Just as Adam (humanity) bore the image of his father, so too did Seth bear the image of his blood-father. It’s not saying that Seth is no longer in the image of God, it’s just saying that he bore the image of his father. No complicated theologizing necessary. What do you think God was saying in post-fall Genesis 9:6?
I’m having trouble understanding your view on original sin – does Adam (fallen man) possess the free-will within himself to choose God?
Revival,
Sure. 
If nothing else, maybe we can bring some consistency to what seems, from our end, to be a most inconsistent theology. I’m posting quotes along with thread title and page number so that you can look them up within the broader context of the conversation if you’re interested. These aren’t the only places you’ve expressed these ideas, but they are among them.
I would like to throw in my 2 cents here…“the last enemy” Paul is referring to is physical death which of course is caused by spiritual death. (a package deal here). This all happens of course after the final judgment in Rev 21. (“A Non-UR Way to Accept UR Scripture Passages at Face Value”)
Listen, I do not take pleasure knowing where some of my dead friends and family are right now. It makes my stomach turn. But they willfully chose to reject God’s plan of salvation and there are consequences to that. But that doesn’t change what has been established in the word of God. I don’t think we fully grasp in our finite minds how bad sin and the spiritual death nature really are to God. (“What makes you think people would want to repent in Hell,” Page 1)
[didn’t feel the need to look this up since you’re arguing for it in this very thread]
God made man in his image and likeness. Gen 1:26. 1Thess 5:23 Our spirits were made immortal or eternal. More than once in scripture Paul refers to our inner man or our spiritual man. We are spirit beings that have a soul that live in a mortal body. Your spirtual man looks just like you without the infirmites. As soon as you die…your spiritual man steps out of your mortal body into eternity. (“Dear Revival, Why Does Yahweh Need an Eternal Hell?” Page 1)
I do not like to use mans labels on ones theology. I believe God created man with the ability to choose. Man did not lose this ability to choose after the fall in Gen 3. God gives man a choice to choose life or death. I believe in being water baptized by immersion. I believe in the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues as being vital to a Christians walk. God bless. (“Dear Revival, Why Does Yahweh Need an Eternal Hell?” Page 1)
The curse of death and sin is eradicated after the millennial reign and after the final judgment in Rev 20:11-15. (“What makes you think people would want to repent in Hell,” Page 2)
“The all creation that unites in worship” happens in Rev 21 after the final judgment in Rev 20:11-15. So yea, I agree with you there. Amen! Do you see how it all goes back to my original challenge of showing evidence of anyone being recorded in the book of life and exiting the lake of fire after final judgment? (“Do Phil 2:10-11 and Col 1:20 really support UR?” Page 1)
Snitzel
I will address this off topic post once and then the convo needs to be brought back to the OP. 
If spiritual death remains in a persons body there will be certainly be physical death. Born again Christians don’t have the spiritual death nature anymore yet our bodies still die because of the corrupted bodies we inherited from the spiritual death of sin.
We all deserve hell, but thank God He didn’t think so. Every decision we make in this life has consequences to them whether good or bad. God said choose Life or Death. There are consequences to each decision. God says choose LIFE!
God is a Spirit. He created Adam and made him a spirit being without the deity.(Gen 2:7) Angels are spirit beings without a soul and a natural body. Paul refers to our inner man or spiritual man more than once in scripture. 1Thess 5:23 Paul says he prays that our **spirit, soul and bodies **be sanctified and be preserved blameless unto the coming of Jesus. The spirit, soul and body are in that order for a reason. You can believe what you want to believe…no problem.
Man was originally created to be a non deified replica of himself. That changed after the fall. Spiritual death does not take away ones ability to choose. It just means you are void of the life of God.
If you don’t receive the reconciliation you don’t take part of the reconciliation.
Again, the bowing the knee and confessing is out of respect and acknowledgment of the authority of Jesus Christ. This happens at the judgment. I did not say they were joyfully worshipping. The worshipping comes from all who received the reconciliation in Rev 21.
now that these have been addressed lets bring back the convo to the OP. Thanks. 
No one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
Devils acknowledged Jesus as the Son of God… was this a confession except by the Holy Spirit? Did these devils receive salvation by acknowledging Jesus as the Son of God? Nope, they were worried about being tormented before the time and were cast out into pigs. Matt 8:29. Obviously 1 Cor 12:3 has a different meaning to what you understand.
You just contradicted yourself again. 
You said…Devils acknowledged Jesus as the Son of God.
Earlier you said…7. Again, the bowing the knee and confessing is out of respect
Which is it?
So the devils were respecting Jesus?
Those are two complete different things in which you are trying to make the same.
Phillipians 2:10-11
At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
This is NOT just an “acknowledgement” as you put it. You’re taking Matthew 8:29 out of context and trying to apply it to Phillipians 2:10-11. They are clearly not the same thing. The devils were not saying that Jesus is Lord or their Lord for that matter. But Phillipians 2:10-11 IS saying that. That ALL will say Jesus IS Lord! And that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
Caroleem
No worries, believe what you want to believe, bless you. Can we get back to the topic of the OP. Thanks.
Psalmist,
wonderfully said. I recently posted an argument that I’ve really been pondering more about. The love of God as described by Paul in Cor 13 and Adam’s free will sin.
So far I’ve had 0 answers from ECT subscribers. The only one so far is We are Brothers (but he’s a Universalist or at least close to it).
But what I really want to say regarding God’s love in Cor 13 is this:
It’s for the unbeliever as much as the believer. Notice that Paul has “no records of wrongs”, “endures all things”, “hopes” - these all suppose that the subject of this love is FALLEN.
Now look at Adam’s choice and see the absurdity of traditional Christianity’s view.
(pre fall) God loved Adam with a love that endurse all things, always protects, never fails, always hopes.
Adam eats of the tree God said not to.
Adam is now in a place where God will cut him off forever.
Absurd.
I want to write more on this but I’ll take it up in another post.
Aug
Auggy, I know I haven’t responded in full to your queries just yet, but I will when I get the chance (I am immensely busy with my research until February). I believe there are reasonable answers to your queries – though I will have to research and meditate upon “Love always protects” and what this means (I am only familiar with the responses to the other claims). I think the absurdity you (and most of this board) see is grounded in Calvinist presuppositions. Hopefully if I can explain classic Arminianism (as best as I understand it) over the next couple of months, it will largely resolve some of these issues. Thank you for your gentleness in discussion; your grace brightly contrasts with some of the ignorant slinging by a few others on this board.
You are right though, I am mostly a universalist and currently profess to be. But honestly, I am not beyond repentance from UR if I could just resolve a few verses.
Revival, I’m still having trouble understanding your view on original sin (I prefer to call it “ancestral sin”) – does Adam (fallen man) possess the free-will within himself to choose God? This is important, for I would try and help defend your view if I felt it was more grace-driven; Arminian, not Pelagian. I have a much higher (although rather cynical) view of humanity than Augustine did, but I don’t believe that humanity can approach Yahweh within themselves. He has been disinherited. What do you believe?
Thanks, Aug. Interesting thoughts on Adam. I’d also want to know why the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was so incredibly appealing to the eye (desirable). And why was it placed right in the center of the garden? I see it as a symbol of a broad but lowered consciousness wrought by a mistaken belief that man is separate from God; whereas, prior to that disruption of the mind (reduction of consciousness), there must have been a powerful, loving oneness, a profound communion between the Creator and His most beloved creature(s). But even if Adam and Eve were to blame for that misguided choice, it would be nothing more than a sadistic, experimental setup on God’s behalf if that mere act of disobedience brought about the damnation of the bulk of humanity.
David
I’m not a Pelagian, brothers. I asked Auggy this and he avoided the question: why are you so caught up with using man made labeling of the body of Christ that cause only division?
True, let’s avoid divisions. I’m starting right now, actually. OK, let’s see, what could we call ourselves that would do away with factions and strife, something that would bind us together, something across the board, a universal term. Universal? That’s it! Universalists!!!
David
Oh, here is where you stated this. Sorry brother. I was certainly wrong to label you a Pelagian. I meant that in the context of our dialogue. I wasn’t trying to give you the identity of a Pelagian.
I don’t think it is necessarily divisive to use labels in certain contexts. Sometimes they help organize people’s beliefs into manageable systems. This is not always helpful I understand, but they can be useful. But I certainly don’t believe people within the Church should **self-**identify with schismatic labels. I’m not simply an arminian-universalist anarcho-anabaptist. Yes, these are doctrinal sets that I hold, but they are not a fundamental description of who I believe I am. I am a human and I try and follow the Christ. Period. That is who I choose to self-identify as.
Can I request again that you briefly outline your position on Original Sin, Grace and the Free Will?
Regards brother,
Andrew
To be honest, my knowledge of human psychology. Psychology is a hobby of mine, particularly I’ve always been interested by the great psychoanalysts: people like Freud, Jung, Rogers, etc. These people could change those everyone else has given up on. I have come to view every person as someone with a “problem”, and there being a special approach that could help them with a problem. That approach may be difficult to find, and more difficult it becomes without knowledge of the history of their life, or what goes on in their life. And here I do not speak of the common man defeated by fear. I am speaking about fringe cases, about people with very deep problems. These people are rare. The subcategory of these that is beyond hope… I am not sure such a category exists. And the common man’s problems like you and me can be solved with a 30-day vacation. In our world, staying sane is an achievement.
And we do this in our broken world. We rehabilitate people from activities that they could easily be driven to continue out in the world. We are summoning good in a world full of evil. Yet, we do this, and, time and time again, we win. And we are dealing with our own limited intelligence, our limited resources, our limited knowledge.
What is to say, then, of God? Who can generate anything? Who knows everything? Whose resources are unlimited? Surely he can accomplish as little as a psychoanalyst and more?
You have your Bible and I have the entire history of humanity.
Probably not. Torture is a highly ineffective method for change. At most it will scare someone into agreeing with you, nothing more. If God wants to conquer souls, torture in such a barbaric manner is not a method he will employ.
A Universalist blogger by the name of Trig who runs this website, when thinking regarding what kind of “torment” God could employ, brought up the example of Scrooge from Christmas Carol. What Scrooge experienced were indeed torments, but they were with a purpose, achieved their intent, and were much more complex than a senseless inflicting of pain for a period of time.
The parable of the Prodigal son is a pretty good example. The son had to go through a mess and learn a few things before he returned. Essentially, any example of a person changing their ways would work here. Paul is another example.
Would you not agree that people exist in waves where they can fall from belief or fall back into it? Is there no continual chance for any person in this life to repent? If that is so, why would people lose their ability suddenly to repent upon entering the Lake of Fire? Think of the many atheists who will see God before them, the proof they always wanted. What is the difference between repenting in this life or the next?
I’m not sure why you bring that up when God said very clearly that he hardened the Pharaoh’s heart. God clearly shows here that it’s really up to him to cause these things. If anything, it’s more proof that God can do whatever he wants, and his power only grows in the Lake of Fire.
Baseless statement. Some blasphemed, some didn’t, but it’s no matter. The people we speak of are not really yet in God’s hands. They are still in the world.
If someone tried to convince me of something by pouring lava on me, I’d blaspheme, too. I don’t know what your point is here. Physical torture makes people pissed off and/or scared. It drives them infinitely far from repenting or coming close to glorifying this God who’s trying to threaten them into glorification like some petty pagan god. Whoever thinks this works is a complete idiot.
Revelation is a large parable. I would caution against taking it literally. We still haven’t figured out what the Mark of the Beast is, who the people in question are, etc. From what I can derive there, it’s a significantly different situation from what we’re discussing here - they’re not dealing with individuals, but generalized powers, collectives. The bowls in question may be natural consequences.
The belief that the Lake of Fire has a corrective purpose and not a punishing one.
Of course, if the Lake of Fire only exists to torture, it will achieve absolutely nothing. If that’s what God wants, that’s what he gets. But I do not believe that’s what God wants.
Backtracking a little…
Lazarus is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew name Eleazar. Eleazar of Damascus was Abraham’s Gentile steward and heir. He was displaced when Isaac was born, but remained faithful to Abraham nonetheless.
In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus is saying that Abraham’s son (the Jews) will be rejected and find themselves suffering God’s judgment, but the Gentiles will be gathered to Abraham’s bosom. ie. Isaac will be disinherited, cut off for a time, but Eleazar will become part of the family, re-inherited, in-grafted.
Simple (and as heart-breakingly tragic) as that. The context in Luke decisively affirms this view.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the postmortem fate of individuals.
I don’t think belief in Yeshua is simply conditional upon conclusive evidence. A dear friend said he’d probably chalk any vision of a god to psychosis – an eternal vision being the last spasms of his dying mind. And to a stronger atheist like Bakunin (the only one I know anything about), God’s presence would be absolutely intolerable. To Bakunin, the existence of any master necessitates our own bondage, negates our humanity and must be resisted ("… if God did exist, he would have to be abolished"). I appreciate that Bakunin is disillusioned by his own image of God as a master, but I don’t understand why our self-disillusionment should necessarily change post-mortem, for Yahweh has already provided sufficient grace for all to believe already and yet this was resisted. Indeed, what is the difference between repenting in this life or the next? Some of the Hebrew prophets (and John) reveal that people in the express presence of Yahweh (depending on your eschatology) will still reject and rebel against Him.
I think after sitting in this psychosis for 50 years he’ll change his mind.
My main response to this would be “lol”.
Look, I hear people say things all the time. And I hear people say very, very stupid things.
At the same time, I constantly saw people change, or read about people changed. You never know what’s really going on, and humans are more complicated than just deciding something and sticking with it despite anything else.
What I know doesn’t perceive these as problems at all. We have 1% of philosophers who may cause problems (I may be one of them, haha), but everyone else is easily convinced. Most people on earth ARE religious, don’t forget that.
O.o We probably differ strongly on this issue. I believe if Yahweh is doing anything, he does it for a few select people, but not for everybody. Most get their contact to Christianity through other people, and that contact is often negative.
I am not sure what on earth you mean by “grace” here, but I do not believe Yahweh is actively working to bring every single person to faith in this particular age. I just don’t see it. I believe it’s half-accidental or maybe he selects specific people, or just replies to all who seek him, I’m not sure.
And if you’re going to accuse some child in Africa dying of hunger of “resisting Yahweh’s grace”, I will warn you in advance that this stuff causes me to explode.
I don’t know what you want me to do here.
I haven’t met these people, I haven’t talked to them, Hell, I’m not sure if they even existed sometimes. I can’t argue against something a book says because I don’t know why it says it, and I consider the Bible to be a rather useless source in this case. Nothing written in the Bible overrides our current knowledge of psychology. If you are going to say Yahweh is less persuasive than Rogers I’m not sure you worship him. I’ve rarely heard of Bible containing any form of persuasion, really. It was mostly threats. Nobody responds to threats well.
The Bible speaks of Israel growing bored of the whole God issue and to me that’s a direct psychological problem that’s very well known. It’s rooted in being in the world, and rooted in being in the human body. I believe Yahweh put is in this world and in these bodies for a reason… and if he can’t deal with the consequences of being in such bodies, that’s a poor plan indeed.
Yes, people could theoretically change. Especially if they remain consistently graced throughout eternity. Or are forcibly healed. Though it is also possible that Adam could become increasingly resistant to Yeshua. A kind of reverse-theosis, as Lewis offered. I will have to study this out a lot more, but I suggest it as a reasonable possibility; why not, eh?
I mean a prevenient grace that allows persons to engage their God-given free will to accept the resistible salvation offered by God in Yeshua. As far as I understand, everyone (regardless of age, nation or needs) has been graced, or will be graced with an ability to accept salvation in Yeshua. I don’t think that means non-Christians are doomed to an eternal hell or that God is going to force you to love Him.
I don’t really understand this part. You seem to have criticized a belief that Yahweh is less persuasive than Rogers (the humanist psychologist?) but then state that the scriptures do not contain any form of persuasion (authority?), just ineffective threats 
If you’re saying that you reject the Bible then that’s your choice; but we’re probably not going to have a very productive discussion. Personally, if I must place faith in theological data, I’m going to choose the Bible over our current knowledge of psychology – which as far as I understand, does not make any case for Christian universalism.
i must say i don’t agree that we’re all given grace to believe, and that we resist it…some of us don’t have that grace right up til death. if only those God draws can know Him, and if Jesus will draw all men to Him upon being lifted up, i’d say that God is ultimately responsible for our salvation, and any resisting we do is ineffectual as the lamb struggling in the arms of the shepherd that has searched all night for it.
personally, if it’s up to us, we need ALOT more information. also, the choice has to be a real choice. ECT is NOT a real option, but a shadowy half existence might be.
so i personally find it logically weak that our salvation is “up” to us. though to be clear, i favour the free-will theology alot higher than i do Calvinism, which i find abhorrent due to at least the letter L in TULIP. irresistable grace i’m ok with, as long as it’s given to everyone, as the Bible says.
i’ve no issue with psychology being used as evidence for Universalism. if a psychologist can help in most cases…than God is surely the greatest psychologist of all, and will thus be able to fix any problem. and the fact that the threat of torture is a rubbish way to ensure good behaviour (and love?!) is something i’m fairly certain God knows.
but sometimes you have to be firm with your two-year old terror, as i’m sure most parents know. God is growing humanity up, and sometimes the rod is there, but only in love…not to torment, but to correct.
I dunno about yours, but in Orthodox theology, Adam is saved from Hades by Christ iirc. Why Adam, of all people?
I’m not sure how I feel about this. This would assume that prior to Jesus’s death, people were unable to believe in God or something. They definitely were. I don’t think there was any added “free will”. Is this the theory that man is totally depraved or something?
Well, I am less concerned with what people can potentially do, more concerned with what people WILL do, and there are many people who will not arrive at the decision to “accept salvation” due to various extraneous factors. Which, in effect, means the choice is barred to them.
No, I’m saying that’s what you’re trying to tell me. You’re using scriptures that are highly irrelevant to what we’re discussing.
Not from what I’ve seen. I don’t quite expect them to. I believe the OT and the NT are written under the effect of people of that time. OT is more evil because the people were evil. Same with NT. Considering that most people don’t deal very well with the idea of correcting people today, what is to expect of people 2 thousand or 5 thousand years ago?
Well, I’m the sort of person who ties the Bible to reality. You appear to be viewing the Bible as inerrant, I don’t, or I’ll be forced to accept passages such as these. If the Bible says 2+2=5 I am going to say the Bible is wrong and science is right. I won’t take the nonsense in the Bible as the absolute truth nor do I think that was the original intention. If this makes you unhappy, well, whatever.
Christian Universalism is mostly supported by the NT verses of reconciling all of humanity. You seem to be searching for the mechanism, but I don’t imagine finding it anywhere, because such a mechanism would not be understood by people back then - it is barely understood by people today.