 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
metothezero
Tiger Cub
Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 791
Location: east texas
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:16 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | This verse speaks of all persons being subjected to God. Would you agree that faith is nonebut subjecting oneself to God? |
Friend, I personally would not. Unless you have 'Scriptural proof' that relates the two, or puts them within a passage and classifies them as synonymous, then it is inference on your part.
If we look at other such passages that use this word (υποτάσσω) we will see that faith and this word are not synonymous.
Luk 2:51 Then He went down with them and came to Nazareth and was obedient to them. His mother kept all these things in her heart.
This would indicate that Jesus had faith in the people of Nazareth.
Luk 10:17-20 The Seventy returned with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons submit to us in Your name." (18) He said to them, "I watched Satan fall from heaven like a lightning flash. (19) Look, I have given you the authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy; nothing will ever harm you. (20) However, don't rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven."
This would indicate that the demons (spirits) have faith in the Seventy.
If you devolve down this path of equating this word (υποτάσσω) with that of faith you would have to lessen faith from the Scripturally pronounced means of Salvation. One is saved through faith, saving faith. If we were to say that 'faith' is something that Jesus could have in God (1 Cor. 15:28) and in the Nazarenes (Luke 2:51) as well as what demons can have in men (Luke 10:17-20), then we would necessarily have to pervert it from that wondrous gift of God whereby men are saved to something of insignificant manner that even demons can have.
Do you have any passages that seem to equate these two? Or are you infering that being 'subjected' is the same as having this 'saving faith'?
We will 'park' here momentarily, but do not forget the Hebraic passage I asked for your opinion concerning.
Also:
| Quote: | | But to appease you, oh King , |
Never forget it... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Luk 2:51 Then He went down with them and came to Nazareth and was obedient to them. His mother kept all these things in her heart.
This would indicate that Jesus had faith in the people of Nazareth. |
It would actually indicate that Jesus obeyed his parents, just as 1 corinthians 15:28 indicates that all will finally be obedient to God.
Same holds true for Luke 10:17 where we read the even devils cease to disobey by the name of Christ.
Paul himself consistently used υποτάσσω of obedience.
For instance, Romans 8:7 and 10:3 use the word to denote compliance specifically towards God, and we can see that whenever this word is used in relation to God (aside from its usage in 1 corinthians 15), it is used of salvific surrender to Him.
Consider:
Ephesians 1:22 and Philippians 3:2, co-texts of 1 cor 15:28, use υποτάσσω to describe Christ's headship, a concept which is defined in the Bible as a reconciliatory relationship consisting in one's surrender to the will of God. See also Hebrews 12:9, where subjection to God is equated with a reverential submission which brings life.
| Quote: | Luk 10:17-20 The Seventy returned with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons submit to us in Your name." (1 He said to them, "I watched Satan fall from heaven like a lightning flash. (19) Look, I have given you the authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy; nothing will ever harm you. (20) However, don't rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven."
This would indicate that the demons (spirits) have faith in the Seventy. |
I have not argued that the word itself denotes faith in Christ - this depends on the context. However, I am hard-pressed to find any instances in the NT where the word is not used of obedience in some sense . The very passage you cite above speaks of the cessation of the devils' disobedience, which entails their conformation to the name of Christ.
| Quote: | | If we were to say that 'faith' is something that Jesus could have in God (1 Cor. 15:2 and in the Nazarenes (Luke 2:51) as well as what demons can have in men (Luke 10:17-20), then we would necessarily have to pervert it from that wondrous gift of God whereby men are saved to something of insignificant manner that even demons can have. |
Jesus will hand over His dominion to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:23-28 ) and in so doing would have surrendered unto the Lord just as all will surrender themselves to Christ and hence to God.
Forgive me, I forgot about the Hebrews passage.
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. ( But if it produces thorns and thistles, it is worthless and about to be cursed, and will be burned at the end.
This is a cryptic one, is it not? I have heard various explanations, none of which I totally buy into yet, although I cannto refute some of them. One idea is that Paul uses argumentum ad adsurdum to express the impossibility of falling away from the Life of Christ. Ever come across this understanding? Zodhiates advocated it... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
metothezero
Tiger Cub
Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 791
Location: east texas
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let us see what we have so far. We have established that faith is a requirement for salvation. We have then questioned whether 'all being reconciled' indicates all in existence (you) or a more exclusive all (me). In order to research this more we have attempted to find Scripture that speaks of all in existence having faith. I have asked for this Scriptural proof. You have then given me this passage:
| Quote: | | 1Co 15:28 And when everything is subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who subjected everything to Him, so that God may be all in all. |
Stating that such subjectation indicates having saving faith.
I have then responded that the word used here for 'subject' is the same used elsewhere where Jesus is likewise 'subject' (translated as obedient) to His parents (pardon my misinterpretation of it being the Nazarenes - His parents were Nazarenes though weren't they? ) Likewise, showing where the demons are 'subject' (obedient) to the Seventy and Christ is 'subject' (obedient) to the Father.
Thus attempting to prove that if your earlier statement of such 'subjectation' proving saving faith then this would likewise indicate that Jesus had saving faith in His parents and the Heavenly Father and even more absurd is the demons having saving faith in the Seventy.
If the passage within 1 Corinthians proves that everything being subjected to Christ means that everything has saving faith (if these two are synonymous) then we would have to take the necessary logical conclusions that I have provided above.
You prove this point again by saying this:
| Quote: | Paul himself consistently used υποτάσσω of obedience.
For instance, Romans 8:7 and 10:3 use the word to denote compliance specifically towards God, and we can see that whenever this word is used in relation to God (aside from its usage in 1 corinthians 15), it is used of salvific surrender to Him. |
You state that whenever this word is used in relation to God it is used of salvific surrender to Him.
Let us then consider the syllogism:
- whenever this word is used in relation to God it is used of salvific surrender
- 1 Cor. 15:28 says that everything will be υποτάσσω to God
- therefore, everything will have salvific surrender to God
That is all good, that is the conclusion you want is it not?
But let us consider once more the other usage of this verse within the same exact verse! Another syllogism will help.
- whenever this word is used in relation to God it is used of salvific surrender
- 1 Cor. 15:28 says that Jesus will be υποτάσσω to God
- therefore, Jesus will have salvific surrender to God
Thus the conclusion that we must necessarily draw is that Jesus has 'saving faith'? What does Jesus need salvation from?
The very usage of this word within the same verse you provided disproves the idea that this word is indicating that 'saving faith' that is required.
I will return to the passage within Hebrews when we are done with this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | We have established that faith is a requirement for salvation. We have then questioned whether 'all being reconciled' indicates all in existence (you) or a more exclusive all (me). In order to research this more we have attempted to find Scripture that speaks of all in existence having faith. |
Notice the bold. Again, it is enough to point to scriptures which declare that all will be saved, for this logically necessitates the condition which is faith. Moving along...
| Quote: | - whenever this word is used in relation to God it is used of salvific surrender
- 1 Cor. 15:28 says that Jesus will be υποτάσσω to God
- therefore, Jesus will have salvific surrender to God
Thus the conclusion that we must necessarily draw is that Jesus has 'saving faith'? What does Jesus need salvation from? |
I must thank you for helping me to clarify and polish my argument, for I certainly failed to express my point in claiming that subjection, in relation to God, always signifies salvific surrender.
In the case of the Son's subjection to the Father, let me propose this explanation: As the Son was given authority to reign on Earth, so will He surrender this authority back to the Father who gave it. His subjection, then, is certainly an act of surrender. I maintain that the subjection of all unto Christ, mroeover, also consists in surrender. Do you agree, or have you an alternative explanation to consider? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
About Colossians 1:20.....
If "all things" does not include all sinful persons, then what does it entail?
And just for the sake of clarification, however unneeded, let me say that I did not argue that hupotasso always denotes salvific surrender, but have rather maintained that it is consistently used of obedience. Whether such submission is salvific depends, I believe, on both context and co-text. In the case of 1Cor 15:28, I believe that that "all things" will be subjected to Christ, and Christ to the Father, in the sense of surrendering all individual authority to the Father. This is evident considering that surrender to God leads to God's indwelling in the soul, and that the unitive state of God being all in all is the result of the subjection of all to Him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
metothezero
Tiger Cub
Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 791
Location: east texas
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Notice the bold. Again, it is enough to point to scriptures which declare that all will be saved, for this logically necessitates the condition which is faith. Moving along... |
Notice the bold. Moving along...
| Quote: | | I must thank you for helping me to clarify and polish my argument, for I certainly failed to express my point in claiming that subjection, in relation to God, always signifies salvific surrender. |
Oh no thank you! (sorry, I'm in a goofy mood!)
| Quote: | | In the case of the Son's subjection to the Father, let me propose this explanation: As the Son was given authority to reign on Earth, so will He surrender this authority back to the Father who gave it. His subjection, then, is certainly an act of surrender. I maintain that the subjection of all unto Christ, mroeover, also consists in surrender. Do you agree, or have you an alternative explanation to consider? |
Perhaps so. Yet, even if we consider this subjection to be an act of surrender, we cannot consider it to be a salvific act of surrender. Paul's use of this word within the same verse describing an act of man and an act of God (Christ) necessarily forbids this interpretation. If we have indication of what Christ did (that being surrender) then we must superimpose this upon what all men will do. Christ gave up any authority that He had; so man will give up any authority that he has. Christ recognized the supreme authority of the Father; so man will do so. Christ did not do so to gain salvation (He needn't it); so man does not do so either.
Surrender - yes. Obedience - yes. Obedience leading to salvation - no.
| Quote: | | If "all things" does not include all sinful persons, then what does it entail? |
It entails all things that will be reconciled. It entails all foreordained to be so. Within Scripture 'all' does not always entail every single person, or an all inclusive number, sometimes it is qualified by other passages, context and co-text (as you have said) that forbid the translation of an all inclusive number.
| Quote: | | And just for the sake of clarification, however unneeded, let me say that I did not argue that hupotasso always denotes salvific surrender, but have rather maintained that it is consistently used of obedience. Whether such submission is salvific depends, I believe, on both context and co-text. |
Glad you clarified, I had assumed otherwise.
| Quote: | | In the case of 1Cor 15:28, I believe that that "all things" will be subjected to Christ, and Christ to the Father, in the sense of surrendering all individual authority to the Father. This is evident considering that surrender to God leads to God's indwelling in the soul, and that the unitive state of God being all in all is the result of the subjection of all to Him. |
This is not specifically evident. Yes, when one is indwelt with the Spirit, when one is regenerate, they must surrender their all to Christ. Yet, this needn't necessarily conclude that everytime a person does surrender to the authority of God that they are to be indwelt with the Spirit.
Within the book of Job, Satan surrendered to the authority and restrictions so placed upon him by God (not to touch Job's body; not to kill Job) and yet he was not indwelt by the Spirit of our LORD.
Repeatedly throughout the New Testament demons submit to the authority of Christ when commanded to exit the bodies of those possessed, yet they are not indwelt.
You would be hard pressed to take a doctrinal stance stating that when one surrenders to the authority of Christ (God) they will necessarily be indwelt by the Spirit of God. I have shown two cases where this stance cannot be taken. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | ...even if we consider this subjection to be an act of surrender, we cannot consider it to be a salvific act of surrender. Paul's use of this word within the same verse describing an act of man and an act of God (Christ) necessarily forbids this interpretation. |
What is it exactly about 1 Corinthians 15:28 that forbids the reading I'm putting forth? My point is that the subjection of both the Son and sinners entails an act of obediece (which you acknowledge in your last post) which, in case of sinful mankind, necessarily entails the surrender of any opposition in the will. Do you agree? Why or why not? 
| Quote: | | If we have indication of what Christ did (that being surrender) then we must superimpose this upon what all men will do. |
The specific meaning of hupotasso as it appears in this verse is the same for both Christ and sinful mankind. This does not imply, however, that Christ's subjection is exactly the same as ours. Insofar as they are equivalent, they are the concern of Paul's thought in 1 corinthians 15:28
| Quote: | | Christ gave up any authority that He had; so man will give up any authority that he has. Christ recognized the supreme authority of the Father; so man will do so. |
I agree.
| Quote: | | Christ did not do so to gain salvation (He needn't it); so man does not do so either. |
This does not follow, and has ever appearance of an invalid syllogism. 
| Quote: | | Surrender - yes. Obedience - yes. Obedience leading to salvation - no. |
Fair enough. Let this particular aspect of the debate move on to the next level. Do you believe that sinful man's obedience to God entails a harmony of wills where there was once discord?
As for the meaning of "all things," PAS, in Colossians 1:20, my opponent wrote:
| Quote: | | It entails all things that will be reconciled. It entails all foreordained to be so. |
Let's see.
| Quote: |
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. |
Your reading would render this: and through Him to reconcile all things which will be reconciled to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, {I say,} whether things on earth or things in heaven.
This is a tautological rendition, and I must request some evidence that the phrase is to be understood in the way that you have suggested. Do you have any other examples of this alleged idiomatic style in NT writing?
| Quote: | | Within Scripture 'all' does not always entail every single person, or an all inclusive number, sometimes it is qualified by other passages, context and co-text (as you have said) that forbid the translation of an all inclusive number. |
how could I disagree? 8)
1 corinthians 15:28 evidently has in view a subjection which is unlike that of the devil and demons, as alluded to in your last post, and which is similar for both Christ and all else in that each results in the state of God being all in all. What do you make of this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
metothezero
Tiger Cub
Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 791
Location: east texas
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | What is it exactly about 1 Corinthians 15:28 that forbids the reading I'm putting forth? My point is that the subjection of both the Son and sinners entails an act of obediece (which you acknowledge in your last post) which, in case of sinful mankind, necessarily entails the surrender of any opposition in the will. Do you agree? Why or why not? |
The act of obedience, I agree. The 'surrender of any opposition in the will' is where I disagree. Save the fact that I am not sure exactly what YOU mean by 'opposition in the will'; I still have inference that you are implying the removal of opposition necessary for salvation - wherein I must disagree.
| Quote: | | The specific meaning of hupotasso as it appears in this verse is the same for both Christ and sinful mankind. This does not imply, however, that Christ's subjection is exactly the same as ours. Insofar as they are equivalent, they are the concern of Paul's thought in 1 corinthians 15:28 |
See that is my point. Paul's use of this word for both Christ and sinful mankind makes any rendering of this word equivalent for both. You say 'insofar as they are equivalent', yet your interpretation of just how equivalent is far more than mine.
So attested by this:
| Quote: | | the sexy beast! wrote: | | Christ did not do so to gain salvation (He needn't it); so man does not do so either. |
This does not follow, and has ever appearance of an invalid syllogism. |
You would agree that they are equivalent insofar as Christ gave up His authority and recognized the supreme authority of the Father; but then you would not advance their eqivocancy further and say that just as Christ was not required such 'salvific obedience' so the sinful mankind did not have such 'salvific obedience'. I would.
| Quote: | | Fair enough. Let this particular aspect of the debate move on to the next level. Do you believe that sinful man's obedience to God entails a harmony of wills where there was once discord? |
This then is the conclusion I came to at the beginning of this post. I would agree that both mankind and Christ were obedient, but I would not say - as of yet - that mankind's obedience entailed a 'harmony of wills where there once was discord'; as I do not know specifically what you mean by this and assume you mean the harmony so required for salvation.
AS FOR THE MEANING OF PAS!!!!
| Quote: | Your reading would render this: and through Him to reconcile all things which will be reconciled to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, {I say,} whether things on earth or things in heaven.
This is a tautological rendition, and I must request some evidence that the phrase is to be understood in the way that you have suggested. Do you have any other examples of this alleged idiomatic style in NT writing? |
My answer was tautologically rendered. But, it was in no way attempting to formulate some theory that Paul uses this idiomatic style in His writings (nor any NT writer). While a tautological rendition, it was nonetheless incorrect.
Christ called to be disciples the disciples. Christ called those He called. God set apart those He set apart. God redeems those He redeems. God reconciles those He reconciles.
These statements are repetitive, yes; but they are not incorrect.
You asked who will be reconciled; I responded, all those He reconciles.
I cannot give you specific names of all those that will, as I am not God.
I can either respond as I have (which was not incorrect) or echo Scripture and say Christ will reconcile 'all' to Himself. But then lies the crux of our debate. Who is 'all'?
| Quote: | | how could I disagree? |
I don't know...how could you?
Let us then return to the Corinthian passage. You say:
| Quote: | | 1 corinthians 15:28 evidently has in view a subjection which is unlike that of the devil and demons, as alluded to in your last post, and which is similar for both Christ and all else in that each results in the state of God being all in all. What do you make of this? |
Let us look at context,
| Quote: | | 1Co 15:20-23 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. (21) For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also comes through a man. (22) For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. (23) But each in his own order: Christ, the firstfruits; afterward, at His coming, the people of Christ. |
- Christ has been raised for the dead.
- Death came through Adam; resurrection comes through Christ.
- Just as in Adam all died; so in Christ all will be made alive.
- All that will be made alive are these: Christ first; then the people of Christ.
If you notice, qualification is given on who will be made alive: Christ and the people of Christ. Here Paul seems to clarify who is the 'all'...the people of Christ.
| Quote: | | 1Co 15:24-28 Then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when He abolishes all rule and all authority and power. (25) For He must reign until He puts all His enemies under His feet. (26) The last enemy to be abolished is death. (27) For He has put everything under His feet. But when it says "everything" is put under Him, it is obvious that He who puts everything under Him is the exception. (28) And when everything is subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who subjected everything to Him, so that God may be all in all. |
- At the end Christ hands over the kingdom
- At the end Christ abolishes all rule and authority and power.
- He must reign until He puts all His enemies under His feet.
(The manner in which Paul is speaking here signifies that Paul believes that the reign of Christ is until the end when He gives up the Kingdom to the Father; it likewise is signification that the 'putting under His feet' is the abolishing of authority and rule and power - would you disagree?)
- Death is the last 'rule/ authority/ power' that will be abolished.
Now is our verse.
| Quote: | | 1Co 15:28 And when everything is subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who subjected everything to Him, so that God may be all in all. |
'When everything is subject to Him'. What does that mean? We know what that means from the previous verses. Being subject to Him is for His enemies to be put under His feet. Being subject to Him is to have not rule nor authority nor power of your own but of Him.
Christ subjects everything to Himself by abolishing all rule and and all authority and all power save His own, making Himself the supreme rule and authority and power.
Christ then hands over this rule and authority and power to the Father.
This subjecting is nothing more than the relinquishing of rule and authority and power.
One can relinquish rule or authority or power without being a child of God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
metothezero
Tiger Cub
Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 791
Location: east texas
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Friend, the subjecting that is spoken of in verse 28 is clarified in verse 24 - 27. Context is everything. We must look at context and not add any extra-textual ideas; lest we fall into error.
| Quote: | | 1Co 15:24 Then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when He abolishes all rule and all authority and power. |
Christ will abolish all rule and authority and power, then hand over His rule and authority and power (His Kingdom) to God the Father. Christ will subject Himself to the rule and authority and power of God the Father.
| Quote: | | 1Co 15:25 For He must reign until He puts all His enemies under His feet. |
We know that at the end He will abolishes all rule and authority and power; therefore, it is safe to assume that His reign is up until the point when He puts under His feet all His enemies. So, it is not false to assume that the putting of enemies under His feet is the abolishing of all rule and authority and power whereby the end of His reign comes; and as aforementioned he then hands over His rule and authority and power to God the Father.
| Quote: | | 1Co 15:26 The last enemy to be abolished is death. |
A little parentheses for your enjoyment!
| Quote: | | 1Co 15:27 For He has put everything under His feet. But when it says "everything" is put under Him, it is obvious that He who puts everything under Him is the exception. |
Another little parenthesis stating that the Father who puts everything under His feet (subjects everything to Him) thereby abolishing all rule and authority and power is not within this class of everything.
[Also giving credence to the fact that everytime Paul (or any other NT writer) uses such words as 'all' or 'everything' it does not necessarily mean that they have an all inclusive idea of the word in mind; they sometimes have qualifications on the word...]
Now, we have established that Christ will reign up until the time when He puts all things under His feet. We have also expressed this in the way of saying that Christ will abolish all rule and authority and power. To state this yet another way, in a more inclusive way, we can say that the end of Christ's reign is when He abolishes all rule and authority and power and therefore places all things under His feet; He then hands all this rule and authority and power (His Kingdom) over to the Father.
Would you disagree?
My summation is exactly what Paul did in verse 28. He stated:
| Quote: | | 1Co 15:28 And when everything is subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who subjected everything to Him, so that God may be all in all. |
Just as Christ put everything under His feet, thereby abolishing all rule and authority and power (subjecting these things to Himself); so Christ will put Himself, so to speak, under the feet of the Father, relinquish His rule and authority and power (subject Himself to the Father) and therefore make God all in all.
The idea of the passage is that all rule and authority and power is abolished from whatever place it has in anything that is not Christ. Christ therefore receives all rule and authority and power. This rule and authority and power is His Kingdom. Just as Christ has abolished all rule and authority and power (His Kingdom), thus making all 'under His feet'; He then places Himself 'under the feet of God' (so to speak) thus handing over His Kingdom to the Father.
After Christ had abolished all rule and authority and power there was no rule nor authority nor power save that of Christ; there was but His Kingdom.
And now that Christ has given up His Kingdom to His Father; there is no rule nor authority nor power save that of the Father's rule and authority and power. Therefore, God is all rule and authority and power and in all rule and authority and power.
Would you disagree? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| meto, your posts are too long, buddy. can you make your points more effeciently? I'll respond soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | And now that Christ has given up His Kingdom to His Father; there is no rule nor authority nor power save that of the Father's rule and authority and power. Therefore, God is all rule and authority and power and in all rule and authority and power.
Would you disagree? |
Yep.
| Quote: | | Being subject to Him is to have not rule nor authority nor power of your own but of Him. |
Indeed. So those subjected to God are conformed to His power. Nothing in them is contrary to God. Do you dispute this?
| Quote: | | If you notice, qualification is given on who will be made alive: Christ and the people of Christ. Here Paul seems to clarify who is the 'all'...the people of Christ. |
Sure, but this begs the question. All who die in Adam will be made alive in christ.
| Quote: | Christ called to be disciples the disciples. Christ called those He called. God set apart those He set apart. God redeems those He redeems. God reconciles those He reconciles.
These statements are repetitive, yes; but they are not incorrect. |
Of course they are not incorrect, nor are they at all helpful. Are you really content with your attempt at explaining away the clear universalist thrust of colossians 1:20 by reducing Paul's grand prophecy to a mere tautology? 
As for there being some sense of equivalency between Christ's subjection and our subjection, I have trouble imagining that you would dispute this. After all, Paul uses the word hupotasso to describe both Christ's and our subjection.
Let's take it much more slowly, Meto. And let us try yo avoid repeating ourselves unnecessarily. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
metothezero
Tiger Cub
Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 791
Location: east texas
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
AHH!! I had a post, and I posted it; then when I came back, it was not posted. Board grimlins...
Ok, once more...
You shouldn't...
| Quote: | | Indeed. So those subjected to God are conformed to His power. Nothing in them is contrary to God. Do you dispute this? |
I would dispute this based upon the text saying that they are subjected to His power. The text does not say that there is nothing contrary to God within them. Neither does the text say that they are conformed to His power, unless you mean by 'conformed to His power' that they are under His power or subjected to His power; therein I would agree.
If you can prove, from the text, where being subjected to His power signifies having nothing within you contrary to Him; then you have a case, and I will not dispute. Until then, you are speculating, and I can dispute your speculation based upon lack of evidence...
| Quote: | | Sure, but this begs the question. All who die in Adam will be made alive in christ. |
This does not beg the question because all that are in Christ were in Adam, but not all that were in Adam are in Christ...
| Quote: | | Of course they are not incorrect, nor are they at all helpful. Are you really content with your attempt at explaining away the clear universalist thrust of colossians 1:20 by reducing Paul's grand prophecy to a mere tautology? |
The question is asked of both of us, who will be reconciled? Both yourself and I will respond 'all' will. Yet, when we speak this one word we both mean two different things. You, all mankind; I, all of an exclusive group. Therefore to avoid confusion we must clarify our 'all'.
When then asked again, who will be reconciled? You signify, all mankind. I, at a lack of knowing who exactly these people are, can only classify them within a group of commonality; this commanlity being that they are all reconciled. Therefore, when I am asked, I respond, all that will be reconciled.
I am only forced to utter a tautology when my answer is confused with your answer. I could have responded 'all' will be reconciled, yet I could not have left it at this seeing as how your idea of 'all' was different than mine. Therefore, I had to clarify; that clarification made it into a tautology.
In that I am content.
| Quote: | | As for there being some sense of equivalency between Christ's subjection and our subjection, I have trouble imagining that you would dispute this. After all, Paul uses the word hupotasso to describe both Christ's and our subjection. |
Their equivalency I have no problem admitting. I have, in fact, argued for their equivalency all along. My problem arises when you attempt to say that both are equal in their subjection, BUT the human subjection involves something different than the subjection of Christ.
If we maintain that both humanity and Christ subject in the same manner, then seeing as how Christ's subjection does not entail any manner of salvific faith or requirements for salvation, we cannot then attribute these to human subjection either.
I want the equivalency, and from the wording of the Apostle, it is there. Therefore, let us stick with it. Just as Christ is subjected to the Father; so humanity is subjected to Christ (and then to the Father in Christ's subjection).
If we say that the human subjection differs in that it allows for the salvific faith, then we must recant our previous statement of Christ's subjection being just as the human; and in so doing, recant the equivalency of the two subjections. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| this is getting nowhere, metothezero. I say this not in frustration alone. maybe I can find it in me to come up with a fruitful response in the near future. Until then, please be patient and understanding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
metothezero
Tiger Cub
Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 791
Location: east texas
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was about to apologize for my delay; I have not been able to get online in many days. Yet, it seems that I have not been the one who has been holding up the conversation. Really friend, what is it that is frustrating you? What point is it that you are seeing as being 'unfruitful'. We can always let that point die for the purpose of allowing the conversation to continue...
Within the last post that I had made I think I had addressed some few points. One being my tautological answer of Colossians 1:20; which I hope would not hinder our conversation. Another being the differentiation shown within Scripture between 'in Adam' and 'in Christ'; yet, I see that as well as not being able to hinder our conversation, as we merely touched upon it. Then I assume it is with the word 'hupotasso' within 1 Corinthians 15:28? Is this where the standstill is occuring?
I do believe it was introduced into our conversation by yourself when it was asked if you had Scriptural evidence stating that all will 'continue in the faith'. It has been debated as proving this point. Therefore, if it causes our conversation to cease, we can put aside this (as it is too controversial) and I can ask if you had any other Scripture that answers this question...
Again, sorry for the delay, the storm messed with my computer...
awaiting the hope,
Adam |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Adam,
Please, in a terse manner, outline the fundamental difference between the subjection of the Son and the subjection of sinful mankind to the Father.
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
