on the foregoing?

Why not consider thinking about what would have happened had Adam obeyed God? In so doing, I believe you will receive answers to your ongoing ontological questions that will never lead to some profitable conclusion in the knowing of God.

 

[TFTn5280]

Guys, I'll get to your posts later today. Something came up and I sorta got slammed.

Blessings,

 

[Arsenios]

Saint and sinner are saved.

Not if the Saint is saved from sin...

And the sinner abides in sin...

There is no such thing as a good person.

One is Holy, One is Good, Jesus Christ...

That is why we MORTIFY our fleshly self...

That is why Paul said: Not I, but Christ IN me...

And this AFTER he was BAPTIZED into Christ by Ananias...

Even the good we think to do, has the smell of menstrual rags.
Again, that is why the blood of the Lamb is a continual flow ("keeps on cleansing" I Jo 1:7).

THAT, my Dear John, is a comparison I would avoid...

Especially with Christ acting within us who are within Him acting...

And the more so since the woman with an issue of blood...
Was healed by touching the fringe of Christ's garment...

The Flesh and Blood of Christ is served within His Body, the Church...
Where He is served TO His Body...
To the flesh and blood persons...
Who are members OF that august Body...

Arsenios

 

[Cross Reference]

Especially with Christ acting within us who are therein acting...

And the more so since the woman with an issue of blood was healed by touching the fringe of Christ's garment...

The Flesh and Blood of Christ is served within His Body, the Church,
Served TO His Body,
The flesh and blood persons who are MEMBERS of that august Body...

Arsenios

How so? Too much convolusion going on heah.

 

[Arsenios]

Guys, I'll get to your posts later today. Something came up and I sorta got slammed.

Blessings,

I hope all is well...

Lord have Mercy!

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

How so? Too much convolution going on heah.

Read more slowly -

I got a day job...

Gotta run...

Arsenios

 

[jsjohnnt]

Not if the Saint is saved from sin...

And the sinner abides in sin...



One is Holy, One is Good, Jesus Christ...

That is why we MORTIFY our fleshly self...

That is why Paul said: Not I, but Christ IN me...

And this AFTER he was BAPTIZED into Christ by Ananias...



THAT, my Dear John, is a comparison I would avoid...

Especially with Christ acting within us who are within Him acting...

And the more so since the woman with an issue of blood...
Was healed by touching the fringe of Christ's garment...

The Flesh and Blood of Christ is served within His Body, the Church...
Where He is served TO His Body...
To the flesh and blood persons...
Who are members OF that august Body...

Arsenios

I am going with my original comment, BUT, I do get your point. I have to smile. When I wrote the "menstrual rags' thing, a friend of mine told me, "You are going to get in trouble with that comment."

I still do not see the point since I am quoting scripture . . . . . . . but, again, I am not so stubborn as to miss your point. Have fun at work,, but always remember, "work" is part of the curse.

 

[Arsenios]

Have fun at work,
but always remember,
"work" is part of the curse.

The curse of God, laboring for food, is His blessing for man...
We need labors...

Arsenios

 

[Cross Reference]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenios View Post

Especially with Christ acting within us who are therein acting...

And the more so since the woman with an issue of blood was healed by touching the fringe of Christ's garment...

The Flesh and Blood of Christ is served within His Body, the Church,
Served TO His Body,
The flesh and blood persons who are MEMBERS of that august Body...

Arsenios

This is what I call, "flowerary bogus understanding" of scripture.

1.

The Flesh and Blood of Christ is served within His Body, the Church,

And is worthily received by the presuming ones of the visible church [not His body].

2.

Served TO His Body,

Those presumed to be His Body.

3.

The flesh and blood persons who are MEMBERS of that august Body...

That is the presumption that continues to bring sickness and death to the visible church organism.
The Church is not the Body of Christ in the sense we have received it to be by Paul in Colossians. Better He would have added there was no difference purposed between them. It is supposed to be the Earthly representation of the kingdom of God for the Body. In that regard it can be summed up as being a nurturing mother-Father relationship. His Body are those within her who understand that relationship and worship accordingly, demonstrating the authority of the Father; worshipping Him as "mother" is purposed to teach/present Him.

The devils intent has been to destroy that sensitive relationship and to a great extent, has accomplished it by persuading to the worship of "mother".. However, God has permited this way to continue as a means of seperating out for Himself, His sons, the invisible organism within "mother"[woman], that united multimembered Body who will rule and reign with Jesus, who will be soon caught up to His Son, Jesus. In that day the presumptuous ones left behind will realize their error and come to know the only way left open for them to be secured to the salvation of God will cost them their heads.

 

[Cross Reference]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenios View Post

Especially with Christ acting within us who are therein acting...

And the more so since the woman with an issue of blood was healed by touching the fringe of Christ's garment...

The Flesh and Blood of Christ is served within His Body, the Church,
Served TO His Body,
The flesh and blood persons who are MEMBERS of that august Body...

Arsenios

This is what I call, "flowerary bogus understanding" of scripture.

1.

The Flesh and Blood of Christ is served within His Body, the Church,

And is worthily received by the presuming ones of the visible church [not His body].

2.

Served TO His Body,

Those presumed to be His Body.

3.

The flesh and blood persons who are MEMBERS of that august Body...

That is the presumption that continues to bring sickness and death to the visible church organism.
The Church is not His Body of Christ but is supposed to be the Earthly representation of the kingdom of God. In that regard it can be summed up as being a mother-Father relationship. His Body are those within her who understand that relationship and worship accordingly, demonstrating the authority of the Father; worshipping Him as "mother" is purposed to teach/present Him.

The devils intent has been to destroy that sensitive relationship and to a great extent, has accomplished it. However, God has permited this way to continue as a means of seperating out for Himself, His sons, the invisible organism within "mother"[woman], that united multimembered Body who will rule and reign with Jesus who will be soon caught up to His Son, Jesus. In that day the presumptuous ones left behind, will realize their error and come to know the only way left open for them to be secured to the salvation of God will cost them their heads.

 

[TFTn5280]

And mine. Sorry.

We're good.

Can we not suppose that by one correct choice the angels of Heaven would have come to his side __ just like they did at the conclusion of Jesus' 3 temptations.

I don't think it is unreasonable to think this. They may very well have done so. I'll get to why below.

But as we see with Adam, a unfallen condition was no strength to him against Satan's deceptions. I'll let you suggest why not and perhaps why the man Jesus won His battle in the same arena.

Correct. As to why Jesus was able to withstand Satan's temptations, I believe the reasons are multifaceted. Jesus had the Holy Spirit upon him to guide him into truth. He had in-depth knowledge of the Scriptures to rebut Satan's deceptive claims. And most importantly, he had communed with his Father his entire life (and from eternity past) and knew him intimately. His desire was to please him and to do his will. In doing his will, he broke through Satan's schemes and in so doing won the day.

Irrelevant in this. We're going deeper into something that might bring fresh undestanding in the why of things.

Let's proceed.

I like that. You hit on something. Didn't Jesus say we were as "gods". Doe it not say we were created in His image. That has to mean than just the physical, right?

Yes, I would say so. This gets me to my above point: I think there is an assumption that Adam and Woman would not have gained knowledge of good and evil had they not eaten of the tree of knowledge of the same. I do not agree with this. Had they refrained from eating of the tree and communed with God instead, they would have learned of evil from the vantage point of goodness: God's goodness. They would have learned to look upon evil through his eyes. The longer they communed, the greater would have grown their ability and desire to resist evil and flee from it. Yes, they would likely have had the angels administering to them in recovery of Satan's wiles.

As it was, however, in disobedience to God, when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they immediately became aware of God's goodness from the vantage point of evil. What did that goodness produce? Shame, which likely produced fear and feelings of guilt, among other derivatives.

Humanity has functioned from that evil side of knowledge ever since. Rather than commune in God's goodness and look upon evil through his eyes, we are prone to traffic in evil and look away from the goodness of God in shame.

Arsenios, I haven't forgotten your post. I will try to get to it as time permits.

Blessings,

 

[Cross Reference]

Originally Posted by TFTn5280 :

in repy to;

Originally Posted by Cross Reference


CR

Can we not suppose that by one correct choice the angels of Heaven would have come to his side __ just like they did at the conclusion of Jesus' 3 temptations.

TFT

I don't think it is unreasonable to think this. They may very well have done so. I'll get to why below.

See Matt 4:11

CR

But as we see with Adam, a unfallen condition was no strength to him against Satan's deceptions. I'll let you suggest why not and perhaps why the man Jesus won His battle in the same arena.

TFT

Correct. As to why Jesus was able to withstand Satan's temptations, I believe the reasons are multifaceted. Jesus had the Holy Spirit upon him to guide him into truth. He had in-depth knowledge of the Scriptures to rebut Satan's deceptive claims. And most importantly, he had communed with his Father his entire life (and from eternity past) and knew him intimately. His desire was to please him and to do his will. In doing his will, he broke through Satan's schemes and in so doing won the day.

Partially correct.
1. Though indwelt by the Word of God, Jesus was emptied of Divinity. He had to compete on the same level as Adam; te first of a new creation. Aside from the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, power to function before being sent into the world, He was as any New Born child of God with the one exception of His sinlessness. How else could Jesus have ever been called the second or last Adam?

2. Jesus learned obedience. Divinity has no need to do that.

3. Jesus was limited in His knowledge of certain things.

4. In knowing the scriptures is why He was obedient. Catch this: Obedience is between unequals an yet Jesus never thought it robbery to considered equal with God. Why? Because He knew He was the only begotten son of His Father and by Roman law/custom of adoption, he could make that claim. The Jews never bought into that for obvious reasons we might discuss.

CR

I like that. You hit on something. Didn't Jesus say we were as "gods". Does it not say we were created in His image. That has to mean than just the physical, right?

TFT

Yes, I would say so. This gets me to my above point: I think there is an assumption that Adam and Woman would not have gained knowledge of good and evil had they not eaten of the tree of knowledge of the same. I do not agree with this. Had they refrained from eating of the tree and communed with God instead, they would have learned of evil from the vantage point of goodness: God's goodness. They would have learned to look upon evil through his eyes. The longer they communed, the greater would have grown their ability and desire to resist evil and flee from it. Yes, they would likely have had the angels administering to them in recovery of Satan's whiles.

How 'bout accepting the idea that God knew Adam, as with any new born baby in his "innocent dispostion", could not have handled ALL of the knowledge in the swing of the pendulum bewteen Good and Evil? Though the tree was there to be looked upon, a Spiritual relationship with God was needed for "allegiance", "insight" and "strength" against Satan and that awaited him had he obeyed simply by eating the Tree of Life that had he eaten of it would incarnated the Word of God to him that would have given him ALL the knowledge of the "WHY" of his being who he was and God's intention for him, set in Himself, would have been fully revealed to him. Adam would have received a sustaining vision that would have carried the day in any further onslaughts of Satan.

CR

As it was, however, in disobedience to God, when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they immediately became aware of God's goodness from the vantage point of evil. What did that goodness produce? Shame, which likely produced fear and feelings of guilt, among other derivatives.

I would simply say Adam was the first to experience what breaking the law of God entails for the one who does. He would soon find out there could be no forgiveness, no second chance and all else that comes with that bit of "knowledge" that God was compelled to do.

TFT

Humanity has functioned from that evil side of knowledge ever since. Rather than commune in God's goodness and look upon evil through his eyes, we are prone to traffic in evil and look away from the goodness of God in shame.

But, we have an advocate with the Father __ Jesus. . .

Side note: Adam perhaps could have been the advocate for his progeny as Jesus is, ours.

 

[Arsenios]

The visible church [is] not His body.

Are YOU not a member of His Body?

ARE you invisible?

Are you NOT flesh?

Those presumed to be His Body.

Gal 3:27
For as many of you
as have been baptized into Christ
have put on Christ.

Is Paul not writing of the Body of Christ here?

The Church is not the Body of Christ in the sense we have received it to be by Paul in Colossians.

Forgive me - You are arguing with Paul then... Not with me...

So how is it then that you are going to CORRECT PAUL???

Better He would have added there was no difference purposed between them. It is supposed to be the Earthly representation of the kingdom of God for the Body. In that regard it can be summed up as being a nurturing mother-Father relationship. His Body are those within her who understand that relationship and worship accordingly, demonstrating the authority of the Father;
worshiping Him as "mother" is purposed to teach/present Him.

So THAT is why God had Paul, and not you, write this Epistle!

Look, Paul is an early one appointed over you as having to account for your soul... He is not yours to correct, but to obey...

The devils intent has been to destroy that sensitive relationship and to a great extent, has accomplished it by persuading to the worship of "mother".. However, God has permited this way to continue as a means of separating out for Himself, His sons, the invisible organism within "mother"[woman], that united multimembered Body who will rule and reign with Jesus, who will be soon caught up to His Son, Jesus. In that day the presumptuous ones left behind will realize their error and come to know the only way left open for them to be secured to the salvation of God will cost them their heads.

Well, having CORRECTED PAUL...

It looks, then, like you are investing in :execute:s

Arsenios

 

[Cross Reference]

The visible church [is] not His body.

Are YOU not a member of His Body?

ARE you not visible?

Yes, I trust I am a member of His Body but I belong to no organized church.

For the rest, I gave you my reasoning and feel no need to chase your rabbits. Thanks, but, no thanks.