Thaddaeus

Remnantrob, I just came back to this forum after a long absence, and began to read this thread. I would like to make some comments regarding your question. First, in following through, it seems Butch5 is the only one who is arguing against the theory known as "Original Sin". I agree with him but I feel he did not go far enough in explaining why Original Sin is a false theory. Unfortunately it is held by most if not all Protestants, and was accepted by the RCC at the Council of Trent right in the middle of the Reformation. Probably to stem the tide of Protestantism where both Luther and Calvin, both Augustinians adopted his philosopy of Original Sin. First, two tenents of the theory are that man shares in Adam's sin and guilt. Secondly, it is God that imputes sin to man. The Church from the beginning and the Orthodox today still hold to the understanding of the fall as scripture actually teaches. The Church Fathers have explained it that Adam was take captive by Satan by being deceived and sinned. That sin was condemned and it is the condemnation of Adam's sin that man has inherited. Satan was given authority over this world when he fell. He ruled this world by the power of death Heb 2:14. When God told Adam that he would die, it was NOT the relationship but life itself that would die. Adam became mortal. God did not create death. Death is the absence of life. God created life. He created man to live eternally, not to be dissolved by death back to dust from whence he came, Gen 3:19. That death was real is shown with the death of Cain. Man would live a biological existence struggling all the while to survive,living in a world and body susceptable to decay and corruption. It is this dead mortal body that cause us to sin so easily. The passions of man are out of balance. Adam chose to make this world the object of his desires rather than the Creator. Rather than use it to God's glory as he was created to do, he chose to use it for his own ends. That death is man's primary problem is confirmed by Paul in Rom 5:12. He states that it is death, the condemnation of Adam's sin that fell upon all men. Also I Cor 15:56 tells us point-blank that death, our mortality causes us to sin, "the sting of death is sin". This would be impossible under the theory of Original Sin. Also, we do not have sin nature, but a sinful nature. A huge difference in meaning. I might also add that many Original Sin proponents use Ps 53:5 to show man is born with sin, but it states man is born IN sin. Another huge difference in meaning. Paul then in Rom 5:18 tells us that Christ's death the free gift of life was given to all men. This is the free Gift of salvation given by God, through Christ's great mercy and love to mankind. Christ overcame death, defeated Satan, so that God and man could resume an eternal relationship for which man was created. Without life, an eternal, physical existence there can be no eternal spiritual relationship betweeen God and man. Another support text is II Tim 1:10 Part of the problem most Protestants have is to get around the fact that if man has a sin nature, or is born with sin, then how can Christ be born a man in the Incarnation. Man is NOT born a sinner, but mortal. We sin because we are dead, mortal beings. Christ was born with our human nature, in order that He was capable of death. That is why Christ needed to be Incarnate. He assumed our mortal natures and give life to that nature by His resurrection. I Cor 15:12-22 is the clearest explanation of Christ's work of saving man from death. Notice all men will be given life. The fact that the resurrection of man is tied to the resurrection of Christ is also supported by John 6:39, Rev 20:13, Acts 24:15 and others. If man is going to be able to choose of his own free will, as did Adam as man was created, then all men need life in order that 'whosoever' beleives might have eternal life,(meaning life with Christ). as opposed to an eternal existence apart from Christ. This is why all Christians have believed in the resurrection of the dead. Christ not only gave life to mankind, but to the world as well, which suffered the condemnation of death. (also note, that with the Original Sin theory, this would make no sense at all) II Cor 5:18-19, Rom 3:23-25, Rom 5:6-10, Col 1:20, shows that Christ was reconciling the world back to God. The purpose was to enable man to be reconciled to Christ by and through faith to begin or better stated, to renew (regenerate) the lost relationship due to Adam. I hope this might be of help to you, and others.

this is a key notation. Predestinatation as understood by the reformed is not even understood properly as to its logical conclusions. becuase it is superimposed on scripture, when scripture speaks against it, the proponents need to redefine terms, redefine the meaning of clear scripture just to maintain some semblance of validity.

But why when you live under an open heaven, and you have direct access to God, would you want to use a third party? Does it super size your prayer? Before the curtain was torn, and the altar broken, priests entering the the holy wore a bell around their ankle and a rope tied to their foot so that if they were struck dead (and the bell stopped ringing), they could be pulled out. Why do you think we still need people on the other side of the the rope? Jesus cut that rope for us, and God opened heaven. Obviously you have never asked anyone to pray for you, or have not prayed for someone else which is a pity. You seem to be still in the OT, isn't any wonder you are having difficulty understanding. Bless you but no. Tel me in any way shape or form my post you quoted above about an open heaven relates to the OT? I have a good friend who is Russian, and an orthodox priest, I have spent many an hour on a small boat in the middle of the night fishing and talking, and using a little vodka to keep warm, so I have an idea of Orthodoxy. He calls me a NT heretic and I tell him praying through St Peter won't catch him any more fish.... That we both love Jesus and just approach it from different angles doesn't degenerate into us insulting each other about praying. We both pray to the same God, he just takes the longer route, through some other dude first. Which I think is not entrenched in scripture nor is it necessary. By the way I host a prayer group at my home once a week, among other things, and we pray like Nehemiah prayed. With intensity, and directly to God. He has answered in so many ways, and not a "saint" in sight! So your comment is judgmental, uninformed and lacks grace. It is also a personal attack which is kind of against the ToS. So please desist. Pot calling the kettle here. Your comment was sarcastic and judgemental which is why I gave the same response. Orthodox do not JUST pray to saints. Not any more so than you would ask any other person to pray for you or a family member which apparently you do not do, as I had mentioned this in my previoius post. Now, in knowing you have a friend who is Orhodox it makes it even more judgemental. You should have known better.

But why when you live under an open heaven, and you have direct access to God, would you want to use a third party? Does it super size your prayer? Before the curtain was torn, and the altar broken, priests entering the the holy wore a bell around their ankle and a rope tied to their foot so that if they were struck dead (and the bell stopped ringing), they could be pulled out. Why do you think we still need people on the other side of the the rope? Jesus cut that rope for us, and God opened heaven. Obviously you have never asked anyone to pray for you, or have not prayed for someone else which is a pity. You seem to be still in the OT, isn't any wonder you are having difficulty understanding.

It is still one of the issues separating the Orthodox from RCC. The language as it exists in the filioque changes the meaning of the Trinity. Whether she is or is not is not a saving doctrine. It is a pietistic concept and many do believe that her body was taken up after she died. If you have some specific questions, just let me know. I have serious issues with the intercession of Saints. This sounds to me very much like contacting the dead. It is all about perspective. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Matt 22:32. The saints reigning with Christ are alive.To use a saint who has died to intercede to Christ for you is no different than you asking a friend to pray for you here on earth. We know the saints are aware of our prayers as this is conveyed in Revelation. It has been a belief from the beginning. The phrase, "the communion of the Saints" was included in the Apostles Creed and is in the Liturgy as well. We also know from scripture that the souls of the saints are "aware" in heaven. A text as Heb 12:22-24. When we celebrate the Liturgy, we are being transported to Heaven and we share that Eucharist with those in heaven. The story of Lazarus and the Rich man with both Paradise and Hades. The accounts of the Transfiguration shows that life, Moses and Elijah exists in heaven or consciousness. Heb 12:1 refers to them as witnesses. If they were not conscious they could not be witnesses. The other aspect of praying to the saints is also praying for the saints. We have Paul's prayer for Onesiphorus II Tim 1:18. The Church teaches that prayer for those dead with Christ is helpful because in the Orthodox view, sanctification is an ever ongoing, unending process and continues in heaven. II Cor 3:18. If we are being transformed into the Likeness of Christ, how would any created being ever attain His perfection. There is much more that could be stated, but books have been written on this topic. I hope this helps a little. Sounds to me like someone is messing about with semantics here. Dead means 'dead in the flesh'. Just because these people are technically alive in spirit does not mean that they are not dead in the flesh. God makes it clear that we are not to disturb the dead. Deut 8 (If they were dead in spirit we would not be able to contact them anyway). So when God says do not disturb the dead then he means do not contact those who are dead in the flesh. Another thing, you say that the souls of the saints are aware in heaven, who are these saints? How do you know that the person you are speaking to us a saint? How do you know that you are not contacting a malevolent spirit? It applies if you are wanting to contant them for information, like trances, or predictions, or whatever else psychics and soothsayers do. This is not about summoning, or evocation. But asking them to be intercessors is not the same in any stretch. Because of their pius and righteous living in this world and because of miracles performed by them when alive or when dead, the Church has declared them as saints.

It is still one of the issues separating the Orthodox from RCC. The language as it exists in the filioque changes the meaning of the Trinity. Whether she is or is not is not a saving doctrine. It is a pietistic concept and many do believe that her body was taken up after she died. If you have some specific questions, just let me know. I have serious issues with the intercession of Saints. This sounds to me very much like contacting the dead. It is all about perspective. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Matt 22:32. The saints reigning with Christ are alive.To use a saint who has died to intercede to Christ for you is no different than you asking a friend to pray for you here on earth. We know the saints are aware of our prayers as this is conveyed in Revelation. It has been a belief from the beginning. The phrase, "the communion of the Saints" was included in the Apostles Creed and is in the Liturgy as well. We also know from scripture that the souls of the saints are "aware" in heaven. A text as Heb 12:22-24. When we celebrate the Liturgy, we are being transported to Heaven and we share that Eucharist with those in heaven. The story of Lazarus and the Rich man with both Paradise and Hades. The accounts of the Transfiguration shows that life, Moses and Elijah exists in heaven or consciousness. Heb 12:1 refers to them as witnesses. If they were not conscious they could not be witnesses. The other aspect of praying to the saints is also praying for the saints. We have Paul's prayer for Onesiphorus II Tim 1:18. The Church teaches that prayer for those dead with Christ is helpful because in the Orthodox view, sanctification is an ever ongoing, unending process and continues in heaven. II Cor 3:18. If we are being transformed into the Likeness of Christ, how would any created being ever attain His perfection. There is much more that could be stated, but books have been written on this topic. I hope this helps a little.

It is still one of the issues separating the Orthodox from RCC. The language as it exists in the filioque changes the meaning of the Trinity. Whether she is or is not is not a saving doctrine. It is a pietistic concept and many do believe that her body was taken up after she died. If you have some specific questions, just let me know.

That is a very interesting perspective, though I hope you will forgive me for not necessarily sharing it. I try not to accept anything without questioning it and examining it a great deal first. My goal at the moment is to fully understand this philosophy and how you have developed it. What has convinced you that when the Body divided the Head went East? If it is possible for one body of Christians to, while assured by their faith, make decisions that result in false doctrines why is it not probable for all bodies of believers to fall victim to the same? What is your measure for knowing when one Body has Christ at the Head and the other does not? Doesn't this place Doctrine at the whimsy of popular opinion? What happens when, over time, the Body changes it's mind about certain issues? In the beginning, over time Doctrines were developed and made it into canons and minds were clearly changed over that time. Why would it be right for the Body to change it's thinking on matters of faith at that time - but not after that time? Given that it was the backing of the State that allowed the Church to enforce the doctrinal decisions they made early on, does might make right in matters of faith? I wouldn't expect you to accept or believe whatever I espoused. I am a former protestant who spentl 4 diligent years with some intensive studying before I officially converted to Orthodoxy. However, you incorrectly ascribe the "philosophy" to me. It has nothing to do with me. It has been the unchanging Gospel Truth for 2000 years. It was given the the Apostles in the beginning and has since been preserved by the Holy Spirit. The fact that it has not changed is the testament to the authentic witness of the power of the Holy Spirit working through Christ's Body. The Body does not consist ONLY of present day members. The Body consists of all members from the Apostles to the present day. This is why the Gospel has not changed. What was given in the beginning is what has een preserved to the present. The dictum that eventually came from the Councils is that whatever has not been believed from the beginning, by everyone, everywhere is a false teaching. Which after 2000 years of constancy it is quite easy to ascertain false teachings. If it bears a man's name it becomes even easier. You seem to think doctrines have been changed. Again this might be the built in RCC bias you currently have. But give me an example of any doctrine that has changed from the beginning? Constantine did not enforce them necessarily for faiths sake. He called the first Council because the Empire was realing with the factions for and against Arianism. He called it for political reasons ot keep the emprie from dividing or showing weakness so that the neigboring enemies would attack at the time of greated division over a spiritual matter. He enforced it for the same reason the Church enforces its faith, to keep it correct. There was always a very close connection between the Patriarchate and the Emperor. This is one of the reasons for the split. Rome was no longer part of the Empire and in the aftermath of the fall and destruction of the western part, the Church, namely the Bishop, the Pope was the only seemingly organized, civilized agency available to not only be the head of the Patriarchate in Rome but the Pope also became the civil authority. This is when the Pope became the secular head which eventually evolved through the Dark Ages in the west, the Holy Roman Empire. The Pope is the one that raised armies to defend his protectorate, as well as raised armies evenually for the Crusades. The Pope has been since the fall of Rome the head of a civil government as well as the Church. He controlled extensive lands during the Middle Ages and only began to dwindle with the rise of nationalism in the west in the 17th and 18th century. After the official independence of Italy from the City States, the Pope's land kept decreasing until only the Vatican exists today. But in spite of that the Pope has always been an international political figure and authority. The US has always had an Ambassador to the Vatican. It was not until the last Pope, that he relinquished all rights to civil authority. It was this historical development in the west where by the Pope thought that since he was the civil authority in Rome he should also be the supreme spiritual leader as well. This struggle went on for 600 years, with several schisms, each time Rome coming back until the last time in 1054. You asked about how one can determine where the Holy Spirit resides respective of the Body. All one needs to do is see all the changes made by the RCC since they left doctrinally that has changed the meaning of the Gospel. They were the first to use the principle of development of doctrines from scripture which after the Reformation became known for protestants as sola scriptura. which leads right back to the topic of this thread, namely Universalism. A man made theory back in the early years, but a more modern updated version(s) all developed by individual men. All false teachings are based on scripture, from Arius to the present day. The question is , has it always been believed, by all, everywhere from the beginning. If not, it is false. The Holy Spirit is not giving out private revelation to individuals and changing the meaning of scripture from what it meant in the beginning. I confess that you do have me at a disadvantage. I know very little of the Eastern Orthodox Church and have more knowledge of the history and shifts of doctrine through the Roman Catholic Church and onward throughout Protestant and Evangelical Churches. What is your view of Constantine, and the Councils under him? Can you explain to me how you understand the councils that were correct to have functioned? Have there been no changes in the Eastern Orthodox doctrine and scripture translations for 2000 years? Can you tell me a little bit about Eastern Orthodoxy from your point of view? There has been no changes in doctrines from the beginning to the present time within Orthodoxy. Many were clarified because of false teachings against the Gospel the clarifications were always based on what had always been believed. The base scripture is still the Greek Septuigent. I can tell you more but it probably is not the best thing to do in this thread. There are Eastern Orthodox sites that will give you enough information to keep you busy reading and studying for quite some time. It has been a pleasure to discourse with you in this thread.

That is a very interesting perspective, though I hope you will forgive me for not necessarily sharing it. I try not to accept anything without questioning it and examining it a great deal first. My goal at the moment is to fully understand this philosophy and how you have developed it. What has convinced you that when the Body divided the Head went East? If it is possible for one body of Christians to, while assured by their faith, make decisions that result in false doctrines why is it not probable for all bodies of believers to fall victim to the same? What is your measure for knowing when one Body has Christ at the Head and the other does not? Doesn't this place Doctrine at the whimsy of popular opinion? What happens when, over time, the Body changes it's mind about certain issues? In the beginning, over time Doctrines were developed and made it into canons and minds were clearly changed over that time. Why would it be right for the Body to change it's thinking on matters of faith at that time - but not after that time? Given that it was the backing of the State that allowed the Church to enforce the doctrinal decisions they made early on, does might make right in matters of faith? I wouldn't expect you to accept or believe whatever I espoused. I am a former protestant who spentl 4 diligent years with some intensive studying before I officially converted to Orthodoxy. However, you incorrectly ascribe the "philosophy" to me. It has nothing to do with me. It has been the unchanging Gospel Truth for 2000 years. It was given the the Apostles in the beginning and has since been preserved by the Holy Spirit. The fact that it has not changed is the testament to the authentic witness of the power of the Holy Spirit working through Christ's Body. The Body does not consist ONLY of present day members. The Body consists of all members from the Apostles to the present day. This is why the Gospel has not changed. What was given in the beginning is what has een preserved to the present. The dictum that eventually came from the Councils is that whatever has not been believed from the beginning, by everyone, everywhere is a false teaching. Which after 2000 years of constancy it is quite easy to ascertain false teachings. If it bears a man's name it becomes even easier. You seem to think doctrines have been changed. Again this might be the built in RCC bias you currently have. But give me an example of any doctrine that has changed from the beginning? Constantine did not enforce them necessarily for faiths sake. He called the first Council because the Empire was realing with the factions for and against Arianism. He called it for political reasons ot keep the emprie from dividing or showing weakness so that the neigboring enemies would attack at the time of greated division over a spiritual matter. He enforced it for the same reason the Church enforces its faith, to keep it correct. There was always a very close connection between the Patriarchate and the Emperor. This is one of the reasons for the split. Rome was no longer part of the Empire and in the aftermath of the fall and destruction of the western part, the Church, namely the Bishop, the Pope was the only seemingly organized, civilized agency available to not only be the head of the Patriarchate in Rome but the Pope also became the civil authority. This is when the Pope became the secular head which eventually evolved through the Dark Ages in the west, the Holy Roman Empire. The Pope is the one that raised armies to defend his protectorate, as well as raised armies evenually for the Crusades. The Pope has been since the fall of Rome the head of a civil government as well as the Church. He controlled extensive lands during the Middle Ages and only began to dwindle with the rise of nationalism in the west in the 17th and 18th century. After the official independence of Italy from the City States, the Pope's land kept decreasing until only the Vatican exists today. But in spite of that the Pope has always been an international political figure and authority. The US has always had an Ambassador to the Vatican. It was not until the last Pope, that he relinquished all rights to civil authority. It was this historical development in the west where by the Pope thought that since he was the civil authority in Rome he should also be the supreme spiritual leader as well. This struggle went on for 600 years, with several schisms, each time Rome coming back until the last time in 1054. You asked about how one can determine where the Holy Spirit resides respective of the Body. All one needs to do is see all the changes made by the RCC since they left doctrinally that has changed the meaning of the Gospel. They were the first to use the principle of development of doctrines from scripture which after the Reformation became known for protestants as sola scriptura. which leads right back to the topic of this thread, namely Universalism. A man made theory back in the early years, but a more modern updated version(s) all developed by individual men. All false teachings are based on scripture, from Arius to the present day. The question is , has it always been believed, by all, everywhere from the beginning. If not, it is false. The Holy Spirit is not giving out private revelation to individuals and changing the meaning of scripture from what it meant in the beginning.

Hmm, it is most certainly plausible that I am viewing your statements through an RCC perspective given that much of Christianity was shaped through centuries of being predominantly Catholic. Are not the same people who selected some scriptures, and eliminated others, and interpreted out of them doctrines such as the Trinity and called other doctrines heresies, the same people who chose the Popes and followed the Popes? Why would they have authority to do one thing, but not the other? Universalism does appear to have been a teaching of the early Church and did not become a heresy until after Augustine, in 500. Up to the 400's it was a predominant doctrine. http://www.thebeautifulheresy.com/2005/08/early-church.html http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/barclay1.html So you see, whether the doctrine is correct or not (for I do not argue in either direction myself) it was present in the early Church among the Church Fathers and was not called heresy until much later. Western Christianity is wholly in the perspective of the Roman Catholic Church. ONce they separated in 1054 the self proclaimed Popes could do as they pleased, which they did. Eastern Christianity, or Othodox is wholly for 2000 years the same perspective in preserving the original Gospel that was entrusted to the Church, the Body of Christ. Incorrect. The Church has NEVER had a POPE as you are understanding it from the RCC perspective. Each Patriarch is elected by the members of that Patriarchy. But the Patriarch is not the highest order of authority. Every bishop is equal in ecclessiastical authority. Only in administrative matters does a Patriarch have any sole authority within his own Patriarch. YOur question is based on misunderstanding how the Church functions, rather than as the Rcc has established themselves since they broke from the Church. I think you are making the same mistake in understanding terminology again. The Church has NEVER held such a view as Universalism. Origin was the first to write about such a notion but it never took root in his lifetime. It was not until much later, as you state that the someone else actually began to teach it within the Body and became a detriment to the Body, thus the item was brought to the Council, where it was condemned. What you may be confused with is universal capitulation or what today is known as universal reconciliation by Christ through His Incarnation. This is the work of Christ reversing the fall, death which the world as well as man inherited from Adam. Text such as Rom 5:18, I Cor 15:22, John 6:39, II Cor 5:18-19, Heb 2:14-17 speak about universal reconciliation or the Incarnation of Christ. Under your method of understanding, theologically one would of necessity believe that the Holy Spirit gave the early Church one Gospel, but it was incorrect, at least regarding universalism, and then 400 years later corrected His error. The Church cannot be incorrect since Christ is the Head and the Holy Spirit enlivens that Body. Men are wrong and many have tried to impose their intepretations upon Christ's Gospel, but all have failed to change the Gospel once given in the beginning. Jude 3. If the Church did in fact believe in Universalism it would still be the same today. it was present in individuals. Every heresy known to man has come from within the Church, not only that but most from bishops gone astray. The only exceptions in the early Church was Gnosticism and Judeaism. There are many more heresies that are outside the Church today but none are influencing it in any way at present. Paul even warned more about the false teachings from within than from without. What a man believes and what the Church believes are two different things. Hmm. You're very interesting and instructive. While you tell me that I am mistaken I do not feel like you are talking down to me so thank you for that. =o) Thank you for sharing your perspective with me. Do I now understand you correctly; that you believe that everything that was decided by the Councils prior to the divide between Eastern and Western Orthodoxy was under the authority of Christ as the Head of the Church, with the councils acting as and on behalf of the Body of Christ? NOt precisely. The Bishops represented the Body at the Councils, but the bishops findings are never final until the Body accepts them. There have been Councils overturned by the Body. that you believe that after the divide between Eastern and Western Orthodoxy it was Western Orthodoxy that followed the path of heresy while the councils of the Eastern Orthodox Church remained the uncorrupted representatives of the Body of Christ with Christ as the Head? That is correct. The Gospel has not changed in those 2000 years.There have been no subtractions or additions as happened in the RCC since they split. that you believe that Protestantism, which came out of Western Orthodoxy, remains burdened by the heresies of the Western Orthodox Church? First, there is no such thing as a Western Orthodox Church. Protestantism is the child of Roman Catholicism. However what few that were at the time they have added several since. . Protestants have added hundreds of their own over the last 500 years. What they objected mostly against the Pope, they now do themselves on an individual basis. That includes the current one under discussion. It is not my intention to put words in your mouth or misrepresent you, this is reflective listening now. Please do tell me if I have misunderstood you. (ps. my replies may be delayed for a couple of hours as I'm going out for a bit!) Correct, with the changes made above.

Hmm, it is most certainly plausible that I am viewing your statements through an RCC perspective given that much of Christianity was shaped through centuries of being predominantly Catholic. Are not the same people who selected some scriptures, and eliminated others, and interpreted out of them doctrines such as the Trinity and called other doctrines heresies, the same people who chose the Popes and followed the Popes? Why would they have authority to do one thing, but not the other? Universalism does appear to have been a teaching of the early Church and did not become a heresy until after Augustine, in 500. Up to the 400's it was a predominant doctrine. http://www.thebeautifulheresy.com/2005/08/early-church.html http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/barclay1.html So you see, whether the doctrine is correct or not (for I do not argue in either direction myself) it was present in the early Church among the Church Fathers and was not called heresy until much later. Western Christianity is wholly in the perspective of the Roman Catholic Church. ONce they separated in 1054 the self proclaimed Popes could do as they pleased, which they did. Eastern Christianity, or Othodox is wholly for 2000 years the same perspective in preserving the original Gospel that was entrusted to the Church, the Body of Christ. Incorrect. The Church has NEVER had a POPE as you are understanding it from the RCC perspective. Each Patriarch is elected by the members of that Patriarchy. But the Patriarch is not the highest order of authority. Every bishop is equal in ecclessiastical authority. Only in administrative matters does a Patriarch have any sole authority within his own Patriarch. YOur question is based on misunderstanding how the Church functions, rather than as the Rcc has established themselves since they broke from the Church. I think you are making the same mistake in understanding terminology again. The Church has NEVER held such a view as Universalism. Origin was the first to write about such a notion but it never took root in his lifetime. It was not until much later, as you state that the someone else actually began to teach it within the Body and became a detriment to the Body, thus the item was brought to the Council, where it was condemned. What you may be confused with is universal capitulation or what today is known as universal reconciliation by Christ through His Incarnation. This is the work of Christ reversing the fall, death which the world as well as man inherited from Adam. Text such as Rom 5:18, I Cor 15:22, John 6:39, II Cor 5:18-19, Heb 2:14-17 speak about universal reconciliation or the Incarnation of Christ. Under your method of understanding, theologically one would of necessity believe that the Holy Spirit gave the early Church one Gospel, but it was incorrect, at least regarding universalism, and then 400 years later corrected His error. The Church cannot be incorrect since Christ is the Head and the Holy Spirit enlivens that Body. Men are wrong and many have tried to impose their intepretations upon Christ's Gospel, but all have failed to change the Gospel once given in the beginning. Jude 3. If the Church did in fact believe in Universalism it would still be the same today. it was present in individuals. Every heresy known to man has come from within the Church, not only that but most from bishops gone astray. The only exceptions in the early Church was Gnosticism and Judeaism. There are many more heresies that are outside the Church today but none are influencing it in any way at present. Paul even warned more about the false teachings from within than from without. What a man believes and what the Church believes are two different things.

I neither agree with one party 100%, but Universalism is not scriptural. All through out the NT we are informed that not all will be saved. Three years ago I too would have shared your opinion regarding universalism. Since then my study of early church history as well as examining Scripture leads me to believe that all will eventually be saved. Your claim that “All through out the NT we are informed that not all will be saved” can be contested. I believe that most Christians have been so thoroughly indoctrinated to the view that God only saves the elect while the rest are consigned to eternal torment that they tend to read the scriptures through those lenses without giving due consideration to another view. So in response to your assertion that all does not really mean “all" - What do the scriptures say? Lk 2:10 And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Would the Good News still be the good news if in reality it is only for some of the people? Jn 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” Did Jesus lie when he said “all” knowing very well that only the elect are predestined to salvation? The word “draw” in this verse also means “drag” as when fishermen drag their nets full of catch. When Jesus stated that he will drag all men to himself can anyone deny that God’s will can be thwarted and cannot accomplish what he set out to do? 1Tim 4:10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. This verse states that God saves all; not just some who believe. The word “especially” denotes priority and particularity; it does not mean only or exclusively. Rom 11:32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. Notice the parallelism in this verse. If we agree that the first clause means that all of humanity are disobedient sinners, then we would have to agree that God’s mercy to all in the second clause means all of humanity as well. 1 Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. Rom 5:15-19 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. No one would disagree that Adam’s transgression resulted in condemnation to all men – every single one. Yet the verse also says Christ’s sacrifice resulted in justification for all men – every single one. Paul’s use of parallelism here is unmistakable. The gift is greater than the trespass. To make the claim that “all” actually means “some” as it only applies to the elect is the same as saying Jesus’ power to save is less than Adam’s power to condemn. 1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. Another example of parallelism. If all die in Adam, all live in Christ. Col 1:18-20 He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; If we acknowledge that Jesus is fully God, as all the Father’s fullness dwells in him; by the same token we have to acknowledge that Jesus will reconcile all to himself. The plain reading of these verses indicates God will save all but we tend to limit all to “some” because that is what we have been taught. There is not much of what you stated that is scriptural in any sense of the word. The texts you quoted to show the meaning of all are all correct, but your summation is faulty on those texts. This is so because you are conflating two different aspects of our salvation, making them all one, or the same. First, Christ did indeed save not just mankind, every single human being, but the world as well. However, Christ came to reverse the fall of man. Christ came to get man out from the curse, the condemnation of the fall, which was death. Physical death. Man became mortal, Adam became mortal, that is the condemnation of his sin. Gen 3:19, Rom 5:12. You then use the text that indicate that Christ saved all. He did, but from death and sin. This is the great gift of salvation, of mercy, love and grace God gives to all men through the work of Christ. The texts that support this (these are known as the Incarnational texts that support Christ's Incarnation which was necessary to reverse the fall) are, Rom 11:32, Rom 5:18, Rom 3:23-35, Rom 5:6,8, II Cor 5:18-19,. Col 1:20. I Cor 15:12-22, 53, Heb 2:14-17, John 4:42, I John 4:14, Acts 25:15, Rev 20:11-13. Because Christ gave life to the world, and eternal existence to man, God can now be rejoined with man in an eternal union of communion which was precluded by the fall, death. This enables the Holy Spirit to call all men to repentance because God desires that all men come to know HIm. But each man must choose for himself whether he will or desires to be joined with Christ now and for an eternity. Christ did not save anyone's soul from the Cross. He saved all of us from death and sin, so that we could freely choose Him. We are joined to Him by faith, and then we are required to live IN Him faithfully. We shall all be raised in the last day, Christ will not have lost one human being to death, John 6:39. We are raised to life because Christ, bearing our fallen human nature raised it to life at His resurrection. All men will be raised to immortality and incorruptibility. I Cor 15:53. Those that do not choose Christ or those who did for a time but became unfaithful will be condemned to hell for an eternity. God will met out the judgement according to what man chose and did with the Christ. There is no such thing as Universalism in any shape or form. It is actually declared a heresy at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 AD. Why do we recognise authority in the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553 AD? Because it represents the Body of Christ. The Bishops of the entire Church, which is the Body of Christ, met to decide issues, one of which was Universalism. The Body accepted the findings of that Council. It is the authority of the Holy Spirit through which they acted. It was the same pattern that was initially used in the meeing of the Church in Acts 15:6ff. You may not accept the authorty of Christ who is Head of His Body, but I do. Christ wasn't at the Councils. Do you accept all of the findings of all of the councils, and believe that the Pope is the head of the Church under Christ? If the Bishops of the entire Church, which was the Body of Christ, were making decisions under the authority of the Holy Spirit then it stands to reason that ALL of their decisions held that same authority. Also, it should be noted that any member of The Body who the Bishops represented who did not agree were cast out from the body... violently. Can you prove Christ was not at the Councils? I accept all of the findings of the Councils. I do not believe the Pope is the Head of the Church. Christ has always been the Head, the Body has always been enlivened by the Holy Spirit. The Bishops decisions held no authority. They acted on behalf of the Body, but the Body must accept those findings. It is the Body that has the authority through Christ and the Holy Spirit. I never read that Arius or Nestorius or any other was "violently" removed. How can they have acted on behalf of the Body if they had to cut off parts of the Body and only counted the members that they kept? Are you sure you know what all of the findings of all the Councils were? And why would you accept their findings in respect of all Doctrine but not accept their submission to the Pope? Do you think they represented the Body with Christ as their head in some matters but not others? After the Church split between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Orthodoxy do you think any of the Councils had the same authority as before the split? If so which ones? Is there a particular Body that you feel now represents Christ in that fullness? If so who? If not then which was the last one and why? Here is a brief history of heresy. The Church Fathers, the Councils, and Papal decree decided what was heresy, the Emperors acted on the basis of that guidance. http://www.heretication.info/_heretics.html Shouldn't we know them by their fruit? As I stated earlier, you are reading into it the RCC bias, their defacto establishment of the Papacy. I don't submit to the Pope because I'm not RCC first, and secondly because he does not have that authority he thinks he has. I know of no heresy by a papal decree. I know of several heresies created by Papal decree. However, this thread is not about the Church, the Body of Christ. It is about the consistancy and unchangeablness of the gospel of Christ as preserved by the Holy Spirit in time and space. Universalism has never been a teaching of the Church from the Apostolic times to the present time.

I neither agree with one party 100%, but Universalism is not scriptural. All through out the NT we are informed that not all will be saved. Three years ago I too would have shared your opinion regarding universalism. Since then my study of early church history as well as examining Scripture leads me to believe that all will eventually be saved. Your claim that “All through out the NT we are informed that not all will be saved” can be contested. I believe that most Christians have been so thoroughly indoctrinated to the view that God only saves the elect while the rest are consigned to eternal torment that they tend to read the scriptures through those lenses without giving due consideration to another view. So in response to your assertion that all does not really mean “all" - What do the scriptures say? Lk 2:10 And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Would the Good News still be the good news if in reality it is only for some of the people? Jn 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” Did Jesus lie when he said “all” knowing very well that only the elect are predestined to salvation? The word “draw” in this verse also means “drag” as when fishermen drag their nets full of catch. When Jesus stated that he will drag all men to himself can anyone deny that God’s will can be thwarted and cannot accomplish what he set out to do? 1Tim 4:10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. This verse states that God saves all; not just some who believe. The word “especially” denotes priority and particularity; it does not mean only or exclusively. Rom 11:32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. Notice the parallelism in this verse. If we agree that the first clause means that all of humanity are disobedient sinners, then we would have to agree that God’s mercy to all in the second clause means all of humanity as well. 1 Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. Rom 5:15-19 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. No one would disagree that Adam’s transgression resulted in condemnation to all men – every single one. Yet the verse also says Christ’s sacrifice resulted in justification for all men – every single one. Paul’s use of parallelism here is unmistakable. The gift is greater than the trespass. To make the claim that “all” actually means “some” as it only applies to the elect is the same as saying Jesus’ power to save is less than Adam’s power to condemn. 1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. Another example of parallelism. If all die in Adam, all live in Christ. Col 1:18-20 He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; If we acknowledge that Jesus is fully God, as all the Father’s fullness dwells in him; by the same token we have to acknowledge that Jesus will reconcile all to himself. The plain reading of these verses indicates God will save all but we tend to limit all to “some” because that is what we have been taught. There is not much of what you stated that is scriptural in any sense of the word. The texts you quoted to show the meaning of all are all correct, but your summation is faulty on those texts. This is so because you are conflating two different aspects of our salvation, making them all one, or the same. First, Christ did indeed save not just mankind, every single human being, but the world as well. However, Christ came to reverse the fall of man. Christ came to get man out from the curse, the condemnation of the fall, which was death. Physical death. Man became mortal, Adam became mortal, that is the condemnation of his sin. Gen 3:19, Rom 5:12. You then use the text that indicate that Christ saved all. He did, but from death and sin. This is the great gift of salvation, of mercy, love and grace God gives to all men through the work of Christ. The texts that support this (these are known as the Incarnational texts that support Christ's Incarnation which was necessary to reverse the fall) are, Rom 11:32, Rom 5:18, Rom 3:23-35, Rom 5:6,8, II Cor 5:18-19,. Col 1:20. I Cor 15:12-22, 53, Heb 2:14-17, John 4:42, I John 4:14, Acts 25:15, Rev 20:11-13. Because Christ gave life to the world, and eternal existence to man, God can now be rejoined with man in an eternal union of communion which was precluded by the fall, death. This enables the Holy Spirit to call all men to repentance because God desires that all men come to know HIm. But each man must choose for himself whether he will or desires to be joined with Christ now and for an eternity. Christ did not save anyone's soul from the Cross. He saved all of us from death and sin, so that we could freely choose Him. We are joined to Him by faith, and then we are required to live IN Him faithfully. We shall all be raised in the last day, Christ will not have lost one human being to death, John 6:39. We are raised to life because Christ, bearing our fallen human nature raised it to life at His resurrection. All men will be raised to immortality and incorruptibility. I Cor 15:53. Those that do not choose Christ or those who did for a time but became unfaithful will be condemned to hell for an eternity. God will met out the judgement according to what man chose and did with the Christ. There is no such thing as Universalism in any shape or form. It is actually declared a heresy at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 AD. Why do we recognise authority in the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553 AD? Because it represents the Body of Christ. The Bishops of the entire Church, which is the Body of Christ, met to decide issues, one of which was Universalism. The Body accepted the findings of that Council. It is the authority of the Holy Spirit through which they acted. It was the same pattern that was initially used in the meeing of the Church in Acts 15:6ff. You may not accept the authorty of Christ who is Head of His Body, but I do. Christ wasn't at the Councils. Do you accept all of the findings of all of the councils, and believe that the Pope is the head of the Church under Christ? If the Bishops of the entire Church, which was the Body of Christ, were making decisions under the authority of the Holy Spirit then it stands to reason that ALL of their decisions held that same authority. Also, it should be noted that any member of The Body who the Bishops represented who did not agree were cast out from the body... violently. Can you prove Christ was not at the Councils? I accept all of the findings of the Councils. I do not believe the Pope is the Head of the Church. Christ has always been the Head, the Body has always been enlivened by the Holy Spirit. The Bishops decisions held no authority. They acted on behalf of the Body, but the Body must accept those findings. It is the Body that has the authority through Christ and the Holy Spirit. I never read that Arius or Nestorius or any other was "violently" removed.

I neither agree with one party 100%, but Universalism is not scriptural. All through out the NT we are informed that not all will be saved. Three years ago I too would have shared your opinion regarding universalism. Since then my study of early church history as well as examining Scripture leads me to believe that all will eventually be saved. Your claim that “All through out the NT we are informed that not all will be saved” can be contested. I believe that most Christians have been so thoroughly indoctrinated to the view that God only saves the elect while the rest are consigned to eternal torment that they tend to read the scriptures through those lenses without giving due consideration to another view. So in response to your assertion that all does not really mean “all" - What do the scriptures say? Lk 2:10 And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Would the Good News still be the good news if in reality it is only for some of the people? Jn 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” Did Jesus lie when he said “all” knowing very well that only the elect are predestined to salvation? The word “draw” in this verse also means “drag” as when fishermen drag their nets full of catch. When Jesus stated that he will drag all men to himself can anyone deny that God’s will can be thwarted and cannot accomplish what he set out to do? 1Tim 4:10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. This verse states that God saves all; not just some who believe. The word “especially” denotes priority and particularity; it does not mean only or exclusively. Rom 11:32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. Notice the parallelism in this verse. If we agree that the first clause means that all of humanity are disobedient sinners, then we would have to agree that God’s mercy to all in the second clause means all of humanity as well. 1 Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. Rom 5:15-19 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. No one would disagree that Adam’s transgression resulted in condemnation to all men – every single one. Yet the verse also says Christ’s sacrifice resulted in justification for all men – every single one. Paul’s use of parallelism here is unmistakable. The gift is greater than the trespass. To make the claim that “all” actually means “some” as it only applies to the elect is the same as saying Jesus’ power to save is less than Adam’s power to condemn. 1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. Another example of parallelism. If all die in Adam, all live in Christ. Col 1:18-20 He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; If we acknowledge that Jesus is fully God, as all the Father’s fullness dwells in him; by the same token we have to acknowledge that Jesus will reconcile all to himself. The plain reading of these verses indicates God will save all but we tend to limit all to “some” because that is what we have been taught. There is not much of what you stated that is scriptural in any sense of the word. The texts you quoted to show the meaning of all are all correct, but your summation is faulty on those texts. This is so because you are conflating two different aspects of our salvation, making them all one, or the same. First, Christ did indeed save not just mankind, every single human being, but the world as well. However, Christ came to reverse the fall of man. Christ came to get man out from the curse, the condemnation of the fall, which was death. Physical death. Man became mortal, Adam became mortal, that is the condemnation of his sin. Gen 3:19, Rom 5:12. You then use the text that indicate that Christ saved all. He did, but from death and sin. This is the great gift of salvation, of mercy, love and grace God gives to all men through the work of Christ. The texts that support this (these are known as the Incarnational texts that support Christ's Incarnation which was necessary to reverse the fall) are, Rom 11:32, Rom 5:18, Rom 3:23-35, Rom 5:6,8, II Cor 5:18-19,. Col 1:20. I Cor 15:12-22, 53, Heb 2:14-17, John 4:42, I John 4:14, Acts 25:15, Rev 20:11-13. Because Christ gave life to the world, and eternal existence to man, God can now be rejoined with man in an eternal union of communion which was precluded by the fall, death. This enables the Holy Spirit to call all men to repentance because God desires that all men come to know HIm. But each man must choose for himself whether he will or desires to be joined with Christ now and for an eternity. Christ did not save anyone's soul from the Cross. He saved all of us from death and sin, so that we could freely choose Him. We are joined to Him by faith, and then we are required to live IN Him faithfully. We shall all be raised in the last day, Christ will not have lost one human being to death, John 6:39. We are raised to life because Christ, bearing our fallen human nature raised it to life at His resurrection. All men will be raised to immortality and incorruptibility. I Cor 15:53. Those that do not choose Christ or those who did for a time but became unfaithful will be condemned to hell for an eternity. God will met out the judgement according to what man chose and did with the Christ. There is no such thing as Universalism in any shape or form. It is actually declared a heresy at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 AD. You have not adequately dealt with the scripture passages I have quoted, instead you have lumped them together and have eisegeted them based on your doctrinal view instead of exegeting the scripture verses. As for your claim regarding the 5th Ecumenical Council - do you realize it was convened almost 300 years after Origen was tortured and killed by the Emperor Decius in 254 AD? If unversalism was so heretical one would certainly expect the heresy hunters to have taken action much sooner rather than waiting 3 centuries after the man died. Furthermore the bishops bypassed the authority of the Pope and conspired with the Emperor Justinian to order that the council convene. It is questionable if the council anathematized the actual teachings of Origen or a form of Origenism, which had practically nothing in common with Origen [such as cycles of reincarnation and the Anthropomorphism]. The fifteen anathemas were proposed not by the Church but by the Emperor. There is no proof the Pope ever agreed to them, nor is there proof he ever recanted his resistance to the council. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia: Were Origen and Origenism anathematized? Many learned writers believe so; an equal number deny that they were condemned; most modern authorities are either undecided or reply with reservations. Relying on the most recent studies on the question it may be held that: It is certain that the fifth general council was convoked exclusively to deal with the affair of the Three Chapters, and that neither Origen nor Origenism were the cause of it. It is certain that the council opened on 5 May, 553, in spite of the protestations of Pope Vigilius, who though at Constantinople refused to attend it, and that in the eight conciliary sessions (from 5 May to 2 June), the Acts of which we possess, only the question of the Three Chapters is treated. Finally it is certain that only the Acts concerning the affair of the Three Chapters were submitted to the pope for his approval, which was given on 8 December, 553, and 23 February, 554. It is a fact that Popes Vigilius, Pelagius I (556-61), Pelagius II (579-90), Gregory the Great (590-604), in treating of the fifth council deal only with the Three Chapters, make no mention of Origenism, and speak as if they did not know of its condemnation. It must be admitted that before the opening of the council, which had been delayed by the resistance of the pope, the bishops already assembled at Constantinople had to consider, by order of the emperor, a form of Origenism that had practically nothing in common with Origen, but which was held, we know, by one of the Origenist parties in Palestine. The arguments in corroboration of this hypothesis may be found in Dickamp (op. cit., 66-141). The bishops certainly subscribed to the fifteen anathemas proposed by the emperor (ibid., 90-96); and admitted Origenist, Theodore of Scythopolis, was forced to retract (ibid., 125-129); but there is no proof that the approbation of the pope, who was at that time protesting against the convocation of the council, was asked. It is easy to understand how this extra-conciliary sentence was mistaken at a later period for a decree of the actual ecumenical council. Obviously most of what you say is slanted to RCC. In 553 there is no such thing as a Pope as understood in the RCC today. There were actually five Patriarchates and they were all equal in authority. Where then and still are that way, since Rome defected from the Church 500 years later. The fact is, Universalism has never been a believe of the Church. And for good reason since so much of the idea contradicts most of scripture. I have already given you an explanation of the texts you used, however.... If you need an explanation of the verses which don't support any kind of Universalism..... the whole purpose of Christ coming was to reverse the fall. He came to defeat death and sin. Gen 3:19, Rom 512, Heb 2:14-17. He became INcarnated so that He could assume our fallen mortal human nature to raise it back to life, to an eternal existance again. If that was His purpose, then all men will definitely be saved from death and sin, unless you can posit that man is not consubstantial with each other and we have different human natures. Christ of necessity needed to save all men from death and sin , IF He truly desired that all men might come to know HIm and be united with HIm for an eternity. Thus the text you quoted. He saved everyone, but especially those that would be joined to Him through faith. Which is precisely correct. But it does not support Universalism because individual man must believe, must choose either to reject Christ or accept Him. All it means Christ reconciled the world, it is what makes HIm the Savior of the world. John 4:42, I John 4:14. II Cor 5:18-19, Col 1:20, or I Cor 15:12-22. Again correct. Could you explain just how one sacrifice, if for the sins of the world, could be separated from certain sins, or amount of sin, or kind of sins? The sacrifice was for sin, period, all sin. It can be the ONLY explanation but again it does not support UNiversalism. If you want to call it universal reconciliation then you would be correct. In the early Church this was called universal recapitulation of all things. Again, it refers only to Christ reversing the fall. From the curse of death to ADam, to the life to all through Christ's resurrection. Death came to man through our human nature and so did life. This is speaking about physical death and life. Again, another summation of Christ's Incarnation. It is why Christians have always believed in the resurrection of the dead. The preamble of vs 22 is vs 12-21. If Christ is not raised then neither will anyone else. We would all still be condemned through Adam. This is also summed up in John 6:39. That resurrection will raise all men to immortality and incorruptibility I Cor 15:53. ONce again, nothing here about universalism whereby individuals are saved, that is all will be in heaven. Wholly different aspect of our salvation. Again when ADam fell the curse was not just upon man but upon the world, the created universe. Christ needed to reconcile the world as well from death and sin. He did not create either man or the world to be destroyed by death. Yes, He has already saved all. We shall all be raised in the last day. But God cannot save individuals. He has left that up to each to freely believe, to accept His offer of union with HIm. The consequences for either choice is eternal. NOthing in any of these verses that even hint at any kind of UNiversalism as understood by either all three of your statements or any other someone might come up with. Scripture does not contradict itself. You apparently have difficulty following a discussion since I used all the texts you used in your original in my first explanation which put all of them together. I hope this helps you to understand the texts.

I neither agree with one party 100%, but Universalism is not scriptural. All through out the NT we are informed that not all will be saved. Three years ago I too would have shared your opinion regarding universalism. Since then my study of early church history as well as examining Scripture leads me to believe that all will eventually be saved. Your claim that “All through out the NT we are informed that not all will be saved” can be contested. I believe that most Christians have been so thoroughly indoctrinated to the view that God only saves the elect while the rest are consigned to eternal torment that they tend to read the scriptures through those lenses without giving due consideration to another view. So in response to your assertion that all does not really mean “all" - What do the scriptures say? Lk 2:10 And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Would the Good News still be the good news if in reality it is only for some of the people? Jn 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” Did Jesus lie when he said “all” knowing very well that only the elect are predestined to salvation? The word “draw” in this verse also means “drag” as when fishermen drag their nets full of catch. When Jesus stated that he will drag all men to himself can anyone deny that God’s will can be thwarted and cannot accomplish what he set out to do? 1Tim 4:10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. This verse states that God saves all; not just some who believe. The word “especially” denotes priority and particularity; it does not mean only or exclusively. Rom 11:32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. Notice the parallelism in this verse. If we agree that the first clause means that all of humanity are disobedient sinners, then we would have to agree that God’s mercy to all in the second clause means all of humanity as well. 1 Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. Rom 5:15-19 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. No one would disagree that Adam’s transgression resulted in condemnation to all men – every single one. Yet the verse also says Christ’s sacrifice resulted in justification for all men – every single one. Paul’s use of parallelism here is unmistakable. The gift is greater than the trespass. To make the claim that “all” actually means “some” as it only applies to the elect is the same as saying Jesus’ power to save is less than Adam’s power to condemn. 1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. Another example of parallelism. If all die in Adam, all live in Christ. Col 1:18-20 He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; If we acknowledge that Jesus is fully God, as all the Father’s fullness dwells in him; by the same token we have to acknowledge that Jesus will reconcile all to himself. The plain reading of these verses indicates God will save all but we tend to limit all to “some” because that is what we have been taught. There is not much of what you stated that is scriptural in any sense of the word. The texts you quoted to show the meaning of all are all correct, but your summation is faulty on those texts. This is so because you are conflating two different aspects of our salvation, making them all one, or the same. First, Christ did indeed save not just mankind, every single human being, but the world as well. However, Christ came to reverse the fall of man. Christ came to get man out from the curse, the condemnation of the fall, which was death. Physical death. Man became mortal, Adam became mortal, that is the condemnation of his sin. Gen 3:19, Rom 5:12. You then use the text that indicate that Christ saved all. He did, but from death and sin. This is the great gift of salvation, of mercy, love and grace God gives to all men through the work of Christ. The texts that support this (these are known as the Incarnational texts that support Christ's Incarnation which was necessary to reverse the fall) are, Rom 11:32, Rom 5:18, Rom 3:23-35, Rom 5:6,8, II Cor 5:18-19,. Col 1:20. I Cor 15:12-22, 53, Heb 2:14-17, John 4:42, I John 4:14, Acts 25:15, Rev 20:11-13. Because Christ gave life to the world, and eternal existence to man, God can now be rejoined with man in an eternal union of communion which was precluded by the fall, death. This enables the Holy Spirit to call all men to repentance because God desires that all men come to know HIm. But each man must choose for himself whether he will or desires to be joined with Christ now and for an eternity. Christ did not save anyone's soul from the Cross. He saved all of us from death and sin, so that we could freely choose Him. We are joined to Him by faith, and then we are required to live IN Him faithfully. We shall all be raised in the last day, Christ will not have lost one human being to death, John 6:39. We are raised to life because Christ, bearing our fallen human nature raised it to life at His resurrection. All men will be raised to immortality and incorruptibility. I Cor 15:53. Those that do not choose Christ or those who did for a time but became unfaithful will be condemned to hell for an eternity. God will met out the judgement according to what man chose and did with the Christ. There is no such thing as Universalism in any shape or form. It is actually declared a heresy at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 AD. Why do we recognise authority in the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553 AD? Because it represents the Body of Christ. The Bishops of the entire Church, which is the Body of Christ, met to decide issues, one of which was Universalism. The Body accepted the findings of that Council. It is the authority of the Holy Spirit through which they acted. It was the same pattern that was initially used in the meeing of the Church in Acts 15:6ff. You may not accept the authorty of Christ who is Head of His Body, but I do.