 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 4:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| where are you, meto? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
metothezero
Tiger Cub
Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 791
Location: east texas
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I would have better asked you to clarify on what you mean when you say that God names every family. If you mean that God gives every family their surname, then I fail to see how this reading fits the context. |
That is my entire point my friend, I cannot give clarification, and your clarification (whether it be true or not) cannot be proven with this Scripture. All that Paul tells us is that from God all the families are named...that is it. To attempt to exegete anything else from this passage is hopeless as Paul does not address the naming of the families within this passage (and I do not know if he ever does).
It would be like me telling you of justification by faith and then saying that we are so justified by God (who appeared to Samson's parents). You would not know from my telling of justification who Samson was or anything. You would have to search for this clarification from my other writings as to who exactly I was referring to.
The same is true here. Paul is telling about the breaking down of the barrier between Jew and Gentile and then he says that because this barrier is so broken down, he then bows his knee to the father (from whom ever family...) who breaks down this barrier. We do not have clarification of what this phrase means from this particular letter, we must search elsewhere. Until we do have further clarification, we cannot isolate this one particular phrase and attempt to build proof for the universalistic doctrine from this.
Perhaps the phrase 'Father from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named' is a phrase that was common to the Christians of Paul's time as a label given to God. Who knows?
| Quote: | | No leg? Bummer. I do wonder, though, why the Greek word for family (patria) is in the singular? Have you an explanation which concords with your reading? And could you explain to us why Paul, considering the context of Ephesians 3:15, would use the word 'family' in a sense other than the sense of God's relationship to His children? |
Perhaps it is singular for the same reason that grammatically it remains singular when we use the exact phrase. If I were to tell you that I met with each and every family within my city, I would tell you that I met with each family; or that I met with every family. I would not say that I met with each families or that I met with every families. 
I cannot explain from this context why Paul would even use this phrase at all except that it being a common phrase to attribute to God during Paul's time.
This particular phrase has nothing to do with the rest of the passage, it is simply a label for God used by Paul.
| Quote: | | The verse does not say that those in Christ will be headed up in Christ. That would be a silly redundancy, you see. Rather, all things will be headed up in Christ. As such, this verse does not contrast those in Christ with those out of Christ, but instead declares that everyone - even those who are out of Christ prior to the time when all will be headed up in Christ - will find unity in Christ, the head. |
Excuse me? The verse does very well say that those in Christ will be 'headed up' in Christ. Read the passage; need I quote it?
| Quote: | | Eph 1:10 for the administration of the days of fulfillment--to bring everything together in the Messiah [to head up in Christ], both things in heaven and things on earth in Him [those things on earth in Chirst]. |
Silly redundancy? Paul seems to use your 'silly redundancy. Or perhaps, it is not redundant at all.
Paul says that those things in Christ on earth will be brought together in Christ. How can you then say that this is not what Paul is saying?
You say: The verse does not say that those in Christ will be headed up in Christ.
The verse says: those in Christ (things on earth in Him) will be headed up in Christ (will be brought together in Him).
You are wrong here friend.
Those things IN CHRIST will be brought together IN CHRIST. It speaks nothing of those outside of Christ.
| Quote: | | Actually, it says that all in heaven and earth will be headed up in Christ. |
Yes, the Colossian verse does say just the minimal amount of that, the Ephesian verse clarifies the matter by giving the exactness of it. Therefore, leading one to be unable to conclude as you do without taking the Colossian verse in isolation from the Ephesian verse. If taken in conjunction with each other your point is null and void.
| Quote: | | Perhaps, although many scholars would disagree and rather contend that the phrase, "in heaven and earth" is an idiomatic expression. Such an expression, different schoalrs argue, may mean obe of several things, some examples being: a.) all classes of people, especially Jews and Gentiles, c.) those who believe in this age and those who will not believe until the consummation of the ages. |
Perhaps if you cited these 'scholars' it would be much better.
Also, you need to ask these scholars in reference to the phrase 'in heaven and on earth IN HIM', not simply 'in heaven and on earth'...
I would go through each of these pointed Scriptures and debate them, yet we need to not tackle too many arguments at once.
As I see it we so far have two disputes:
1) Paul's use of the phrase 'Father from whom all families in heaven and on earth are named'.
-I would argue that this phrase gives us no insight as to who exactly these families are, what they are named, why they are named, etc...Given that there is absolutely no other mention of families within the rest of this passage; there is no mention of naming or whatnots. The passage is specifically addressing the unity of Christians and the breaking down of the wall between Jew and Gentile. The phrase so used by Paul is an 'idiomatic' phrase such as Paul's common usage of 'grace to you and peace from God our Father and the LORD Jesus Christ'.
2) Paul's usage of 'in Him' in Ephesians and his subsequent lack of its use within Colossians.
-I would argue that since Paul doesn't simply say all on earth and rather says all on earth 'in Him', he does eliminate the idea that this is referring to all peoples upon earth. All are not 'in Him', therefore this is not referring to all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Adam,
Note that I have not tried to prove universalism from Ephesians 3:15, but have only put it on the table for consideration. Needless to say, you have not explained why the use of 'family' is not to be understood int erms of God's intimate relationship with His children.
As for Ephesians 1:10, let us look at some other translations of this verse.
| Quote: | that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth--in Him.
New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson
Eph 1:10 - with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, {that is,} the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him
New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation
Eph 1:10 - as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.
Eph 1:10 - That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might collect in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:
Noah Webster Version 1833 Info
Eph 1:10 - in regard to the dispensation of the fulness of the times, to bring into one the whole in the Christ, both the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth -- in him;
Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info
Eph 1:10 - for [the] administration of the fulness of times; to head up all things in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things upon the earth; in him,
J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info
Eph 1:10 - unto a dispensation of the fulness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth; in him, [I say,]
American Standard Version 1901 Info
Eph 1:10 - to an administration of the fullness of the times, to sum up all things in Messiah, the things in the heavens, and the things on the eretz, in him;
Hebrew Names Version 2000 Info |
You see, Paul uses the phrase "in Him," not redundantly, as your reading would have it, but simply to emphasize that it is through Christ that all things will be united. The phrase is not "in heaven and in earth in Him" but rather "in heaven and in earth; even in Him."
Besides, those in Christ are already united; Christ is already our head.
As for scholarly persepctives on the New Testament idiom "heaven and earth," I invite you to peruse this link: http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/n/new-heavens-earth.html
| Quote: | | I would go through each of these pointed Scriptures and debate them, yet we need to not tackle too many arguments at once. |
Als, we already are debating too much at once. I should not have followed your example, and should have stuck to terse and to the point posts as I was in the beginning of the debate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
metothezero
Tiger Cub
Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 791
Location: east texas
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So we have two verses that are in question. Ephesians 3:15 and 1:10; lets just leave this book alone, I've always been quite partial to Galatians...just kidding.
I will focus my address on 1:10, but I wanted to make one quick comment about 3:15.
| Quote: | | Note that I have not tried to prove universalism from Ephesians 3:15, but have only put it on the table for consideration. Needless to say, you have not explained why the use of 'family' is not to be understood int erms of God's intimate relationship with His children. |
I have not explained that because it is your assertion that it is so. I have seen no need to explain it. The passage does not say the 'families' are God's, it only says that God names the families. Therefore, I needn't address why this is not speaking of an intimate relationship between God and His children because the passage in no way supports that. All the passage says is that God names the families. It does not say they are His or that the name He names them is His own.
If anything you need to prove your point more than I. The passage specifically says 'from God the families are named'. Therefore, for you to interpret that the name is that of God's, or for you to interpret that the families are God's, you need to do the proving. Not I.
That is my last word on this passage for now. Respond if you will; yet I will not respond to your response right now. We can come back to it later.
On to 1:10.
| Quote: | You see, Paul uses the phrase "in Him," not redundantly, as your reading would have it, but simply to emphasize that it is through Christ that all things will be united. The phrase is not "in heaven and in earth in Him" but rather "in heaven and in earth; even in Him."
Besides, those in Christ are already united; Christ is already our head. |
Not to argue this point further, as I think you are correct; but in all do defense of what I have been arguing, I have not been arguing for Paul's use of a redundant phrase. I think that Paul's usage of 'in Him' as a qualifier on earth makes perfect sense as to restrict the interpretation to that of only those in Christ and not each and everything in heaven and on earth.
We would have the thought of all things in Christ allready being 'summed up' as you will; then we would have Paul saying that in the future there will be yet another 'summing up'. What this would mean is not that they are not summed up now, but rather that there is a completing of the summing up, perhaps we are in a process now of being summed up.
Much like when we think of the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom did come, Christ said it was amongst them, the Kingdom of God is among you. Yet, we realize that according to eschatological passage there is yet a future aspect of the Kingdom that will be fulfilled. The Kingdom was inaugerated at the coming of Christ, yet it will be fulfilled at His second coming with His millenial (sp?) reign.
In like manner we are said to be summed up within Christ, we are all one; yet there could still be an aspect of our summation that has not occured. Perhaps the 'summing up' will be fulfilled in the future.
ALL THAT TO SAY, that if the verse did read 'in heaven and on earth in Him' the interpretation of a 'in Him' being a qualifier would not be a redundant act of Paul.
BUT, with that said; I recognize now that I was incorrect, as the passage does not read as such. In the NASB, as you have quoted, it has it as a complete other sentence.
How then do we read this passage? All things in heaven and on earth will be brought together in Christ. We can understand this 'bringing together' as it is used elsewhere by Paul in Romans 13:9. Paul says that those commandments are summed up in one (love your neighbor as yourself).
What then does this further mean? Does this apparently give credence to Universalism? Yes, I would say so. As would the counterpart of Collosians 1:30 (?).
Therefore, you apparently do have credence to this belief after all do you not. But alas, we cannot consider one verse in isolation from the rest now can we? Let us move on...what else do you have my friend? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
metothezero
Tiger Cub
Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 791
Location: east texas
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey, so I'm looking at your link; and I have one quick question, are you preterist? I greatly admire R. C. Sproul, and he is semi-preterist. Likewise, being reformed you find ALOT of reformed believers that venture into the way of preterism. That only to say that I think it not some horrid doctrine (like many think Universalism ), yet I do not hold it myself; just curious if you were.
ALSO! Some of the quotes on 'heaven and earth' seem to suggest something seperate than that of it pertaining to everything, or everyone. Consider Stanley Paher:
| Quote: | "Several Biblical references show that the phrase 'heaven and earth' is a figurative expression to denote the Jewish economy, its religious society and government."
Luke 16:17 declares that it 'is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fall.' Again, the Jewish society is meant. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:18 ), Jesus declared, 'Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass away till all things be accomplished.' All things needed to be fulfilled which had been written in the Psalms, Moses, and in the scrolls of the other prophets (Luke 24:44; see also John 17:4). The last of these temporal events would be the dissolution of the Jewish economy." (p. 152) |
| Quote: | Another example of "heaven and earth" being referred to the Covenant World of Israel, and not literal creation, is Isaiah 51:16, "And I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art my people.
Notice that God is speaking to Israel. He says he gave them his law, the Old Covenant, the same law Jesus is speaking about in Matthew 5:17-18, to establish heaven and lay the foundation of the earth!
Clearly God is not saying he gave the Old Covenant to Israel to create literal heaven and earth! Material creation existed long before Israel was ever given the Old Covenant.
Isaiah 51:16 And I have put my words in your mouth and covered you in the shadow of my hand, establishing the heavens and laying the foundations of the earth, and saying to Zion, 'You are my people.'
Who is God speaking to in Isaiah 1:1-2, "…Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth." The physical creation?
No, he is speaking to Israel. And who is the witness in Deuteronomy 4:26, "I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day"? Physical creation or Old Covenant Israel? |
| Gary Demar wrote: | | Jesus does not change subjects when He assures the disciples that "heaven and earth will pass away." Rather, He merely affirms His prior predictions, which are recorded in Matthew 24:2931. Verse 36 is a summary and confirmation statement of these verses.(6) Keep in mind that the central focus of the Olivet Discourse is the desolation of the "house" and "world" of apostate Israel (23:36). The old world of Judaism, represented by the earthly temple, is taken apart stone by stone (24:2). James Jordan writes, "each time God brought judgment on His people during the Old Covenant, there was a sense in which an old heavens and earth was replaced with a new one: New rulers were set up, a new symbolic world model was built (Tabernacle, Temple), and so forth."(7) The New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant with new leaders, a new priesthood, new sacraments, a new sacrifice, a new tabernacle (John 1:14), and a new temple (John 2:19; 1 Corinthians 3:16; Ephesians 2:21). In essence, a new heaven and earth. |
| Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis wrote: | | "In this essay it is argued that the principal reference of 'heaven and earth' is the temple-centered cosmology of second-temple Judaism which included the belief that the temple is heaven and earth in microcosm. Mark 13 and Matthew 5:18 refer, then, to the destruction of the temple as a passing away of an old cosmology and also, in the latter case, to the establishment during Jesus' ministry and at His death and resurrection of a new temple cosmology -- a new heaven and earth." (Eschatology in Bible & Theology InterVarsity Press, 1997, p. 145) |
With all these considered I would actually recant my previous statement of these passages seeming to support universalism. Obviously a case can be made that 'heavens and earth' are not referring to the the actual physical heaven and earth, neither is it referring to every single entity that is within these; rather it is referring to Jerusalem and the Judaic order. Therefore, giving at least basis for an argument that the uniting of this 'heaven and earth' (whatever it be) needn't be interpreted as the actual uniting of everything to Christ (a universalistic claim). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hi Adam,
No, I'm not a pretersist, although my views may be preteristic to some extent. 
About Colossians 1:20 and the idiom "heaven and earth."
Let's examine the context, shall we?
| Quote: | | Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. |
All creation seems to be in view, eh?
| Quote: | | Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created, {both} in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. |
Again, all people are included in the phrase "all things."
| Quote: | Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Col 1:18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
Col 1:19 For it was the {Father's} good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,
Col 1:20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, {I say,} whether things on earth or things in heaven. |
So lemme ask you, why would "all things" mean anything other than it does in verse 15? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Adam,
I know that you wanted to move on from Epheasian 3:15. but I just wanted to share some exceprts from some esteemed commentaries showing that my reading of the verse isn't so unordinary.
| Quote: | 15. the whole family--ALFORD, MIDDLETON, and others translate, "every family": alluding to the several families in heaven and in earth supposed to exist [THEOPHYLACT, AEcumenius, in SUICER, 2.633], the apostle thus being supposed to imply that God, in His relation of Father to us His adopted children, is the great prototype of the paternal relation wherever found. But the idea that "the holy angels are bound up in spiritual families or compaternities," is nowhere else in Scripture referred to. And Act 2:36 , where the article is similarly omitted, and yet the translation is, "All the house of Israel," shows that in New Testament Greek the translation is justifiable, "all the family," or "the whole family": which accords with Scripture views, that angels and men, the saints militant and those with God, are one holy family joined under the one Father in Christ, the mediator between heaven and earth ( Eph 1:10 Phl 2:10 ). Hence angels are termed our "brethren" ( Rev 19:10 ), and "sons of God" by creation, as we are by adoption ( Job 38:7 ). The Church is part of the grand family, or kingdom, which comprehends, besides men, the higher spiritual world, where the archetype, to the realization of which redeemed man is now tending, is already realized. This universal idea of the "kingdom" of God as one divine community, is presented to us in the Lord's Prayer. By sin men were estranged, not only from God, but from that higher spiritual world in which the kingdom of God is already realized. As Christ when He reconciled men to God, united them to one another in a divine community (joined to Himself, the one Head), breaking down the partition wall between Jew and Gentile ( Eph 2:14 ), so also He joins them in communion with all those who have already attained that perfection in the kingdom of God, to which the Church on earth is aspiring ( Col 1:20 ) [NEANDER].
is named--derives its origin and its name as sons of God. To be named, and to be, are one with God. To bear God's name is to belong to God as His own peculiar people ( Num 6:27 Isa 43:7 44:5 Rom 9:25, 26 ).
-Commentary by A. R. FAUSSETT |
| Quote: | d. In remembering that all God's family is called after His name, Paul shows that his mind is rather taken with this idea of the essential unity of the Body of Christ; He is Father of Jew and Gentile
- David Guzik |
| Quote: | II. His outward posture in prayer, which was humble and reverent: I bow my knees. Note, When we draw nigh to God, we should reverence him in our hearts, and express our reverence in the most suitable and becoming behaviour and gesture. Here, having mentioned Christ, he cannot pass without an honourable encomium of his love, v. 15. The universal church has a dependence upon the Lord Jesus Christ: Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named. The Jews were wont to boast of Abraham as their father, but now Jews and Gentiles are both denominated from Christ (so some); while others understand it of the saints in heaven, who wear the crown of glory, and of saints on earth who are going on in the work of grace here. Both the one and the other make but one family, one household; and from him they are named CHRISTIANS, as they really are such, acknowledging their dependence upon, and their relation to, Christ.
- Matthew Henry |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
metothezero
Tiger Cub
Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 791
Location: east texas
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | All creation seems to be in view, eh? |
Uh huh...
| Quote: | | Again, all people are included in the phrase "all things." |
Yes, yes...
| Quote: | | So lemme ask you, why would "all things" mean anything other than it does in verse 15? |
Because...I said so. LOL just kidding.
"all things" would not mean anything other than what it means in the previous verses. We cannot expect Paul to use a phrase in a certain way and then interchange it in the following sentence (although a case can be made that he does so using the term 'jew' in Romans...but that is another case where the contextual allowance is given.)
Sir, I have conceded this verse to seemingly represent Universalism. I then apparently recanted my concession, and now must reaffirm my once made concession that this verse, taken without guidance from the rest of this passage, does specifically say that Jesus will reconcile 'all things' (in the fullest sense of the word - all things He created, He will reconcile), thus seemingly affirm credence to a universalistic claim.
Although, I wanted to help with clarification then...
Paul does make the statement of 'all things' being reconciled in verse twenty, then apparently leaves us with nothing else to know of this reconciliation. Or does he?
We mustn't stop here with simply this verse and call the case closed, we must look at the context. What is said in verse 21-22? How does this give more light to what is meant by 'reconciliation'??
| Quote: | | Col 1:21-22 And you were once alienated and hostile in mind because of your evil actions. (22) But now He has reconciled you by His physical body through His death, to present you holy, faultless, and blameless before Him-- |
Now, we have the state given prior to reconciliation: that of alienation and hostility in mind because of evil actions.
We likewise have the means that the reconciliation is given: by the physical body of Christ and through His death.
We have as well the state after the reconciliation: presentation as holy, faultless and blameless before the one who reconciled us.
This is all good. I do not think you would disagree with this blatantly literal reading of what Paul says within this verses.
Let us not stop, let us continue.
| Quote: | | Col 1:23 if indeed you remain grounded and steadfast in the faith, and are not shifted away from the hope of the gospel that you heard. This gospel has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and I, Paul, have become a minister of it. |
If. IF? There is a qualification on this reconciliation? Paul thinks so. Paul does not just say that the reconciliation will occur. Rather, Paul says that the reconciliation will occur ONLY IF the one reconciled remains steadfast in the faith and are not shifted away from the hope of the gospel which they have heard.
So, we have been given by Paul the state prior to the reconciliation, the means of the reconciliation, the state after the reconciliation and now the qualification for the act of the reconciliation...
Therefore, in order to do any manner of proper study into this case, and as to not make any hasty doctrinal conclusions, we must do an inquiry into what it means to be 'grounded and steadfast' and furthermore if the Scripture gives light onto who exactly does this. Mustn't we? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Adam,
| Quote: | | If. IF? There is a qualification on this reconciliation? Paul thinks so. |
Not necessarily. The word EIGE need not denote conditionality, but may be used in an affirmative sense. Paul may be saying, "Indeed! You are continuing in the faith." But let me, for the sake of argument, concede that Paul really did mean to say that we will be reconciled if we continue in the faith, does this really mean that his previous statements of Christ creating and reconciling all things are contingent truths? Not at all. For, there is no logical dissonance between the fact that reconciliation comes through continuing in the faith and that all things will be reconciled. That is to say: All people will be reconciled to God through continuing in Faith. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
metothezero
Tiger Cub
Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 791
Location: east texas
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Very good, I knew you would go there...now, one question: Do you have any Scripture saying that all people will continue in faith?
Or is it an assumption that because 'all things will be reconciled' and continuing in faith is a necessary condition of this reconciliation; that therefore, all things will continue in faith? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let me, for now, simply explicate the syllogism at hand.
Continung in faith is a necessary condition for reconciliation.
All people will be reconciled.
Therefore, all people will continue in the faith.
What have you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
metothezero
Tiger Cub
Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 791
Location: east texas
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, the syllogism is perfect. Logical - no doubt. And we see that the first antecedent is Scriptural. The second is interpretively debateable; although apparently literal. The third is where my question for you is.
Is your theory of Universalism (the third antecedent) based upon logical inferences from the other two; or do you have a Scriptural proof backing this?
Now, it is not debated that the third antecedent logically follows the first two. And it would not be debated by any Biblical student that the first is Scriptural. Therefore, we must consider whether the interpretation of the second antecedent is Scripturally allowed.
And if we can find Scripturally that there are those that do not continue in their faith, and therefore are not reconciled, would you concede that the syllogism - while logical - is not Scriptural? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Is your theory of Universalism (the third antecedent) based upon logical inferences from the other two; or do you have a Scriptural proof backing this? |
This is a false alternative that you have presented, for logical inferences from scripture are tantamount to scriptural proof.
| Quote: | | Now, it is not debated that the third antecedent logically follows the first two. And it would not be debated by any Biblical student that the first is Scriptural. Therefore, we must consider whether the interpretation of the second antecedent is Scripturally allowed. |
Do you then consider colossians 1:20 as evidence that all will be reconciled?
| Quote: | | And if we can find Scripturally that there are those that do not continue in their faith, and therefore are not reconciled, would you concede that the syllogism - while logical - is not Scriptural? |
I would not, for although some presently do not continue in the faith, my position is that all will eventually do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
metothezero
Tiger Cub
Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 791
Location: east texas
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | This is a false alternative that you have presented, for logical inferences from scripture are tantamount to scriptural proof. |
No they're not. If you haven't Scripture specifically making a claim then you haven't the Scriptural proof. You have logical inferences based upon Scriptural proof.
I am not necessarily discrediting these as viable. But you cannot equivocate and say that Scriptural proof (Scripture making a claim) is the same as logical inferences based upon Scriptural proof (inferences based upon logic derived from Scriptural antecedents).
| Quote: | | Do you then consider colossians 1:20 as evidence that all will be reconciled? |
I consider it as indeed evidence that all will be reconciled, yet I consider other Scripture as evidence that 'all' is not to be interpreted in the same manner as you do.
| Quote: | | I would not, for although some presently do not continue in the faith, my position is that all will eventually do so. |
And this is where our discussion will continue.
You have made the claim that although some do not currently continue in their faith, they will eventually do so.
Would you explain this passage to me:
Heb 6:4-8 For it is impossible to renew to repentance those who were once enlightened, who tasted the heavenly gift, became companions with the Holy Spirit, (5) tasted God's good word and the powers of the coming age, (6) and who have fallen away, because, to their own harm, they are recrucifying the Son of God and holding Him up to contempt. (7) For ground that has drunk the rain that has often fallen on it, and that produces vegetation useful to those it is cultivated for, receives a blessing from God. (8) But if it produces thorns and thistles, it is worthless and about to be cursed, and will be burned at the end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I see more clearly now what you mean by "scriptural proof." the thing is, Adam, that if we know that faith is a condition for salvation, and if we are told that such and such will be saved, then we must necessarily conclude that such and such will come to faith. Nothing more is needed by way of proof. But to appease you, oh King ,
1 Corinthians 15:28.
This verse speaks of all persons being subjected to God. Would you agree that faith is nonebut subjecting oneself to God? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
