Best argument AGAINST Universal "Salvation!"

[Theo Book]

You lost me right at the very beginning of your thesis, namely:

(Theo)

"INSTRUCTION:
"Don't eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil."

CONSEQUENCE FOR DISOBEDIENCE:
DEATH.

RESULT:
ALL MEN ATE OF THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.
There was at that time, ONLY Adam and eve.

They died.

END OF CONTRACT."

By scanning the rest of your posts I see you believe in scripture so I can't imagine how you can say this.  The foundational premise of your argument is faulty.

In my opinion there is no possible way to reconcile Romans 5:12 ff with your premise!  

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Romans 5:12-13 is not part of the original contract of understanding, it is an explanation from the new, of the first. Sin was not imputed until the law or contract which laid out the explanation or parameters of what sin is.

I was going by the menaing of the Greek word "diatheekee" which is translated 
"covenant" in Gen 9:9 and many other places, and has the meaning of  1) a disposition, arrangement, of any sort, which one wishes to be valid,  the last disposition which one makes of his earthly possessions after his death, a  testament or will 2) a compact, a covenant, a testament 2a) God's covenant with Noah,  etc.

This meaning is found throughout scripture and applies to many things not part of an officially stated "covenant," i.e., there are many "arrangements," or agreements made between God and men, and between men and men. "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto." [Gal 3:15]  It does not have to be designated "covenant" in a translation to be a covenant in reality. "Testament" is translated from the same word diatheekee.

Look again at Paul's understanding - "Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar." [Gal 4:24] - We would never consider Sarai and Hagar to be two covenants unless Paul brought it to our attention.

What God had with Adam fits into this understanding. It was an understanding of instruction, blessings, punishment, all the accouterment of "covenant" plus brevity.

Of course, I do not make this understanding a test of fellowship. But it helps me in my understanding of the progresws of covenants and their import.

(Steve)

I don't even know how to explain it any more clearly than Paul did.  The original "contract", if you are going to call it that, is still fully in effect and will be until sin and death are destroyed once and for all.  Sin entered (and thereby death) through Adam and came thus to the whole race of men (through that one man).

This contract or covenant or call it what you will is never called a covenant or contract in the Bible as far as a I know so I don't know how appropriate it is to call it such and compare it to something like the Noahic or Abrahamic Covenant.  Even the New Covenant Jesus proclaimed was in juxtaposition to the Old Covenant, which was not anything to do with Adam (ala Rom 5) but was the Abrahamic Covenant (see 2 Cor 3).

I don't know where that leaves the rest of your argument but I can't get past an initial premise that on the surface at least seems so out of whack. SteveW

ANY arrangement, contract, agreement, etc. between two qualifies as a diatheekee. The arrangement between God and Adam was in the form of instruction, but I do not see where Adam either comprehended or agreed, and I do not see where Eve even heard the terms. I know she DID because she was able to quote the instructions God gave Adam, to Satan. And I also strongly believe Adam understood and agreed, because of the character of God and the fact Adam never plead ignorance. He only explained his guilt.

To me, the difference between arrangements is best described by the Hebrew letter;
"But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises." [Heb 8:6]

ALL of the covenants between God and men are brought together in Christ - "And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." [Heb 9:15]

The only difference I can see between agreements and covenants and testaments, is the death requirement, of the testator; but since Adam died, and in Adam, all men, I do not see a problem with the application. We just do not know enough about what was understood between God and Adam.

Anyway, enough rambling for now. What say ye?

[SteveW]

I wish I had more time to give a thoughtful reply before work this morning, but alas, perhaps a simple reply is better than none at all.

I still can't make heads or tails of your argument because it still seems based upon a faulty premise.  To state it succinctly I can't get around you saying that God's covenant (I used the word because you want to use it, not because it is Biblically described that way) with Adam was fulfilled and completed with Adam.  Yet Romans 5 makes it clear that because of Adam death and sin reign over the human race - apart from Christ that is.  And we know that death and sin won't finally actually once and for all be destroyed until the end of the age.

How can you say that their contract (Adam and Eve's) wasn't a contract for the human race if the terms or consequences are for the whole human race?  If what you are saying is true and the contract ended with them then their progeny would not have experienced sin or death.

Again, can't figure out why it is so important for you to characterize what happened with Adam the way you do and it certainly doesn't seem biblical to me.

[Theo Book]

I wish I had more time to give a thoughtful reply before work this morning, but alas, perhaps a simple reply is better than none at all.

I still can't make heads or tails of your argument because it still seems based upon a faulty premise.  To state it succinctly I can't get around you saying that God's covenant (I used the word because you want to use it, not because it is Biblically described that way) with Adam was fulfilled and completed with Adam.  Yet Romans 5 makes it clear that because of Adam death and sin reign over the human race - apart from Christ that is.  And we know that death and sin won't finally actually once and for all be destroyed until the end of the age.

How can you say that their contract (Adam and Eve's) wasn't a contract for the human race if the terms or consequences are for the whole human race?  If what you are saying is true and the contract ended with them then their progeny would not have experienced sin or death.

Again, can't figure out why it is so important for you to characterize what happened with Adam the way you do and it certainly doesn't seem biblical to me.

When Adam interacted with God, he lived in a perfect world. No sickness, no disease, no death. He had an understanding as to behaviour, with consequences and those consequences included both positive and negative possibilities. It is not elaborated upon by the scriptures but we know some things without being told. For example,  Adam was told that if he ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he will die. THIS includes a certain understanding that if he does NOT so eat, he will live. THAT makes a situation plausible known as an agreement. Not a scriptural quote, but a scriptural teaching.
  
Adam ate, and died. Terms of agreement and understanding fulfilled. Adam sent out of the garden. Earth cursed. Ends Adam's part in the scheme of things. However, the "Consequences" of Adam's action are still with us today. But NOT in the same world as that of Adam. Remember, he began life in a perfect world.

God cursed the earth, so that by the time the next generation knew anything at all, it was from the standpoint of living in a sincursed world. There is no record of any transaction between them and God other than the requirements of sacrifrice pleasing to God. Cain and Able had to sort that out in their own way. Able's sacrifice pleased God, Cain's did not; from which we can draw a different set of conclusions. God had to have communicated to them what would please him as to the type of sacrifice, and the type of comodity they could use. One is from a flock of living animal, having blood coursing through its veins, wherein life flows. {Remember, "the life is in the blood."} Cain offered the fruit of his own labor, of vegetables having no life-carrying blood. His sacrifice was contrary to God's pleasure, and his obvious instruction. Again, consequences, and promises for certain kinds of behaviour as respects sacrifice and obedience.

And that was the only interaction we know of with only one exception, Enoch, who walked with God and was not for God took him, because he pleased God. There is no way Enoch could have pleased God without God's communication to men, and Enoch's pursuit of righteousness in line with that communication. Again, not a scripture quote, but a scriptural teaching.

Finally came a time in which God communicated again, his displeasure with the race of men, by flooding the earth with water. Once more, we can develope an understanding about what those men knew by what God did in reaction to their efforts. When God destroyed the earth because of man's behaviour, there was no innocent man walking the earth. ALL stood guilty before God. "Every thought of man's heart was only evil continually." THAT is quite an indictment. But it tells us they were not kept in ignorance of God's will, but rather chose to go their own way. Remember, Enoch lived up during some of that same time and pleased God, so it was a matter of choice; how Enoch reacted to God's communication compared with how all other men reacted to that same communication.

But remember also, it was not the same world as that of Adam. Nor was it the same set of instructions as that of Adam, nor even of Cain and Able.

Time, world situation, people involved, promises, consequences, blessings, curses, all different for each group of men the Bible presents to us for our learning. And remember also that the old testament was designed to lead the Jews to Christ. All of these stories are part of that old covenant with Abraham, and part of those lessons to lead them to Christ.

It constituted a build up of different requirements as to what pleased God, who accomplished that, and results of effort extended.

There are some results from those days that still effect us today without our being part of those agreements and understandings. Example - cursed earth; we live with it. Example -Rainbow symbol of covenant-promise; we live with it. Example - prophetic utteraqnces concerning Messiah and salvation; we live with it. Example - prophecies of wars, rumors of war, pestilence, etc,; we live with it.

All of the covenants with God had results that affected those within its purview, AND also had results that extended long after those men died. Romans 5 is proof of that. The tale of the flood is further proof. The tale of the allegory between Sarai and Hagar, "which are two covenants" tells us yet again of things that carry results way beyond the time of those involved.

I don't know if this clears it up or makes it worse. I do know that all the covenants are connected, and consequences of one are still effective in another. Patience.

[rosered]

  Hi Theo 
 I thought of the transgression of Adam
  it was hiding it in his bosom / Eve
 
 she come out from Adam and declared what was in mans heart
 
   he blamed God for the woman God  gave him
  thats what he did ...  and the Lord made him see that , He was the head over the woman , not the woman over the head /man
 the order  that God has made was changed by Adams iniquity ...

 1Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.
 

 The stranger did not lodge in the street: [but] I opened my doors to the traveller. 


 Job 31:33  If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom: 

 Job 31:34   Did I fear a great multitude, or did the contempt of families terrify me, that I kept silence, [and] went not out of the door? 


 Job 31:35   Oh that one would hear me! behold, my desire [is, that] the Almighty would answer me, and [that] mine adversary had written a book. 

   there is alot more to this ,  but will quiet for now

[WhiteWings]

When Adam interacted with God, he lived in a perfect world. No sickness, no disease, no death.

Doesn't a perfect world also mean there are only perfect people? Adam and Eve were not perfect imo outwise they won't have sinned.
If Jesus would have been the first Adam then the serpent would simply out of luck.

Cain and Able had to sort that out in their own way. Able's sacrifice pleased God, Cain's did not; from which we can draw a different set of conclusions. God had to have communicated to them what would please him as to the type of sacrifice, and the type of comodity they could use. One is from a flock of living animal, having blood coursing through its veins, wherein life flows. {Remember, "the life is in the blood."} Cain offered the fruit of his own labor, of vegetables having no life-carrying blood. His sacrifice was contrary to God's pleasure, and his obvious instruction.

Like always there are different understandings
^KJVGen 4:3-4 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
 4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

Why did did one offer please God and the other not? Because one was meat and the other was fruit?
Or could it be that the fruit was of bad quality?
The animal offering was "firstlings". Imo that's often seen as prime quality.
But for the fruits nothing is mentioned about quality. Like first fruits for example.
Just a thought.

There are some results from those days that still effect us today without our being part of those agreements and understandings. Example - cursed earth; we live with it. Example -Rainbow symbol of covenant-promise; we live with it. Example - prophetic utteraqnces concerning Messiah and salvation; we live with it. Example - prophecies of wars, rumors of war, pestilence, etc,; we live with it.

So basicly you are saying all the (un)written convenants/instructions are still casting their shadow into our time?
To me it are very reasonble conclusions.

[sven]

If you will look at the terms of understanding between God and the various men under various contracts (read "covenants") you will cease to ask "why doesn't the old covenant (testament) warn the men about eternal torment?"

Simple. It wasn't part of the contract (covenant).

I came to the conclusion that I can turn your argument around and then it favors universalism, which is more rational then thinking that God would keep silence for millenia over such a terrible threat as eternal torment, we further challenge the claim that the New Testament teaches eternal torment.

I admit the Old Testament does say little about universalism or an afterlife at all, - it wasn't part of the contract maybe

In the Gospels itselfs there are only a few hints in favor for universalism, it was maybe still not part of the contract with the Jewish people; only after Christ's ressurection we find universalism clearly taught in the epistles of Paul, maybe it was kind of a new covenant or contract that benefits literally all men.

As for what God is going to do with all those men under prior covenants in eternity, I think THAT belongs to God and judgment. It is not within our purvue to speculate, ponder, and make eternal decisions.

yet you say we have choice to decide over our own eternal destiny, wouldn't this be an eternal decision alike?

[WhiteWings]

Sven,

I think each contract reveals a little more of the masterplan.
And I agree (to a certain extend) with Theo that the convenants don't just end.
We now live in the age of Grace. You could call it the contract of grace if you wish.
But does that mean all OT laws are abolished? So are. For example the animal sacrifices.
But, for example, the 10 Commandment still are in effect.
Otherwise it would indeed be what many acuse UR of. "Let's party. Let's sin. It doesn't matter the slightest bit."

[WhiteWings]

Theo,

You wrote down some examples of old contracts that still are present. Like the rainbow and death.
You made you point very clear that the contracts extebd into the future.
But do you think the contracts also extend into the past?
For example does teh age of grace also benefits Adam?
Does the death and resurrection also benefit Jesus?
Or do you say "Adam had no everlasting life contract so he just stays dead forever."

[Theo Book]

Theo,

You wrote down some examples of old contracts that still are present. Like the rainbow and death.
You made you point very clear that the contracts extebd into the future.
But do you think the contracts also extend into the past?

Actually my point was NOT that the contracts extend into the future, but rather the CONSEQUENCES of some of the contracts are still effective.

As for extending into the past. No! If the age of grace extended backward, it would eliminate the meaning of "age of" in the expression, by changing it to "ages of."

For example does the age of grace also benefits Adam?

The age of grace is totally tied to the death and resurrection of Jesus, and it does not extend, it applies, to all ages. He died for all sins past. [Rom 3:25]

Does the death and resurrection also benefit Jesus?

Most assuredly. He was declared to be the son of God by the resurrection from the dead. [Rom 1:4] Without the death, no resurrection; without resurrection, no declaration as son of God.

Or do you say "Adam had no everlasting life contract so he just stays dead forever."

Not at all. Adam has as much chance as any man if he repented. All sins past are covered by the blood of Christ. [Rom 3:25]

[WhiteWings]

Seems I made some very confusing typo's/mistakes....

Theo,

You wrote down some examples of old contracts that still are present. Like the rainbow and death.
You made you point very clear that the contracts extebd into the future.
But do you think the contracts also extend into the past?

Actually my point was NOT that the contracts extend into the future, but rather the CONSEQUENCES of some of the contracts are still effective.

That's what I understood. I gave rainbow as an example but should have written the effects/concequeses are stil effective 

As for extending into the past. No! If the age of grace extended backward, it would eliminate the meaning of "age of" in the expression, by changing it to "ages of."

Here also.... the effects of the contract. 

For example does the age of grace also benefits Adam?

The age of grace is totally tied to the death and resurrection of Jesus, and it does not extend, it applies, to all ages. He died for all sins past. [Rom 3:25]

Agreed.

Does the death and resurrection also benefit Jesus?

Most assuredly. He was declared to be the son of God by the resurrection from the dead. [Rom 1:4] Without the death, no resurrection; without resurrection, no declaration as son of God.

I think I should just delete my message and you your reply. It gets very messed up this way 
I should have written does the death and ressurrection of Jesus also benefits Adam?
(you already answered that)

Or do you say "Adam had no everlasting life contract so he just stays dead forever."

Not at all. Adam has as much chance as any man if he repented. All sins past are covered by the blood of Christ. [Rom 3:25]

I agree with that conclusion. Basicly I just wanted to know if you think the effects/concequences also benefit those who lived before the contract. I got my answer.
Sorry for a post with so many mistakes....

[WhiteWings]

Not at all. Adam has as much chance as any man if he repented. All sins past are covered by the blood of Christ. [Rom 3:25]

If he didn't is he out of luck or does he get another chance after he gets resurrected?
Or what about the people that never heard of Father or Son?

[rosered]

 
  what happened while away ???? LOL..
 
  The same standard is set Jesus come to fulfil the Law

the Spirit dwelling within you [being the temple of the Lord /His possesion ] will keep all the law
 
  seeing that the  main ones of OT are still in effect here  ...
 
highlighted them Romans 13
  8Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

 9For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

 10Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
 11And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

 
  so if you Love God and your neighbour as yourself
  seems the laws requirements keeps you  in check    ...

[Paul Hazelwood]

The possibility exists that Jesus came to show that man had the wrong idea about how the law was supposed to be upheld in the first place.

Jesus came to fulfill it,  not to condemn it which means he came to show man what it really means.

I do not believe the bible has anything to do with the law of the land  I.E. life in prison for murder.

Jesus came to tell us that you can murder in your heart,  a crime that is not punishable by the law of the land because it can be kept secret from all men.

Jesus did not come to tell us that murder was now ok.

The prostitute Jesus protected from the pharasees was told to go sin no more, Jesus did not abolish adultery as if there was nothing wrong with it, he showed us that the old way of doing things was wrong all along.

This is why I have come to see that the old testament was not about the physical consequenses God condoned but a picture of what God does to us spiritually, however even then man was not in understanding of how we are supposed to treat one another concerning spirituality.

This is a different matter concerning the law of the land.  Human have to protect one another from each other in a different way.  I do not believe there is anything wrong with a person getting a life sentence for murder, because we have no true way to know when a murderer is repentant just because he says he is, man is not obligated to believe someone because of that.   So we do have to enact things where people suffer the consequenses.

Spiritually however,  we can love the murderer in our hearts and understand that it is still ok to have laws of the land.

[Theo Book]

 
  what happened while away ???? LOL..
 
  The same standard is set Jesus come to fulfil the Law

the Spirit dwelling within you [being the temple of the Lord /His possesion ] will keep all the law
 
  seeing that the  main ones of OT are still in effect here  ...
 
highlighted them Romans 13
  8Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

 9For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

 10Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
 11And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

 
  so if you Love God and your neighbour as yourself
  seems the laws requirements keeps you  in check    ...

Changing of the covenant requires also a changing of the laws. Just because many of the commandments on the tablets of stone are reiterated under Christ, does not mean they are still applied from the law of Moses. They are newly stated under Christ, therefore new applications form new laws. The law of Moses was done away.

The law of love in Christ Jesus incorporated many likeminded laws, but they are not old laws brought forward accross covenants, they are new laws, newly ordained by our new Lord and Saviour.

[Theo Book]

I do think I would stop telling men there are no eternal consequences for disobedience, until I examined this understanding thoroughly.

Ephesians 1:10  "in regard to the dispensation of the fulness of the times, to bring into one the whole in the Christ, both the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth -- in him"

I do think I would stop telling men they would be tortured eternally in a mistranslated place called "hell", until I examined this understanding thoroughly.

But I don't tell men that. I tell men "study the issues." We have been misled on so many, we need to recheck them all.

[SteveW]

Sorry I'm having such a hard time understanding the point you are trying to make and thank you for putting so much time into your response to my post this morning.

I would like to try and summarize your "best argument AGAINST Universal Salvation" and then maybe you could help my understanding of what you are trying to say once again, because I just can't seem to get it.  Here's what I think you are saying:

1.  God communicates how he wants to deal with different groups of men at different times and in different ways with different sets of expectations and consequences.  These may be the same or different from time to time but regardless, each group of men is accountable for what God tells them.  You, and in some cases the Bible, refer to these communications as covenants or contracts.

2.  In the New Covenant Christ sets forth the set of expectations and consequences for men in the current age and that includes eternal blessings or eternal torment.

3.  Therefore Universal Salvation is false.

I seriously am not trying to poke fun here, I just don't get it and I want to.  Perhaps someone else could help explain from a different perspective what Theo Book is saying because I must be missing it.

[Theo Book]

Sorry I'm having such a hard time understanding the point you are trying to make and thank you for putting so much time into your response to my post this morning.

I would like to try and summarize your "best argument AGAINST Universal Salvation" and then maybe you could help my understanding of what you are trying to say once again, because I just can't seem to get it.  Here's what I think you are saying:

1.  God communicates how he wants to deal with different groups of men at different times and in different ways with different sets of expectations and consequences.  These may be the same or different from time to time but regardless, each group of men is accountable for what God tells them.  You, and in some cases the Bible, refer to these communications as covenants or contracts.

2.  In the New Covenant Christ sets forth the set of expectations and consequences for men in the current age and that includes eternal blessings or eternal torment.

3.  Therefore Universal Salvation is false.

I seriously am not trying to poke fun here, I just don't get it and I want to.  Perhaps someone else could help explain from a different perspective what Theo Book is saying because I must be missing it.

My introduction to Universal Salvation as a doctrine, was from a confrontation with Gary Amirault twelve years agoe, and we were still debating it ten years ago. The primary issues at that time were Whittemore's article and other claims by Amirault that we discussed in depth.

I have not enough ego to claim "I won" because we  were still in disagreement when we parted, but I have never been back to the issue until now. I see he still  has Whittemore's article posted, and the article claiming "God never warned the first covenanteers, so he must be a monster..." and assumed it was still the basis for his claims. I also expected to see him as the chief opposition. Understanding the separation of covenants denies the one argument about the "warnings not made" and I have never seen rebuttal to the debate point I made with Gary. Disagreement yes, rebuttal, no.

I am beginning to see a much different issue developed on this board, and that is why I am discussing instead of challenging, though my OP may well be taken for a challenge.

Basically yes, eternal torment would negate universal salvation. Just because the term is not found in some verses does not mean it is not found in some other verses. ALL verses must be considered together.

Not everybody is going to hear the Lord, though all are invited to listen.
I Cor 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. 21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

[CHB]

Not everybody is going to hear the Lord, though all are invited to listen.
I Cor 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. 21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

This is talking about speaking in tongues but the reason they will not hear is because God has blinded them and shut their ears  (2Cor. 3:14) But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail UNTAKEN away.   (Rom. 11:8) According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear; unto this day.

CHB

[legoman]

Hi Theo,

This is how I see it so plainly.  You are quite right when you say all scripure must be looked at.  But we can also say if something is crystal clear in scripture, no other scripture can contradict it.

NIV
1 Tim 2:3This is good, and pleases God our Savior,
4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

KJV
1 Tim 2:3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Now some people like to debate the plain meaning here, but Theo, do you agree that these verses can only mean one thing?  That God wants to have all men saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth?  And by all men it really means all men - God wants to save every single individual who has ever existed? 

If we have agreement here, then we can move on.

Now, we agree God desires to save all.  The next question is will God achieve His desires?

Isaiah 46:10 I make known the end from the beginning,
       from ancient times, what is still to come.
       I say: My purpose will stand,
       and I will do all that I please.
 
Job 23:13 "But he stands alone, and who can oppose him?
       He does whatever he pleases.

Now again, are these scriptures not crystal clear?  God will do whatever He pleases.  And it pleases Him to save all men, since He desires to save all men, wouldn't you agree?

So, one further point of objection might be the will of man.  You might object and say that some men will reject God forever.  But scripture also speaks to this matter:

Psalm 22:29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
       all who go down to the dust will kneel before him—
       those who cannot keep themselves alive.

Isaiah 45:22 [NASB] "Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth;
         For I am God, and there is no other.
    23"I have sworn by Myself,
         The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness
         And will not turn back,
         That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.

Phil 2:9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
      and gave him the name that is above every name,
 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
      in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
      to the glory of God the Father.

Rev 5:13 Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing:
   "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
   be praise and honor and glory and power,
         for ever and ever!"

Again we see scripture is completely clear.  All will bow and confess, even swear allegiance to Christ.  All will joyfully praise and worship Him.

So to summarize:
- God wants to save all men
- God acheives all that He wants
- no one will reject Christ forever
- because all men will want to be saved (eventually)

God wants to save all men, and all men will want to be saved -> IT WILL HAPPEN!

Now given that all scripture must be in harmony, and these scriptures are crystal clear as to what will happen, other scriptures that allege "eternal hell" must be misinterpreted, or scripture is BROKEN.  I don't think the scripture is broken.  UR is as simple as believing these verses and believing no other verse can contradict them.

[Theo Book]

Not everybody is going to hear the Lord, though all are invited to listen.
I Cor 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. 21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

This is talking about speaking in tongues but the reason they will not hear is because God has blinded them and shut their ears  (2Cor. 3:14) But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail UNTAKEN away.   (Rom. 11:8) According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear; unto this day.

CHB

Tell me one thing CHB - will God condemn evil men or Will God justify the wicked?

[legoman]

Not everybody is going to hear the Lord, though all are invited to listen.
I Cor 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. 21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

This is talking about speaking in tongues but the reason they will not hear is because God has blinded them and shut their ears  (2Cor. 3:14) But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail UNTAKEN away.   (Rom. 11:8) According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear; unto this day.

CHB

Tell me one thing CHB - will God condemn evil men or Will God justify the wicked?

CHB can give an answer I'm sure, but here is mine:
Christ died for the ungodly (thats the wicked and the evil - it includes you and me), so that the wicked and the evil would be made righteous.

Romans 5:6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.

Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Its the same "the many" who were made sinners that will be made righteous.  Why is it "the many"?  Its referring to a group, whose numbers are many - meaning a large amount.

[CHB]

Tell me one thing CHB - will God condemn evil men or Will God justify the wicked?

Hi Theo,

(Rom 3:24) Being JUSTIFIED FREELY BY HIS GRACE through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

(Psalms 93:15)  But judgment shall return unto righteousness;
(Hos. 10:12) for it is time to seek the Lord, till HE COME AND RAIN RIGHTEOUSNESS UPON YOU.
Can't remember where to find this right now but it says "when the Lord is in the earth the inhabitants will learn righteousness"

To be justified and righteous is a gift of God just like everything else is.

(Phil. 2:10) All will one day bow the knee and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

CHB

[willieH]

willieH: Hi TB... 

You are quite the busy "new guy" eh? 

Do you think you have made any headway here in bringing your sorrowful position? 

I'm not CHB... but I will be answering this question you posed below to her:

Tell me one thing CHB - will God condemn evil men or Will God justify the wicked?

FIRST -- The answer to this question is HE shall JUSTIFY, for it is written:

Rom 5:18 -- therefore, as by the OFFENSE of ONE judgment came upon ALL MEN to CONDEMNATION... even so, by the RIGHTEOUSNESS of ONE, the free gift came upon ALL MEN, unto JUSTIFICATION of LIFE

Why you ask? 

Rom 5:20 -- moreover the Law entered, that the OFFENSE might abound... But, where SIN abounded [in any amount or degree - for none is specified] ...GRACE did ...MUCH ...MORE ...ABOUND!

ALL men are DESPARATELY WICKED of HEART -- Jer 17:9 -- ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of GOD -- Rom 3:23 -- there is NONE RIGHTEOUS, no NOT ONE -- Rom 3:10-13 -- Psalm 14:1-3

ALL includes you and I and everyone else... 



SECOND -- CHRIST came to do the WILL of the Father, and so stated this -- John 4:34 -- within said "will" is stated within the dispatching of the WORD, was that IT was sent NOT to CONDEMN -- John 3:17 --

If CHRIST were to CONDEMN and/or the Father were to CONDEMN, both would exhibit HYPOCRISY and both would exhibit CHANGE...  and the Scriptures thereby demoted to a farce.  Fortunately for ALL, the Scriptures are TRUE, and UNCHANGING... And thank GOD it is your RELIGIOUS perception which is found, awry.

Both the Father and His Son (the WORD), do NOT CHANGE, ...neither do either of them CONDEMN.   Which IS GOOD NEWS for ALL men...  For THEY are united in the Harmony and success generated by their LOVE, and SO LOVE the WORLD, which was/is/will be, in need of SAVING... and which They SHALL SAVE, in spite of the misled teachings of the SELF CENTERED RELIGION which proclaims Salvation for themselves, and teaches that OTHERS (God SO LOVES) shall not gain it.

MEN are quite busily condemning others, and this position, is sorrowfully seen WITHIN YOU and your proclamations here at TM...

As you stand in our midst, going from one self-created thread to another -- CAMPAIGNING for CONDEMNATION to be taught, ...when YHVH GOD sent His Son NOT to CONDEMN and CHRIST noted that His work was about doing the WILL of the Father, ...YHVH GOD... 

The WORD does NOT CONDEMN, brother Theo Book, but such men as yourself, bear the BAD NEWS message of CONDEMNATION which in NO WAY, SHAPE or FORM, can be considered GOOD NEWS...   

Your ears presently do not HEAR now as we speak to you... but one day to your chagrin, shall you HEAR WORDS from Him, you shall not wish to hear:

Matt 7:22-23 -- MANY will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord have WE not prophesied in Thy name, and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works... and then will I profess unto them... DEPART from Me, YE that WORK INIQUITY.

Time for YOU to rethink your position, as well as the hardened "shape" of your misled teachings.  Which in their state of horror, ...are noted to others    but (fortunately and conveniently for YOU) do not INCLUDE YOU... 

...willieH 

[CHB]

willie,

Am not sure but I think Theo has left the building.

CHB

[Theo Book]

willieH: Hi TB... 

You are quite the busy "new guy" eh? 

Do you think you have made any headway here in bringing your sorrowful position? 

I'm not CHB... but I will be answering this question you posed below to her:

Tell me one thing CHB - will God condemn evil men or Will God justify the wicked?

FIRST -- The answer to this question is HE shall JUSTIFY, for it is written:

Rom 5:18 -- therefore, as by the OFFENSE of ONE judgment came upon ALL MEN to CONDEMNATION... even so, by the RIGHTEOUSNESS of ONE, the free gift came upon ALL MEN, unto JUSTIFICATION of LIFE

Why you ask? 

Because God established a standard long ago that has not changed. There is a difference between justifying the wicked, and bringing the wicked to justification.

[Exo 23:7...for I will not justify the wicked.] and also says anyone who does so is abominable to the Lord [Prov 17:15 He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.]