3. we *do* find convergence of all sorts of lines there…
“[Many find the wide... few find the narrow...] ...those are classic examples of the use of understatement. Finding the narrow gate is living a morally perfect life. No one actually finds the narrow gate except Jesus. The text says that few are those that find the gate. Understatement. Jesus alone has found it, and He is the door, flung wide, for the rest of us… ‘Many are called but few are chosen.’ But what actually happened in the parable? There were at first a few who were invited and they, sometimes violently, refused the invitation. Then literally everyone else who was found moving was brought in. Of that number, one refused to wear the wedding garment and was rejected. Everyone is called, first the invited guests and then everyone with a pulse. Not just many ...all. Understatement. Of those invited virtually all of the select few initially invited along with the odd bird without the wedding garment are at the feast. Not necessarily a few in absolute terms , but definitely not everyone.. Understatement. .…I am not claiming that most people go to heaven. For all I know, you are right and only a few will go to heaven while the majority go to Hell… I'm saying that I don't know. And the two verses that are usually brought forward on that subject really don't prove the point. If it turns out that only a few go to heaven, I still don't think that it would be the case that I got those verses wrong. They are definitely examples of understatement…” (…by W.L. via http://disq.us/p/1lolfui ..)
1. Which contingent being (...all things Adamic...) does NOT merit eternal insufficiency (...why did Eden lack that final step of Eternal Life...)? How, then, is that the case given sin or not, given culpability or not?
2. Which "Merit" are you referring to? The Upper Case Merit/Weight streaming from and by and through the Cruciform Lens or the lower case merit/weight streaming from the frail and contingent being?
3. Does Scripture's Metanarrative define Sinai as God's Eternal Ideal for all things Adamic — forever? If not, then what is "Better" than Law upon Law upon Law? The Cruciform Lens reduces 600-and-something Laws down to "what"? Whence reality's only Blueprint for timeless reciprocity amid ceaseless self-giving with respect to Being?
The question (...Does X or does doing X deserve death according to the Bible...?) fails to include such content and therein makes of the Cross something less than Cosmic/Infinite as it forgets that it speaks of nothing less than that which streams from The Necessary Being even as the question makes of the Cross something different than All-Sufficiency's Self-Outpouring – even as it makes of the Cross a sort of half-act, as if it defines our condition with premises that sum to just a bit less than "through-and-through" with respect to our very being.
Once again: the question lives atop a metaphysical absurdity in which "Being Itself / GOD" floats a kind of Ontic-Noble-Lie in His pronouncement of "Innocent / Forgiven / In-Christ" and in His pronouncement of “All Sufficient”.
Yet... here in these discussions on the metaphysical status of all things Sinai (…what Scripture defines as the Ministry of Death…) and in these discussions on the metaphysical status of all things Adamic (...which includes the Judas Iscariots, the Racists, the Raging Democrats, the Fuming Republicans, the Religious Zealots, the Homosexuals, the Priests, the Kings, the Butchers, the Bakers, the Candle Stick Makers…) and so on in all such discussions we find that the offense of Christ is in the opposite direction, in the infinite and all encompassing, in the Totality, in the Breadth and Width and Height, in The Necessary and All Sufficient. The wonderful fruit of Christ's work just is the fruit of the Necessary Being — and that is phrased that way to point out that the magnitude of the all-encompassing nature of that is far too often unaccounted for in the bookkeeping of far too many accountants.
The term "Punitive" with respect to "Hell" may or may not be accurate, but, briefly, before discussing that term, a brief excerpt from http://disq.us/p/1knyg3u with one more way to approach the Offense Of Christ:
The error there amid those three distinctions (…Proposal, Reply, Wedding…) which the Ontic-Twins of Hypercalvinism and Forced-Universalism make is in part, not in whole, but in part, a fear-driven error based on the failure to appreciate the following *necessary* and *unavoidable* fact:
We talk of “ENTER” as if filling up the proverbial Hard Drive with All-The-Right-Data is the Terminus-Of-The-Topography, and, then, from there, we speak as if said Terminus of said Hard Drive *equates* said Hard-Drive to love’s topography – to a bizarro-world-category of choosing to get up and walk from one's physical living room into one's physical kitchen. Just “Having All The Right Facts” – Hard Stop – somehow equates – is – that which sums to reciprocity’s intentional self-giving amid self/other.
It is not only incomplete in that it has left out intentional reciprocity but it also talks as filling up Hard-Drive-X with All-The-Right-Data just magically bypasses those intentional interfaces amid self/other, as if our Humanity, or "Imago Dei" is now Complete, Done, Loving, and somehow Freely Married amid Self/Other.
There are several necessary differences with respect to the syntax of Groom/Bride between a. Angels (..and etc...) and b. the Imago Dei / Adamic. It can be put this way: "IF" the Decree is "round" well then for God to make "square" is impossible within the landscape of that Decree. That is one of the reasons that the metaphysical necessity of “the Edenic” becomes manifest, as in:
“The rhetoric of God is Jesus Christ, offered as pure gift. As gift, Christ is infinite peace. As both gift and the rhetoric of peace, Christ is beauty, the magnificent demonstration of the self-giving love of the Trinity which crosses all boundaries, even the boundary of death. The Triune God is [quoting D.B. Hart] “…the God who ‘others’ himself within himself and contains and surrenders otherness as infinite music, infinite discourse.””
“The very action of kenosis is not a new act for God, because God's eternal being is, in some sense, kenosis – the self-outpouring of the Father in the Son, in the joy of the Spirit. Thus Christ's incarnation, far from dissembling his eternal nature, exhibits not only his particular proprium as the Son and the splendor of the Father's likeness, but thereby also the nature of the whole trinitarian taxis. On the cross we see this joyous self-donation sub contrario, certainly, but not in alieno. For God to pour himself out, then, as the man Jesus, is not a venture outside the trinitarian life of indestructible love, but in fact quite the reverse: it is the act by which creation is seized up into the sheer invincible pertinacity of that love, which reaches down to gather us into its triune motion.” (D. B. Hart)