30 Apr 07
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasWe’re going to be at this for some time... 🙂
[b]"While the merciful heart of God (agape) desires reconciliation, His nature demands holiness..."
Show me a Biblical passage that says just this...
Fair enough...
Consider any passage in the bible referring to the strict demands of God's holy law. The requirement of God's law is perfect obedience. There is no way out except throug ejected Jesus Christ, when Jesus Christ is the only fulfillment of God's law?[/b]
I was just collecting things from the other thread, so that we can keep the discussion here without forgetting what was said over there. (If you think I am forgetting something that you said as we go, please let me know—I still have your Biblical references from there that I printed out.)
I just wanted now to address my citing of Romans 11:25-32, and your reply—
__________________________
Romans 11:25 So that you may not claim to be wiser than you are, brothers and sisters, I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, "Out of Zion will come the Deliverer; he will banish ungodliness from Jacob." 27 "And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins." 28 As regards the gospel they are enemies of God for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors; 29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 Just as you were once disobedient to God but have now received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may now receive mercy. 32 For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.
_________________________
Epiphenehas: In this instance Paul is talking about the Israelites. I'm not sure about His plan for them, exactly, but if we read earlier on in Romans 11 it is pretty clear:
"“Well,” you may say, “those branches were broken off to make room for me.” Yes, but remember—those branches were broken off because they didn’t believe in Christ, and you are there because you do believe. So don’t think highly of yourself, but fear what could happen. For if God did not spare the original branches, he won’t spare you either. Notice how God is both kind and severe. He is severe toward those who disobeyed, but kind to you if you continue to trust in his kindness. But if you stop trusting, you also will be cut off" (Romans 11:19-22).
_______________________
First, I think that although Paul may have started talking about Israel (and that is clearly a concern of his here), I’m not sure that he didn’t expand the whole thing in verse 32—after all he is also talking about Gentile Christians in relationship to Israel. The “all” (pantas again) I think clearly refers to both.
Second, I don’t think verse 26 and 32 ought to be read as being limited by verses 19-22—at least with regard to Israel. I think it needs to be read the other way ‘round. It’s as if I were to say to one of my children: “If you don’t trust me on this, I’ll cut you out of the will.” Then I say to her brother: “Well, he won’t really be disinherited; in the end, none of you will.”
30 Apr 07
1 edit
I think we may have to sort out how we understand agape?
I tend to define it as a passionate concern and caring for the beloved. This is in part based on the fact—as the Greek Orthodox, who never lost the language—point out, agape includes eros; they are not strictly separable.
Therefore, whatever judgment/action the lover takes must be for the well-being of the beloved; otherwise there is a conflict of interest within the lover.
Even in terms of us imperfect humans, if my wife suddenly ceases to love me—perhaps she even comes to hate me—as long as I love her, I will not refuse to see that she gets proper medical care if she is ill or injured. To refuse to do so would not be loving.
As you have pointed out, these sorts of things get “up-leveled” when we speak of God. There can be no “extenuating circumstances” that would prevent God from always acting for the well-being of the beloved—even in judgment. In fact, I would venture that God’s faithfulness and justice work just that way.
___________________________
With that said—
I see you as not necessarily disagreeing with any of that, but rather limiting the “beloved” to those whom God has loved from the beginning, to the exclusion of those that God has not/does not love—i.e., that only the chosen are beloved. Then we are back to continuing our debate about the all versus the elect....
Since God’s spirit (pneuma) is in and enlivens the flesh (sarx), and since “both flesh and spirit are his,” pneuma and sarx are not originally set in opposition. Discussions of pneuma and sarx are complex—
NRS Genesis 6:3 Then the LORD said, "My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years."
NRS Ezekiel 36:26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.
NRS Joel 2:28 Then afterward I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions.
NRS Malachi 2:15 ... Both flesh and spirit are his...
NRS John 3:6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.
NRS John 6:63 It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
NRS Romans 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
_______________________________
But, for God to not love certain human beings, he would have to not love his own pneuma residing in and enlivening them. Also, all things are begotten/engendered/born (ginomai)* through/by God’s logos (John 1)—which is God. If God is agape, then all things are also engendered through/by agape.
* Past tense: egeneto. It is different from poieo, to make, construct or form (the word used in the Greek LXX to translate bara, “created,” in Genesis 1:1, for example); and from ktizo, to create, found or establish. It’s root is ginomai—to become, to be born, to happen, to appear, to arise, to be produced. It is the same root that is translated as “beget.”
The image of God comes from logos and pneuma, and is not destroyed by the fall. Logos, pneuma and sarx are all from God. (As my guy Olivier Clement put it: “The world is a vast incarnation, which the fall of the human race tries to contradict”.) How can some be beloved of God from the beginning and others not?
30 Apr 07
Originally posted by vistesdLATE EDIT: I just realized how bad my “disinheritance” analogy was. 🙁 I’ll try again—
We’re going to be at this for some time... 🙂
I was just collecting things from the other thread, so that we can keep the discussion here without forgetting what was said over there. (If you think I am forgetting something that you said as we go, please let me know—I still have your Biblical references from there that I printed out.)
I just wanted n ...[text shortened]... to her brother: “Well, he won’t really be disinherited; in the end, none of you will.”
It’s as if I said to my child: “Since you haven’t trusted me, I’ve cut off your allowance.” Then I say to her brother: “For now—ultimately I’ll reinstate it. I won’t let it be the death of her...”
30 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdFirst, consider this passage:
I am working through the scriptures, as I said, in order not to piecemeal this too much (though maybe that is unavoidable). I’m glad you moved over to this thread, though.
I just want to comment on the translation of aion and its cognates. Here are just a selection of scriptural references—
________________________________________
NRS Roman ...[text shortened]... fic contexts, is an interpretive [b]decision based on a theological/soteriological position.[/b]
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish (apollumi*) but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God" (John 3:16-21).
*First of all, apollumi means 'to destroy fully' (Strong's Concordance). Being destroyed fully implies permanance. Conversely, not being 'fully destroyed' implies permanance. Jesus is clearly referring to a judgment with eternal implications. Whoever rejects Jesus Christ will be fully destroyed. Whoever believes in Him will not be fully destroyed, but will have aionos life. Obviously, in such instances referring to fates ending in either heaven or hell, aionos can only be interpreted as 'everlasting'. I understand that aiono has different usages throughout scripture, but its root word is aei which means 'ever, always', and it is more of a stretch to claim that its usage here is other than that (for a limited period of time rather than an eternity). It depends on the context. When John 3:16 speaks of apollumi, it is clearly depicting a permanent sentence (full destruction).
Exploring John 3 further:
The reason people don't believe in Jesus Christ is because they hate Him. Instead, they love darkness, because their wicked deeds require darkness. They don't believe in Him (come to the light) because their deeds are wicked and they fear exposure. Therefore, their condemnation to apollumi is self-imposed. The sentence of God's holy law is apollumi, and that is the fate of all those who reject Christ in favor of darkness. They are judged so already.
"He who is believing in the Son, hath life age-during (life eternal); and he who is not believing the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God doth remain upon him" (John 3:36).
"Wonder not at this, because there doth come an hour in which all those in the tombs shall hear his voice, and they shall come forth; those who did the good things to a rising again of life, and those who practised the evil things to a rising again of judgment**" (John 5:28-29).
(**The sentence of God's judgment is apollumi.)
Those referred to here as having done 'good things' are those who have believed in Jesus Christ; those referred to here as having 'practised the evil things' are those who have loved darkness instead of the light (rejected Christ), as this passage shows:
"He will come with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, bringing judgment on those who don’t know God and on those who refuse to obey the Good News of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with eternal destruction, forever separated from the Lord and from his glorious power" (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9).
What period of their lives are they judged for? They are judged for their lives in the flesh. The life in the flesh is the only place where faith can operate and have significance. After you are raised for judgment, it's already too late for you to repent and turn to God. Otherwise, God would not raise sinners to life again for judgment, He would raise them to life again for another chance to repent and believe. But this is not scripturally apparent. What is apparent is that God causes the resurrection of the dead for the purpose of judgment. And again, the sentence of God's judgment is full destruction (apollumi), a permanent state.
"For we must all stand before Christ to be judged. We will each receive whatever we deserve for the good or evil we have done in this earthly body" (2 Corinthians 5:10). (Note: we are not judged for any moment after death, whether it be for good (obying the Good News) or evil (rejecting Christ).
30 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdYou are misinterpreting that passage, applying it to all men. "For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit" (Romans 8:5). Paul is speaking only of those who have been 'born from above', that is, born in the Spirit; those who have received the Holy Spirit. Indeed, He does love those who have His Spirit dwelling in them. But not every man has received that Spirit, because only those who believe in Jesus Christ have received God's Holy Spirit. This is not to say Jesus didn't die for them (love them) too, but that they nevertheless reject Him regardless of His suffering love for them.
But, for God to not love certain human beings, he would have to not love his own pneuma residing in and enlivening them.
The agape love I'm familiar with refers only to God's love; that is, His charity toward sinners in Jesus Christ (undeserved kindness). I believe there are several other distinct forms of love in the NT - eros (sexual love), agape (charitable, selfless, altruistic, and unconditional love), philia (brotherly love), storge (child-parent love). It would probably be best not to confuse eros with agape... For future reference.
I'll write more later on these and other subjects. Good stuff, vistesd.
30 Apr 07
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasGood stuff, vistesd.
You are misinterpreting that passage, applying it to all men. "For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit" (Romans 8:5). Paul is speaking only of those who have been 'born from above', that is, born in the Spirit; those who reference.
I'll write more later on these and other subjects. Good stuff, vistesd.
You too, Epiphinehas. I haven’t had to work this hard on such an extended debate since one with lucifershammer about a year ago.
I’m going to let the “all versus the elect” question go for a bit, until I have gone through at least the Pauline corpus, examining context, etc. (I’m through 1st & 2nd Thessalonians and Galations (always my favorite), with some comentary.) Basically, I want (1) to examine the context of each of the “all” references I have been citing; and (2) I want to see how the texts weave together... Not that I don’t trust you, but I want to see that where I say “all...,” and you say, “Paul is only talking about...,” I want to see if the context supports that.
However, I am still having some trouble with the “elect.”
As I understand it—though I have no way to know that I am not of the elect, from the beginning—if I am, I will eventually see the light , repent, etc. in this life. If I am not, then not. As you put it, God will harden my heart, or, as 2nd Thess. Put it:
2:11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false, 12 so that all who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned.
On the one hand, this is the way I have understood your doctrine of election; on the other hand you sometimes seem to imply that those who do not accept Jesus' message have a real choice in the matter...
And this goes to the original question of this thread. God either ultimately saves (my argument); or God fails to save, and is frustrated in his desire to save by human beings or by the evil one; or God always only intended salvation for his chosen "elect," from the beginning.
_________________________
Re apollumi—am I correct in understanding, then, that you do not see condemnation as being in a state of eternal torment? Viewing it as ultimate annhiliation would seem to me to remove some of the tension between condemnation and either gape or justice...
__________________________
Re agape and eros, here are some sources I have found. Since the Great Schism of 1054, the understandings of East and West seem to have kept diverging over the centuries. According to Jaroslav Pelikan (in his 5 volume opus The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine) the Eastern and Western churches already had language difficulties in trying to communicate with one another.
As I noted, I tend to rely on the Greek church when they say something beyond the dictionaries or lexicons, because they never lost the Greek. With that—
The term "love" - one of the most used, and abused, words in today's world - has a vast field of meaning. In this multiplicity of meanings, however, the archetype of love par excellence that emerges is that between man and woman, which in ancient Greece was given the name of "eros." …
Ultimately what is necessary is that "eros" and "agape" never be completely separated from one another; indeed, the greater the extent to which the two - though in different dimensions - find their right equilibrium, the more the true nature of love is realized. Although initially "eros" is, above all, desire, in approaching the other person it will ask ever fewer questions about itself and seek ever more happiness in the other, it will give itself and desire to "be there" for the other. Thus the one becomes part of the other and the moment of "agape" is achieved. (Pope Benedict)
In the Greek, and in the Greek Orthodox Church, eros and agape were never artificially separated, as they became in Western Protestantism—where eros came to mean sexual desire only, and agape came to mean a kind of charitable compassion. It appears from the Pope’s encyclical that either (1) eros and agape were never so artificially separated in Catholicism, or (2) to the extent that they have been, Benedict is redressing that error.
A few examples from the Orthodox literature that I have collected thus far—
Orthodox theologian Giorgios I. Mantzarides writes: “ Usually, the concept of love as agape is differentiated from the concept of love as eros, because the former manifests the disinterested movement of self-offering, while eros is the self-interested movement which seeks some satisfaction. Thus, for example, the movement of God toward man is characterized as agape, while the movement of man toward God is characterized as eros…But at other times the two terms are used in exactly the same way as synonyms… In the Aeropagitic writings we read, ‘Whether we consider eros to be divine, angelic, intellectual, psychic, or natural, we must understand it to be a unifying and binding power which moves superiors to provide for the weaker, which moves equals into a communion with one another…’ Here the word eros is used as a synonym for the word love (agape).” (from his book Orthodox Spiritual Life; my italics)
Another Orthodox theologian, Olivier Clement, in his The Roots of Christian Mysticism, writes: “The inspired poet of eros is Dionysius the Aeropagite. And [St.] Maximus the Confessor, commenting on him, does not hesitate to equate eros with agape.” Maximus, in his commentary on Dionysius’ On The Divine Names, writes: “The Song of Songs calls him [God] agape, or ‘sensual pleasure,’ and ‘desire,’ which means eros.”*
Orthodox theologian Christos Yannaras, in his The Elements of Faith, writes:
“And especially in the Gospel of John, eternal life which Christ comes to give us is defined by the verb ‘to know’ [Greek: ginosko; noun: gnosis], which always renders the Hebrew word which means, in biblical language, the erotic relationship of a man and a woman: ‘Eternal life is this, to know [ginoskosin] you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent’ (Jn 17:3)…
“In the patristic tradition, God himself in his internal triadic life will be defined as ‘the whole of eros,’ the fullness of continuous erotic unity: ‘This eros is love, and it is written that God is love’.”**
St. Gregory of Nyssa’s viewpoint was: “For agape which is aroused is called eros.”
In another passage Gregory speaks of desire as follows: "For love (agape) which is aroused is called desire" (eros), p.383
Because eros is a passion, it lies outside the realm of our intellectual faculties. Eros is best described as an intensification of agape: "The bride is wounded by a spiritual fiery shaft of desire (eros). For agape which is aroused is called eros." (ibid, p.383).
(http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/frluke_newage.aspx):
If one were to examine a dictionary of Greek terms defined according to the usage of the Holy Fathers, for example A Patristic Greek Lexicon, one would find the following examples for the word eros: 1. love, defense of term as synonym for agape; 2. of God's love; 3. of man's love towards God; 4. of love towards saints; 5. for virtues (A Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G. W. H. Lampe, D. D., Oxford, 1961).
St. Andrew Orthodox Christian Church (http://www.standrew-parish.org/spirituality/piety.htm):
Love is the greatest of all virtues. Love is the reason God created the world, it is what binds Him to his creation, it is what made Him send his only-begotten Son into the world to destroy death. Love is the action of goodness for the sake of the other (Greek 'agape'😉; it is the erotic love (Greek 'eros'😉 that seeks union: between man and woman, but also between God and Man; it is the friendship (Greek 'phila'😉 between God and Man, as well as the friendship between human beings.
(http://www.sage.edu/faculty/salomd/nyssa/meta.html):
In Hastings. J, Dictionary of the Bible under the reference for Love in the LXX we read:
All these varieties of love, human and divine, may in the LXX be expressed by the verb agapao and noun 'agape'. In the story of Samson and Delilah agapao describes sexual relationship (Judges 16 v 4, 15) not to mention Solomon's legalised lust (3 K 11 v 2), besides expressing love in its higher reaches…. In the Greek Bible in the form that it must have been known to the NT writers, agapao does duty for every shade and variety of love, for divine pity and preference for Israel right down to erotic passion. It is true that agapao is not the only verb to express erotic love in the LXX, for there are also pro-aireomai and enthumeomai (Heb hshk ethelo hps); but it is very commonly used to render Hebrew hb when the context makes plain that this very type of love or passion is intended. Nor has agapao the monopoly for rendering what may be described as reasoning attachment; thus the more usual verbs for divine pity are eleeo and oikterio. The noun 'agape' is usually connected with sex, or at least with the love of women; or it is a passion comparable in intensity with hatred; it is not at all a higher love than philia. Indeed in the LXX agapesis may be said to be a higher type of love than AGAPE (c.f. especially Hosea 11 v 4, Zephaniah 3 v 17, Jeremiah 38 (31) v 3) [from http://www.agapetae.org/agape.html]
My Liddel-Scott lexicon includes desire, affection, to caress, love of husband and wife, to delight in, to long for....
(http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/Macmetho.html):
Like Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, Macarius uses eros and agape effectively as synonyms [35].
* Despite the “ecclesial” interpretations of the Song of Songs, both in Judaism and Christianity, I still think it is best read first as a passionate love poem without too much allegorization.
** Here again quoting Maximus Confessor’s commentary on Dionysius.
30 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdGod's special agape love is the love God has for His enemies, e.g. Christ asking the Father to forgive those who were crucifying and persecuting Him. It is not a human love, because human love is necessarily conditional. Humans can only love with God's agape love in so far as they receive the power to do so from God's Holy Spirit within them (assuming they are born-again). From God's agape arises His grace (His undeserved kindness). "You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love (agape) for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:6-8). Put bluntly, it's the kind of love which is extended to both Jeffrey Daumer and Mother Theresa. That's my understanding of the term agape as it applies to God (I believe some translations say 'charity' instead of 'love'😉.
The term "love" - one of the most used, and abused, words in today's world - has a vast field of meaning. In this multiplicity of meanings, however, the archetype of love par excellence that emerges is that between man and woman, which in ancient Greece was given the name of "eros." …
Ultimately what is necessary is that "eros" and "agape" never be compl Here again quoting Maximus Confessor’s commentary on Dionysius.
EDIT: I don't mean to say that other forms of love don't have their roots in God's agape, but God's agape is definitely of a different order. Thus, Paul's comparison of Christ's relationship to the church with a man's relationship to his wife. I have no doubt there are subtleties and mysteries here beyond my ken...
30 Apr 07
Originally posted by vistesdThere is no linguistic warrant for excluding humanity.
I included this because of your reference, on the other thread, to “all things” not including human beings. The word “things” does not appear in the Greek. panta here is plural (as is pantes); it can mean all, everything, everyone, all together—with the definite article (which occurs in the first instance), according to my UBS (Barclay-Newman) Greek dictionary, it means “entire, whole, all.” There is no linguistic warrant for excluding humanity.
No linguistic warrant, no, but a definite contextual one. I stand by my original assertion that this statement must be understood within its context. Paul is addressing the church at Corinth and believers in general.
These believers at Corinth, including Paul, were being persecuted and killed for their faith. If Paul were asserting that dying and being mocked for their faith in Jesus Christ at the hands of unbelievers gained them nothing -- that their fate and the unbelievers' fate were ultimately the same -- they would have been demoralized completely. Why be a Christian, then, and suffer for it?
Paul is referring to the first resurrection, when all those who died in Christ are resurrected from the dead and given new glorified bodies. The second resurrection is the resurrection of unbelievers unto judgment.
"This is the first resurrection. (The rest of the dead did not come back to life until the thousand years had ended.) Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. For them the second death holds no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him a thousand years" (Revelation 20:-7).
30 Apr 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasI agree that agape is, with regard to God—well, of a divine order. I do not think that one can say, Biblically, that humans cannot give/experience agape of a human order. Of course, I do not say that eros must always entail agape. I dislike the translation of “charity”—but the underlying sense of that English word may well have changed in 4 or 5 centuries...
God's special agape love is the love God has for His enemies, e.g. Christ asking the Father to forgive those who were crucifying and persecuting Him. It is not a human love, because human love is necessarily conditional. Humans can only love with God's agape love in so far as they receive the power to do so from God's Holy Spirit within t ...[text shortened]... fe. I have no doubt there are subtleties and mysteries here beyond my ken...
An interesting note: My wife recently had a student who was trilingual, and whose native language was Greek. My wife asked her if she could translate philia into English. She thought a moment and said: “It’s not just being ‘friends.’ It’s deep. ‘When you lie down, I lie down.’” When we simply translate it as “friendship,” I think we are glossing over cultural depths.
My wife asked her if she could translate agape, and the young woman just shook her head... Even with our research and our lexicons, etc., here, I find that young woman’s response to be a bit humbling...
30 Apr 07
Originally posted by vistesdRegarding whether or not all are saved, consider these passages:
We’re going to be at this for some time... 🙂
First, I think that although Paul may have started talking about Israel (and that is clearly a concern of his here), I’m not sure that he didn’t expand the whole thing in verse 32—after all he is also talking about Gentile Christians in relationship to Israel. The “all” (pantas again) I think clearly refers to both.
_____________________________________________________________________
"It is impossible to bring back to repentance those who were once enlightened—those who have experienced the good things of heaven and shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the power of the age to come—and who then turn away from God" (Hebrews 6:4-6)
"Dear friends, if we deliberately continue sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice that will cover these sins. There is only the terrible expectation of God’s judgment and the raging fire that will consume his enemies. For anyone who refused to obey the law of Moses was put to death without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Just think how much worse the punishment will be for those who have trampled on the Son of God, and have treated the blood of the covenant, which made us holy, as if it were common and unholy, and have insulted and disdained the Holy Spirit who brings God’s mercy to us" (Hebrews 10:26-29).
"Anyone who isn’t with me opposes me, and anyone who isn’t working with me is actually working against me. So I tell you, every sin and blasphemy can be forgiven—except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will never be forgiven. Anyone who speaks against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come" (Matthew 12:30-32).
"And just as each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment, so also Christ died once for all time as a sacrifice to take away the sins of many people. He will come again, not to deal with our sins, but to bring salvation to all who are eagerly waiting for him" (Hebrews 9:27-28).
_____________________________________________________________________
From these passages it is clear, at least to me, that not all will inherit the kingdom.
Time and time again the Lord delineates a certain path to eternal life, a path which not everyone will follow. Even in Romans 11, Paul indicates that it is not certain everyone will choose the Lord's specific path to eternal life; namely, Jesus Christ: "And if the people of Israel turn from their unbelief, they will be grafted in again, for God has the power to graft them back into the tree" (Romans 11:23). The 32nd verse of Romans 11 says that God will have mercy on the disobedient Israelites despite their unbelief, but that is not to say that all Israelites will obey the Good News. (As the above scriptures indicate, there is a particular 'sin against the Holy Spirit' which can exempt one from receiving pardon.)
"Even though God has the right to show his anger and his power, he is very patient with those on whom his anger falls, who are destined for destruction. He does this to make the riches of his glory shine even brighter on those to whom he shows mercy, who were prepared in advance for glory. And we are among those whom he selected, both from the Jews and from the Gentiles" (Romans 9:22-24).
It is clear we are talking about a remnant of Israel, not all:
"No, God has not rejected his own people, whom he chose from the very beginning. Do you realize what the Scriptures say about this? Elijah the prophet complained to God about the people of Israel and said, “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars. I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me, too.” And do you remember God’s reply? He said, “No, I have 7,000 others who have never bowed down to Baal!” It is the same today, for a few of the people of Israel have remained faithful because of God’s grace—his undeserved kindness in choosing them" (Romans 11:2-5).
The tree consisting of the branches of Jew and Gentile believers are the 'elect'. Not every Jew and not every Gentile belong in it; not everyone is written in the Book of Life, whether Jew or Gentile:
"And concerning Israel, Isaiah the prophet cried out, “Though the people of Israel are as numerous as the sand of the seashore, only a remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth quickly and with finality" (Romans 9:27-28).
01 May 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasIs it your position that Paul always means only believers when he says “all”? Just because Paul was writing to churches does not mean that he only spoke to them of themselves... I’m not sure the context does support it—but, as I said, I will visit “all” 😉 of them... On the other hand, from a pastoral perspective, Paul may have had neither notion nor intent that anyone else would read, say, 1st Corinthians...except the members of the church at Corinth.
[b]There is no linguistic warrant for excluding humanity.
No linguistic warrant, no, but a definite contextual one. I stand by my original assertion that this statement must be understood within its context. Paul is addressing the church at Corinth and believers in general.
These believers at Corinth, including Paul, were being persecuted and ...[text shortened]... be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him a thousand years" (Revelation 20:-7).[/b]
It can be a tricky thing, perhaps, to distinguish between the “targeted” messages, and the more general ones. For example, despite the focal question, when Jesus said : “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s”, I don’t think he was just giving tax advice...
If Paul were asserting that dying and being mocked for their faith in Jesus Christ at the hands of unbelievers gained them nothing -- that their fate and the unbelievers' fate were ultimately the same -- they would have been demoralized completely. Why be a Christian, then, and suffer for it?
An “age” or “ages” in hell is nothing? If I don’t steal, and someone else does and is caught and convicted—does the fact that they don’t receive the death penalty, that they may “ultimately” be released and be free then to enjoy life just as I am (and have been during their incarceration) mean that I have a right to be “demoralized”? Form a slightly different perspective perhaps, Did those who went to work all day in the vineyard have a right to be angry and jealous because those who only worked one hour received a full day’s pay? Were they not being treated unjustly? Who is God in that parable? I have not said there are no differences.
In terms of soterias as whole-making/healing (just so’s I don’t forget 😉 ), should I be demoralized if my neighbor falls prey to a severe mental illness—while I remain in good health—but is eventually cured and made well? Can I fairly say that our lives have been the same?
______________________________
Why bother with resurrection for those who are to be condemned (I insist on not using “judge” or “judgment” to refer to the verdict itself), if they are simply going to be destroyed/annihilated? Just to horrify those who thought they would have some sort of individual afterlife?
______________________________
With regard to spirit and flesh: I am thinking that in the NT generally, a sarx with no pneuma has no zoe. (Although I have no reason to believe at this point that these terms are always used univocally.) No one is born alive without pneuma (actually, I read recently that in Stoic philosophy, pneuma was not restricted to animal life, but was the substantial force of the logos—as the author put it, quoting Dylan Thomas, pneuma is “the force that through the green fuse drives the flower...”.)
_______________________________
I have to laugh, and go “Wait a minute! Wait a minute!” Have we not now both quoted Romans 8:5 (more than once?), each for his own argument? 🙂
01 May 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasNRS Matthew 12:31 Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy,* but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
Regarding whether or not all are saved, consider these passages:
_____________________________________________________________________
"It is impossible to bring back to repentance those who were once enlightened—those who have experienced the good things of heaven and shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of Go ...[text shortened]... ut his sentence upon the earth quickly and with finality" (Romans 9:27-28).
I do not think (you can show me if I’m wrong; I’m working from recall) that there is any text that clearly indicates what constitutes blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; in fact, I think it has been much argued over the centuries. The footnote in my Harper-Collins Study Bible indicates, from the context, that this involves “attributing Jesus’ Spirit-derived power to Satan”. Even someone who says that Jesus is simply human does not go that far.
(I have also heard suicide—except in cases of mental illness of some sort—offered. Perhaps reviling/denying agape itself. Perhaps... )
Nevertheless: Given that (1) every sin “but” will be forgiven (aphiemi: to forgive, set aside, neglect, let go, cancel...); and (2) there is anyone who actually (in sound mind?) attributes the power of the Holy Spirit to the evil one—the point is well-taken...
I don’t know offhand how various “universalists”—even those who are not sola scripturists—answer this. Research time.
Note that speaking against the Son of Man—depending on one’s Christology, either Jesus personally, or Jesus strictly as the Christ, or the pre-existing logos/son-of-the father, or some combination thereof—and every other sin (“but” ) will be forgiven. That is the counter-point in this text, which I think also must be granted...
* Blasphemia—harmful, abusive or slanderous speech; reviling, evil-speaking...
_________________________________
Note: One of my favorite verses is John 3:8, which I have rendered in various somewhat poetic forms, here with pneuma in both places left untranslated:
The pneuma where it wishes blows;
the sound of it you hear, but do not know
whence it comes nor where it goes—
those who are born of the pneuma wayfare so.
Or, more prosaically: “The pneuma blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the pneumatos." (NRSV, except for restoration of pneuma)
It sometimes strikes me that telling the Holy Spirit where, when and how it must work (even within the strictures of the scriptures) may be speaking against the Spirit...
_______________________________
One more note—
NRS Mark 9:40 Whoever is not against us is for us.
01 May 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasIt is clear we are talking about a remnant of Israel, not all:
Regarding whether or not all are saved, consider these passages:
_____________________________________________________________________
"It is impossible to bring back to repentance those who were once enlightened—those who have experienced the good things of heaven and shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of Go ...[text shortened]... ut his sentence upon the earth quickly and with finality" (Romans 9:27-28).
I disagree. With each step forward in this text, Paul expands his position until he gets to “all.” You keep stepping backward in progression to undo Paul’s final statement.
This kind of progression seems more in line with spoken rhetoric than carefully drafted documents. It might be noteworthy here that Paul dictated his letters, and so there is a more open rhetorical flair than in a written text—especially in this day of word-processing, where lines can be deleted, rearranged, etc. Paul could’ve struck out, I suppose, any of these “verses,” and had his scribe prepare a corrected draft—including deleting “all,” had he not meant to end his progression with that. (Though I don’t think one threw away “paper” easily in those days.)
The “appeal to rhetoric” also makes sense, given that these letters were most likely read aloud to the congregations to whom they were sent.
I have never dictated many letters (I’ve had access to word-processors, after all)—but I have done a fair bit of public speaking: it does entail a different sense of “flow,” and one that comes quite naturally in speech.
01 May 07
Originally posted by vistesdIs it your position that Paul always means only believers when he says “all”?
Is it your position that Paul always means only believers when he says “all”? Just because Paul was writing to churches does not mean that he only spoke to them of themselves... I’m not sure the context does support it—but, as I said, I will visit “all” 😉 of them... On the other hand, from a pastoral perspective, Paul may have had neither notion nor inte ...[text shortened]... Have we not now both quoted Romans 8:5 (more than once?), each for his own argument? 🙂
For comparitive purposes, read these two similar passages:
__________________________________________________________________
"And if Christ hath not risen, then void [is] our preaching, and void also your faith, and we also are found false witnesses of God, because we did testify of God that He raised up the Christ, whom He did not raise if then dead persons do not rise; for if dead persons do not rise, neither hath Christ risen, and if Christ hath not risen, vain is your faith, ye are yet in your sins; then, also, those having fallen asleep in Christ did perish; if in this life we have hope in Christ only, of all men we are most to be pitied. For since through man [is] the death, also through man [is] a rising again of the dead, for even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:21-22).
"For if by the offence of the one the death did reign through the one, much more those, who the abundance of the grace and of the free gift of the righteousness are receiving, in life shall reign through the one -- Jesus Christ. So, then, as through one offence to all men [it is] to condemnation, so also through one declaration of `Righteous' [it is] to all men to justification of life; for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners: so also through the obedience of the one, shall the many be constituted righteous" (Romans 5:17-19).
__________________________________________________________________
The first passage is speaking of the resurrection of the dead (admittedly, I may have been wrong in my claim that Paul is here speaking of only believers), while the second passage is speaking of the grace that comes through Jesus Christ.
In the first passage Paul is speaking in generic terms: all men will rise from the dead, whether that is to eternal life or to judgment, individually speaking, the fact remains that the dead will rise. What Paul is saying is that all men will rise at the last day; what Paul is not saying is that all men will rise to eternal life. For if there is no resurrection of the dead for judgment, then there is no vindication of faith in Jesus Christ. All men will be raised from the dead, but not all men will escape judgment.
This is obvious after reading the second passage, which deals with the grace that comes through Jesus Christ. Only those who receive the gift of God's grace are declared righteous (passages elsewhere declare exactly how one goes about receiving God's grace in Christ Jesus). Notice the verse I italicized in the passage from Romans above, it clearly shows Paul is speaking about those who believe in Jesus Christ: "those, who the abundance of the grace and of the free gift of the righteousness are receiving, in life shall reign through the one -- Jesus Christ".
__________________________________________________________________
Paul is not always talking about only believers when he says 'all', but in certain contextual instances he is. The above passage in Romans being a perfect example.
01 May 07
Originally posted by vistesdIn Matthew 20:1-16, the parable of the hired laborers, it is my understanding that Jesus is underscoring the impartiality of God's grace toward sinners in general.
From a slightly different perspective perhaps, Did those who went to work all day in the vineyard have a right to be angry and jealous because those who only worked one hour received a full day’s pay? Were they not being treated unjustly? Who is God in that parable? I have not said there are no differences.
Whether they are His immediate disciples, or believers two thousand years in the future; whether it's someone who's been a believer all his life, or someone who's been a believer since two seconds before he died; whether it's somebody who has diligently cared for the saints, or someone like Paul who spent much of his life persecuting and killing the saints -- all receive a 'full day's pay' after they obey the Good News of the Gospel.
The point is, all worked at least portion of the day before the day ended, and some longer than others. When the day ends, all work ceases. That is, the testing ground for our faith is our life in the flesh, since it is in the life of the flesh where we encounter work and tribulation:
"So be truly glad. There is wonderful joy ahead, even though you have to endure many trials for a little while. These trials will show that your faith is genuine. It is being tested as fire tests and purifies gold—though your faith is far more precious than mere gold. So when your faith remains strong through many trials, it will bring you much praise and glory and honor on the day when Jesus Christ is revealed to the whole world. You love him even though you have never seen him. Though you do not see him now, you trust him; and you rejoice with a glorious, inexpressible joy" (1 Peter 1:6-8).
A genuine faith is one which trusts in and loves Christ 'even though you have never seen him'; a faith tested by all the trials and tribulations which only the flesh is susceptible to. One would have to have been hired to work at least a portion of the day in order to receive a 'full day's pay'. After the day has ended, after the flesh has died, genuine faith is impossible.