I just have to agree to disagree. You have some different views of who Christ is and what He accomplished.
I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. But I'm not fine with your saying I have "different views of who Christ is." I hold to biblical authority and to the creeds. This is *who Christ is!*
I do have some questions though based on your view. Do you believe man was created mortal?
You are here entering into a semantics difficulty. "Mortal" means different things depending on the context. It can mean simply the ability to die. It can also refer to human degradation by sin, making it destined for death.
Adam was created capable of dying, though only if he sinned. At the point he had not yet sinned, he was not, in a sense, "mortal." But neither was he "immortal," or fixed as an innocent being. He had the capacity to fall from innocence and into what we often refer to as a state of "mortality." All men die because all men have a Sin Nature. Therefore, all of mankind are mortal.
I ask this because your view constantly separates different kinds of men, believers and unbelievers as if once someone believes their human nature changes. In fact you stated that
There is the fallen nature of Man, and the regenerate nature of Man when he lives under the control of God's Word. When mankind lives autonomously, he may at times choose to obey or cooperate with God's Word. But inasmuch as he is in charge, his nature is fallen and is degenerate. But when men not just occasionally cooperate with God's Word and chose instead to commit their entire life to the authority of Christ they will reflect a new nature, consistent with that choice.
Yes, the nature of fallen Man and the nature of Christian men are very different, one led by the corrupt flesh, and the other led by the Spirit of God. One produces the fruit of selfish Man, whereas the other produces the fruits of the Spirit. I should think you know this?
Your view, in my mind, questions why you believe Christ needed to be raised from the dead when it has no effect. Actually a blood sacrifice to be sufficient does not require a resurrection.
I never said Christ's resurrection had no effect. He represented God's view of Man universally, as condemned to death as autonomous men and saved by grace for those who cast themselves upon the mercy of Christ. Those who unite with Christ spiritually benefit from his virtues as well as from his salvation, or grace. Those who reject his grace face the sin by which Christ was rejected.
All will, like Christ, be raised from the dead. But some will be raised to judgment for having rejected Christ, and some will be raised to immortality in the sense that their fellowship with God will become inviolable and indestructible.
This is what "immortality" means in context--not just eternal existence, nor the inability to die, but rather, inability to be separated from the virtuous and blessed life of Christ. Paul is speaking of a technical application of "immortality" to believers in the sense of inability to die *spiritually.*
You said, " Once we disobey God's word to our conscience, we separate ourselves from God and suffer a "sting." And this, in turn, leads to separation from God in this world, or mortal death.'
This is an amazing statement. So if people sin and do not accept Christ, then that sin (sting) leads to mortal death. I don't know of anyone so dying., except Adam. But I know that all men, since Adam, believers and unbeliever, suffer mortal death in this life. So does that mean all believers fall away in this life because all men die a mortal death?
I'm not making an "amazing statement." I'm stating what the Scriptures state, namely that Sin has caused and continues to cause all men to be subject to mortality, or death. We already have a Sin Nature, and thus are mortal and subject to death. But we continue to sin, having that Sin Nature, confirming the original sentence, that being sinners we must physically die.
You said, "Again, you are applying these terms in a very general way. Paul is applying them very specifically to *believers,* not at all meaning to exclude unbelievers from the sense in which you apply immortality and incorruptibility. Again, Paul is applying these terms specifically to unbelievers (sic, I think you mean believers) in the sense that when they are raised from the dead, they will eternally put in the image of the man from heaven, namely Christ."
Yes, thanks for the correction. Paul is applying "immortality" and "resurrection" in a special way to believers, and not to unbelievers. Even though unbelievers I agree will never suffer extinction, and in that sense become "immortal," that is not the way Paul is applying the term "immortal." He is speaking of a spiritual relationship with God, a relationship that when originally broken led to the physical death of all men.
So for unregenerate, unsaved Man there will be eternal existence spiritually separated from the life and virtues of Christ, which we call "spiritual death." But for regenerate, saved Man there will be immortality and resurrection to the new life of the Spirit, comprising an eternal, unbreakable relationship with God.
From what scripture says about Christ becoming man, assuming our very human nature, and restoring that nature, you make the statement that there must of necessity be two different human natures. There is the human nature, as I mentioned above seems to change when one becomes a believer, but another human nature that unbelievers have who will not experience what Christ accomplished by assuming our human nature.
Do you hold to the view of limited atonement?
By the way universal salvation for me is a heresy as it has been through Christianity from the beginning.
As I said above, I hold to the biblical view that the regenerate nature of the Christian is different from the unregenerate nature of the unbeliever. Yielding not just part of our life, but our whole life to Christ yields a new nature, made after the image of Christ.
As such, I do believe that atonement suffices only for the believers in terms of giving them this new nature. How can a sacrifice of atonement reconcile people who do not make use of that atonement, who do not repent of their sins and who therefore do not actually obtain forgiveness?
But Christ did make atonement *for the whole world* in the sense that it made grace available for all men. It just isn't effective in changing their lives or in giving them an eternal relationship with God if they don't make use of it and repent of their autonomous living.