In Christ vs In Adam

[BadAvocado]

12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

I have previously understood the terms “in Adam” and “in Christ” in the same fashion as the writer of Hebrews explains about Levi, when the writer says that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek because he was “in the loins” of Abraham. In other words, Levi descended from Abraham.

I understand “in Adam” as every human in the world who has ever been born - who has descended from Adam.

I understand “in Christ” as all those who have been born again of the Spirit, who become at that time children of God - they are new creatures descended from Christ.

So, I have seen this passage (specifically v.22) used as an evidence for UR, but I tend to understand it as evidence for annihilation.

I understand the following from the passages above… starting with v20:

1. Those born from Adam die, always
2. Those born from Christ will be made alive
3. There is an order to the resurrection
   … a) first Christ is resurrected (translated as Christ the firstfruits)
   … b) then those who belong to Christ (those who are of Christ)
4. Christ rules, putting enemies in subjection, under His feet
5. Death is destroyed. (“rendered powerless” in the Greek)

At point 5, those who are in Christ have already been made alive, and those who are in Adam are presumably already dead. So, at the time that death is rendered powerless, those who are “in Adam” are already annihilated and will not benefit from this.

I say that those “in Adam” are annihilated because that is what v.18 says. Paul is explaining that the resurrection is a real event that will take place. And he admits that if it were not a real event, then those who have already died with faith are still in their sins have been annihilated.

17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

The word “perished” in the ESV is the greek “appollymi”, which means complete ruin or destruction, annihilation.

Am I missing something here? I just don’t see this passage to be a support for Universal Reconciliation. I also don’t see Eternal Conscious Torment.

Doesn’t “in Christ” always mean “those who are born of God by faith in him”?
(I don’t mean in the grammatical sense of whether “en to Christo” means “because of”, “by”, “through”, etc., but in the contextual sense, especially when compared to “in Adam”)

[redhotmagma]

The son of man came to seek and save the lost(apollumi)
What man having 100 sheep and one goes astray, would not leave the 99 behind and go after the one which is lost(apollumi)
1 Cor 15:18 Furthermore, those who have fallen asleep in Christ have also perished(apollumi)

There are three festivals having to do with harvests that all Israel was required to come to. These were given for our example on whom the end of the ages have come.
1 Cor 15
Christ the firstfruits =barley harvest/passover

Then those who are Christs at his coming = wheat harvest/pentecost, wheat and tares

Then comes the end = grape harvest/tabernacles, wrath of the cup of God

That God may be All in All, the time of reconciliation of All things

[Aaron]

Hi BadAvocado,

You wrote:

I have previously understood the terms “in Adam” and “in Christ” in the same fashion as the writer of Hebrews explains about Levi, when the writer says that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek because he was “in the loins” of Abraham. In other words, Levi descended from Abraham.

I understand “in Adam” as every human in the world who has ever been born - who has descended from Adam.

I understand “in Christ” as all those who have been born again of the Spirit, who become at that time children of God - they are new creatures descended from Christ.

I believe Paul explains what he means in v. 22 later on in vv. 47-49:

The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

To “die in Adam” is, I think, simply to die bearing the image of the “man of dust.” To be “made alive in Christ” is to be raised bearing the image of the “man of heaven.” Every human who dies - whether infant or adult, just or unjust - dies bearing the image of the man of dust. And every human who will be raised (i.e., everyone who dies) will be raised bearing the image of the man of heaven.

So, I have seen this passage (specifically v.22) used as an evidence for UR, but I tend to understand it as evidence for annihilation.

I understand the following from the passages above… starting with v20:

1. Those born from Adam die, always
2. Those born from Christ will be made alive
3. There is an order to the resurrection
   … a) first Christ is resurrected (translated as Christ the firstfruits)
   … b) then those who belong to Christ (those who are of Christ)
4. Christ rules, putting enemies in subjection, under His feet
5. Death is destroyed. (“rendered powerless” in the Greek)

At point 5, those who are in Christ have already been made alive, and those who are in Adam are presumably already dead. So, at the time that death is rendered powerless, those who are “in Adam” are already annihilated and will not benefit from this.

I say that those “in Adam” are annihilated because that is what v.18 says. Paul is explaining that the resurrection is a real event that will take place. And he admits that if it were not a real event, then those who have already died with faith are still in their sins have been annihilated.

If anyone is to “perish” in the sense of which Paul speaks in 1 Cor 15:18 (which, in this context, simply means to remain dead, since it’s contrasted with being raised immortal) then it would mean that death will never be “abolished” or “swallowed up in victory.” As long as people are dead death has not been “rendered powerless.” For anyone to be forever “annihilated” would mean that death still has power over some part of the human race. It would mean that at least some for whom Christ died, and some of whom he was made Lord, will be forever lost, even though Christ said that he is to lose nothing of all that the Father had given him (which is all people) but “raise it up on the last day” (John 6:39). Death (along with its sting, sin) is not endless, but is only going to remain until all who have died - or are dying - have been “made alive in Christ” and thus bear the image of the man of heaven.

Am I missing something here? I just don’t see this passage to be a support for Universal Reconciliation. I also don’t see Eternal Conscious Torment.

Yeah, I think you might be missing something. Notice that Paul does not say, “…so also all in Christ shall be made alive,” but rather, “so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” The “all” who are to be made alive in Christ are the same “all” who die in Adam. Consider also the verses that follow, where Paul tells us that everyone is ultimately going to be subjected to Christ (i.e., become a subject of the kingdom of God, since that’s what it means when we’re told that Christ will “also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection to him”). And not only is everyone going to be subjected to Christ, but everyone who has been subjected to Christ is going to become part of the “all in all” of v. 28 (which makes perfect sense if being subjected to Christ simply means becoming a subject of the kingdom that Christ is to deliver to God after death, the last enemy, has been abolished - vv. 24-26).

[BadAvocado]

The son of man came to seek and save the lost(apollumi)
What man having 100 sheep and one goes astray, would not leave the 99 behind and go after the one which is lost(apollumi)
1 Cor 15:18 Furthermore, those who have fallen asleep in Christ have also perished(apollumi)

There are three festivals having to do with harvests that all Israel was required to come to. These were given for our example on whom the end of the ages have come.
1 Cor 15
Christ the firstfruits =barley harvest/passover

Then those who are Christs at his coming = wheat harvest/pentecost, wheat and tares

Then comes the end = grape harvest/tabernacles, wrath of the cup of God

That God may be All in All, the time of reconciliation of All things

Thanks for your input redhotmagma.

Do you mean that the wheat and tares both take part in the first resurrection? Or, does Paul even make a distinction about first and second resurrections? In any case, where do you put the tares?

All in All - this means nothing to me. To me, it sounds like “It is what it is”. Ambiguous. Mystical. What do you understand the phrase “all in all” to mean? Why is it impossible for the tares to be destroyed (really destroyed, not just ruined) - and then after their destruction (when they no longer exist) … then all = all (who belong to Christ, who are all that is left in existence).

Are you suggesting that apollumi should always be translated as “lost” or only offering it as an alternative. I do have a “destruction” - just haven’t come to it yet.

[Aaron]

All in All - this means nothing to me. To me, it sounds like “It is what it is”. Ambiguous. Mystical. What do you understand the phrase “all in all” to mean?

In the context, everyone who is ultimately going to be subjected to Christ will be included in the second “all” of Paul’s expression “all in all.” So who is going to be subjected to Christ? Paul clearly teaches that this future subjection to Christ will be universal, and that the only person excepted from it will be God himself. He also associates this universal subjection to Christ with the vivifying in Christ of all who are dying in Adam (a group which, in v. 51, is further expanded to include also those who will still be alive when the resurrection take place). Compare also with Phil 3:20-21, where the subjection of “all things” to Christ is similarly associated with the abolishing of death. And it would, I think, be nonsense to speak of God’s being “all in all” if some who comprise this “all” have been annihilated.

Why is it impossible for the tares to be destroyed (really destroyed, not just ruined) - and then after their destruction (when they no longer exist) … then all = all (who belong to Christ, who are all that is left in existence).

If some (the “tares”) remain in a state of death forever then it can never be said that death has been “abolished” or “swallowed up in victory.” For God (who sent his Son to die for all, and made him Lord of all, both of the dead and of the living), a limited victory over death and its sting would be no victory at all. Death would still have power over some for whom Christ died, and of whom he was made Lord. But Paul’s hope in God was that there is going to be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust (Acts 24:15) - i.e., a resurrection of both those who die as “wheat” and those who die as “tares.” If the unjust are going to be raised only to be annihilated, why would Paul have “hope” in God’s raising them? But if the “creation” (i.e., all who are in need of salvation from “futility,” and to whom Christ commanded the gospel to be proclaimed - see Mark 16:15; Col 1:23) which is “groaning together in the pains of childbirth” is going to be “set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (Rom 8:20-25), and thus all who die bearing the image of the “man of dust” (which is every human who dies, whether they’re just or unjust) will be raised bearing the image of the “man of heaven,” then Paul’s hope in God (which is the “hope” in which he was “saved” - Rom 8:24) is fully justified.

[redhotmagma]

I don’t believe the tares to be people, but lies. The adversary is the father of lies, the seed he plants are lies. It says the word was planted in the earth. What part of the actual earth did the word get planted? No we know Jesus’ parable is talking about people. The old man is the dust man/earth man. The serpent goes on its belly and consumes dust. Now do serpents actually eat dust? “The devil is like a roaring lion, looking for someone to devour”.

The reason the tares can’t be destroyed yet is because we are still in the flesh, and those who are in the wheat company aren’t ready yet for the resurrection. They haven’t been fully tested yet, which is why they must go through the tribulation, a tribulum is what they used to separate the wheat from the chaff. These are carnal christians, who either haven’t submitted to God’s refining fire in this age (their second death), or aren’t called to. The wheat harvest is Pentecost. At pentecost the bread the Jews were to make was to have leaven in it. Leaven is a type for sin. This signifies that the bread(the body of christ) is still not purified.

The passover bread is free from leaven, the feast of unleavened bread.
Here is a transliteration from the greek
1 Cor 15:22 as for in THE adam all die so also in THE christ all alive

1 Cor 15:23 each but in are own order firstruits christ after are of christ at are coming of him

notice the THE is missing in v 23 before christ. Christ means annointed, the phrase may be translated as the “annointed firstfruits”

These are the overcomers, the barley harvest. When Jesus is addressing the churches in REV he addresses the churches(christians in general), then says to the overcomers I will give, the morning star, a new name, the right to rule, right to eat from the tree of life, white clothes, hidden manna, make a pillar in God’s temple
But they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and** they did not love their lives so much that they were afraid to die.** (take up their cross and die/go through the fire/put to death the deeds of the flesh)

He also says to the overcomers they will not be hurt of the second death, not that they won’t go through it. Every mans works will be tried by fire, wood hay and stubble will be burned, precious metals and jewels will remain (these are the stones that make the temple)

The grape harvest is the unsaved masses.

I’m not saying apollumi is always lost or always destroy. What I am saying is that Jesus came to seek and save the lost/ruined/destroyed. We are born lost/dead/blind/deaf/unknowing. All we like sheep have gone astray, but Jesus is the good shephard who came to seek and save the lost. He won’t leave any behind He gets all 100 sheep, all of the coins (which are also apollumi) the true elder brother goes after the apollumi son and brings him back to the Father. “The father has given ALL things into my hands”, “I will lose none of all the father has given me”, “when I am lifted up I will drag all people to me”

Jesus will subject all things under his feet, then will subject all things to the Father so that He will be ALL in ALL. Not some things, all things.
Acts 3:21 "whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.

2 Cor 2:16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh(earth/dust/carnal). Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer(became a life giving spirit). 17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ(spirit), he is a new creation.b The old(carnal man) has passed away; behold, the new(man of heaven/spirit) has come. 18All this is from God, who through Christ** reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19that is, in Christ God was reconcilingc the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. ** (not the message of annihilation, or eternal torment)

Rom 11:15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world(kosmos/all things), what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

[BadAvocado]

Thank you both. I’m still working out my understanding of “in Christ”.

However, I did look at Luke 19:10, where Jesus says, “the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost”
I pulled out my handy-dandy NA27 with McReynold’s literal English Interlinear. Not only is the same apollymi there in the text, but McReynold’s translates it like this:

10 ἦλθεν γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ζητῆσαι καὶ σῶσαι τὸ ἀπολωλός.
“for the son of man came to seek and to deliver the having been destroyed one.”

That’s really powerful evidence to me of two things:

1. destroyed is not used in the way that our English minds think of it.
2. the character of Christ - to look for those who have been destroyed.

Pretty awesome!

This morning I stumbled, quite by accident, across a passage that is probably already really well-known here:

Thus says the LORD: “For three transgressions of Edom, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment, because he pursued his brother with the sword and cast off all pity, and his anger tore perpetually, and he kept his wrath forever.

Again, another Double-Whammy!

1. not only does “forever” not mean “infinity”, but also
2. God actually punishes Edom for having perpetual anger and keeping wrath forever!

Holy Smokes! no pun intended

[redhotmagma]

I’m glad you see that avacado. Another one of those forevers that don’t really mean forever is Sodom and Gomorrah. They were destroyed with everlasting destruction

Eze 16:53 “‘I will restore their fortunes, the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters, and the fortunes of Samaria and her daughters (along with your fortunes among them),

The covenant of circumcision was to last forever, the Aaronic priesthood was to be forever, Jesus’ kingdom is to last forever

All those things come to an end (for Jesus’ kingdom its when He subjects Himself to the one who put everything in subjection to Him, so God may be all in all)

[_oxymoron]

12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God,…

I believe we make Christianity vs universalism so difficult. Universalism states, all will believe and will be saved and Christianity states, only those who believe will be saved.

Universalism is making the stretch

[redhotmagma]

Oxymoron

The bible states that one day every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the father.

It also states that NO ONE can say Jesus is Lord except by the holy spirit.

[_oxymoron]

Oxymoron

The bible states that one day every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the father.

It also states that NO ONE can say Jesus is Lord except by the holy spirit.

My friend, universalism aside. I cannot argue with that. I cannot debate someone who practices bad hermeneutics and smashes two verses into each other-with different context.

On one hand (1 Corinthians 12:-3), you have spiritual gifts and how to know if someone claim to be under it’s operation were really so VS (Philippians 2:10-11) conforming to Christ humility, demonstrating the God who took the form of a human being, becoming a bond servant and dying for us on the cross will one day take His place above all names and every knee will bow and confess that He is Lord.

Do you really think those two verses share the same context?

[dirtboy]

Oxymoron

The bible states that one day every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the father.

It also states that NO ONE can say Jesus is Lord except by the holy spirit.

My friend, universalism aside. I cannot argue with that. I cannot debate someone who practices bad hermeneutics and smashes two verses into each other-with different context.

On one hand (1 Corinthians 12:-3), you have spiritual gifts and how to know if someone claim to be under it’s operation were really so VS (Philippians 2:10-11) conforming to Christ humility, demonstrating the God who took the form of a human being, becoming a bond servant and dying for us on the cross will one day take His place above all names and every knee will bow and confess that He is Lord.

Do you really think those two verses share the same context?

This has nothing to do with smashing 2 scriptures together. Rather, the person is practicing the biblical hermeneutic of allowing scripture to interpret scripture. We have a situation where ALL of God’s creation will be declaring “Jesus is Lord” and the scriptures tell us that NO ONE can declare that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. How can you not see a connection? Are you saying that there are instances where the person can utter “Jesus is Lord” in true sincerity as in philippians but NOT do it by the Holy Spirit? Are you saying that Paul is wrong and that they will be saying “Jesus is Lord” without the Holy Spirit? What scripture do you have to back your view that mankind can utter these words before the Lord or Lords and NOT do it by the Holy Spirit?

[redhotmagma]

where does the bible say that immediate context is the only correct usage? Oh thats right it doesn’t thats a manmade doctrine. You may want to talk to the Apostles who wrote the NT and especially Jesus for taking things out of context. When they quote the OT they usually pull one line that has nothing to do with the original context.

Ok 1 Cor 12, does that statement only apply to the immediate context of spiritual gifts? Please tell me where it says that.

Context is the biggest joke. Who makes the rules for context? Oh thats right our friend Hermes the pagan god of wisdom

Here’s another example

Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

If you want context read the whole chapter of Romans 10, it talks about Israel being saved, ALL israel. (well thats in chapter 11, but thats probably too far out of context for you)

More context, well Paul wrote Phillipians and he also wrote 1 Cor and Romans, but you’d never expect someone to use repeating themes or concepts. He definitely didn’t have these things in mind when he was writing them. Well he is talking about salvation in Romans 10 and Phillipians 2:10.

Oh wait Romans 14:11 For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to me, and every tongue will give praise to God.

Does that satisfy your hermeneutical context requirements?

I’m sorry to be so harsh, but the out of context knee jerk argument is tired and weak. I’d like you to prove any doctrine in the bible by only using local context. Trinity? nope, hell? nope, Please explain how Jesus is the lamb of God without pulling from multiple areas, free will, God’s sovereignty etc etc.

Now if I was just chopping words, and phrases, or cutting up a principle then you may have an argument but otherwise that doesn’t fly with me. IF you still think that I’m not worthy to argue with fine, no sweat off my back, but I would urge you to really try and make any sort of argument for any complex doctrine in the bible without referencing another book. Well actually I think you could argue UR just from Romans, but then you would have to take the local context to actually mean what it says instead of what you would like it to say. By this I mean all in adam all in christ, many in adam many in christ.

Confess H3670 all out of context
[Rom 10:9 KJV] - That if thou shalt confess[3670] with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved .
[Rom 10:10 KJV] - For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made[3670] unto salvation.
[Hbr 13:15 KJV] - By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is , the fruit of [our] lips giving thanks[3670] to his name.
[1Jo 1:9 KJV] - If we confess[3670] our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
[1Jo 2:23 KJV] - Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth[3670] the Son hath the Father also].
[1Jo 4:2 KJV] - Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth[3670] that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
[1Jo 4:3 KJV] - And every spirit that confesseth[3670] not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come ; and even now already is it in the world.
[1Jo 4:15 KJV] - Whosoever shall confess[3670] that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

[dirtboy]

where does the bible say that immediate context is the only correct usage? Oh thats right it doesn’t thats a manmade doctrine. You may want to talk to the Apostles who wrote the NT and especially Jesus for taking things out of context. When they quote the OT they usually pull one line that has nothing to do with the original context.

Ok 1 Cor 12, does that statement only apply to the immediate context of spiritual gifts? Please tell me where it says that.

Context is the biggest joke. Who makes the rules for context? Oh thats right our friend Hermes the pagan god of wisdom

Here’s another example

Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

If you want context read the whole chapter of Romans 10, it talks about Israel being saved, ALL israel. (well thats in chapter 11, but thats probably too far out of context for you)

More context, well Paul wrote Phillipians and he also wrote 1 Cor and Romans, but you’d never expect someone to use repeating themes or concepts. He definitely didn’t have these things in mind when he was writing them. Well he is talking about salvation in Romans 10 and Phillipians 2:10.

Oh wait Romans 14:11 For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to me, and every tongue will give praise to God.

Does that satisfy your hermeneutical context requirements?

I’m sorry to be so harsh, but the out of context knee jerk argument is tired and weak. I’d like you to prove any doctrine in the bible by only using local context. Trinity? nope, hell? nope, Please explain how Jesus is the lamb of God without pulling from multiple areas, free will, God’s sovereignty etc etc.

Now if I was just chopping words, and phrases, or cutting up a principle then you may have an argument but otherwise that doesn’t fly with me. IF you still think that I’m not worthy to argue with fine, no sweat off my back, but I would urge you to really try and make any sort of argument for any complex doctrine in the bible without referencing another book. Well actually I think you could argue UR just from Romans, but then you would have to take the local context to actually mean what it says instead of what you would like it to say. By this I mean all in adam all in christ, many in adam many in christ.

Confess H3670 all out of context
[Rom 10:9 KJV] - That if thou shalt confess[3670] with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved .
[Rom 10:10 KJV] - For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made[3670] unto salvation.
[Hbr 13:15 KJV] - By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is , the fruit of [our] lips giving thanks[3670] to his name.
[1Jo 1:9 KJV] - If we confess[3670] our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
[1Jo 2:23 KJV] - Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth[3670] the Son hath the Father also].
[1Jo 4:2 KJV] - Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth[3670] that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
[1Jo 4:3 KJV] - And every spirit that confesseth[3670] not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come ; and even now already is it in the world.
[1Jo 4:15 KJV] - Whosoever shall confess[3670] that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

Excellent point!!

[WE_ARE_ALL_BROTHERS]

It also states that NO ONE can say Jesus is Lord except by the holy spirit.

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’”

A lot of universalists use 1 Corinthians 12:3, but I’ve never quite understood it alongside Matthew 7:21-22. I know the words are different ***legōn***3004 (Matthew 7:21), ***erousin***2046 (Matthew 7:22) and ***eipein***2036 (1 Corinthians 12:3) but it doesn’t seem to make much of a difference, superficially at least. I’m probably missing something blatantly obvious, but I’m interested to know how people harmonize them.

Oxymoron, I really appreciate your presence here.

[redhotmagma]

Oxymoron, I also appreciate you here. If I was overly harsh or too sarcastic I’m sorry.