To continue our consideration of the word
aionos, let's first investigate its meaning with a reputable lexicon, citing relevant historical sources:
[quote]aiônios , on, also a, on Pl. Ti.37d, Ep.Heb.9.12:--lasting for an age (aiôn 11 ),
perpetual, eternal (but dist. fr. aďdios, Plot.3.7.3), methę Pl.R. 363d ; anôlethron . . all' ouk aiônion Id.Lg.904a , cf. Epicur. Sent.28; ai. kata psuchęn ochlęsis Id.Nat.131 G.; kaka, deina, Phld.Herc. 1251.18, D.1.13; ai. amoibais basanisthęsomenoi ib.19; tou ai. theou Ep.Rom. 16.26 , Ti.Locr.96c; ou chronię mounon . . all' aiônię Aret.CA1.5 ; ai. diathękę, nomimon, prostagma, LXX Ge.9.16, Ex.27.21, To.1.6; zôę Ev.Matt.25.46 , Porph.Abst.4.20; kolasis Ev.Matt. l.c., Olymp. in Grg.p.278J.; pro chronôn ai.2 Ep.Tim. 1.9 : opp. proskairos, 2 Ep.Cor. 4.18.
2. holding an office or title for life,
perpetual, gumnasiarchos CPHerm.62.
3. = Lat.
saecularis, Phleg.Macr.4.
4. Adv. -iôs
eternally, nous akinętos ai. panta ôn Procl.Inst.172 , cf. Simp. in Epict.p.77D.;
perpetually, misein Sch.E.Alc.338.
5. aiônion, to, = aeizôon to mega, Ps.-Dsc.4.88.[/quote]
You can see that the meaning 'lasting for an age', whilst being noted, is by far the least common and least attested sense. The overwhelming usage refers to
eternity, to
eternality, to
perpetuity.
You will note that the word
aionios is described as having a sense which is
the opposite to the word
proskairos, which means '
for a time, temporary', and that it is used in this sense in 2 Corinthians 4:18.
Let's go there:
[quote]2 Corinthians 4:
18 because we are not looking at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen. For what can be seen is
temporary, but what cannot be seen is
eternal.[/quote]
The contrast is manifest - that which is
aionian here is that which
is not temporary or limited in duration. It is
eternal.
Now let's have a look at a couple of other passages in Scripture, and compare the English with the LXX and the Vulgate.
First the KJV and the LXX:
[quote]Genesis 9:
KJV:
12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for
perpetual generations:
LXX:
12 And the Lord God said to Noe, This is the sign of the covenant which I set between me and you, and between every living creature which is with you for
perpetual generations.
LXX:
12 kai eipen kuriov o yeov prov nwe touto to shmeion thv diayhkhv o egw didwmi ana meson emou kai umwn kai ana meson pashv quchv zwshv h estin mey umwn eiv geneav
aiwniouv
KJV:
13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
LXX:
13 I set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of covenant between me and the earth.
LXX:
13 to toxon mou tiyhmi en th nefelh kai estai eiv shmeion diayhkhv ana meson emou kai thv ghv
KJV:
14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
LXX:
14 And it shall be when I gather clouds upon the earth, that my bow shall be seen in the cloud.
LXX:
14 kai estai en tw sunnefein me nefelav epi thn ghn ofyhsetai to toxon mou en th nefelh
KJV:
15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall
no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
LXX:
15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you, and between every living soul in all flesh, and there shall
no longer be water for a deluge, so as to blot out all flesh.
LXX:
15 kai mnhsyhsomai thv diayhkhv mou h estin ana meson emou kai umwn kai ana meson pashv quchv zwshv en pash sarki kai
ouk estai eti to udwr eiv kataklusmon wste exaleiqai pasan sarka
KJV:
16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the
everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
LXX:
16 And my bow shall be in the cloud, and I will look to remember the
everlasting covenant between me and the earth, and between every living soul in all flesh, which is upon the earth.
LXX:
16 kai estai to toxon mou en th nefelh kai oqomai tou mnhsyhnai diayhkhn
aiwnion ana meson emou kai ana meson pashv quchv zwshv en pash sarki h estin epi thv ghv[/quote]
Now note the translation of Jerome's Vulgate (5th century):
[quote][12] God said, "This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for
perpetual generations:
[16] The rainbow will be in the cloud. I will look at it, that I may remember the
everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth."[/quote]
The Latin word used by Jerome to translate
olam and
aion here (he put together his text using both Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament), was
sempiterni. No prizes for guessing what it means - it means
eternal, everlasting, perpetual.
Let's examine another passage:
[quote]Exodus 27:
Vulgate:
[21] in tabernaculo testimonii extra velum quod oppansum est testimonio et conlocabunt eam Aaron et filii eius ut usque mane luceat coram Domino
perpetuus erit cultus per successiones eorum a filiis Israhel
Vulgate:
[21] In the tent of meeting, outside the veil which is before the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall keep it in order from evening to morning before Yahweh: it shall be a statute
forever throughout their generations on the behalf of the children of Israel.
KJV:
21 In the tabernacle of the congregation without the vail, which is before the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall order it from evening to morning before the LORD: it shall be a statute
for ever unto their generations on the behalf of the children of Israel.
LXX:
21 in the tabernacle of the testimony, without the veil that is before the ark of the covenant, shall Aaron and his sons burn it from evening until morning, before the Lord: it is a
perpetual ordinance throughout your generations of the children of Israel.
LXX:
21 en th skhnh tou marturiou exwyen tou katapetasmatov tou epi thv diayhkhv kausei auto aarwn kai oi uioi autou af esperav ewv prwi enantion kuriou nomimon
aiwnion eiv tav geneav umwn para twn uiwn israhl[/quote]
I believe this speaks for itself. Note Jerome's translation of
olam and
aiwnion with the Latin
perpetuus, from which we derive our English word
perpetual.
Now a couple of historical sources for the use of the word
aion:
[quote]Time is the number of movement, but there is no movement without a physical body. But outside heaven it has been shown that there is not, nor possibly can come into existence, any body. lt is evident then that there is neither place, nor void, nor time outside.
Wherefore neither in place are things there formed by nature; nor does time cause them to grow old; neither is there any change of any thing of those things which are arranged beyond the outermost orbit; but
unchangeable, and subject to no influence, having the best and most independent life, they continue for all
eternity [AIWNA].
For this expression has been divinely uttered by the ancients; for the completeness which embraces the time of the life of each outside which there is nothing, according to nature, is called the
AIWN of each.
According to the same word the completeness of the whole heaven, and the completeness
which embraces all time and infinitude is AIWN, having received this name from
existing for ever [APO TOU AEI EINAI],
immortal [ATHANATOS], and divine.
Aristotle, De Coelo, I, 9, c. 350 BC[/quote]
You will note, of course, that Aristoteles identifies
aion with
existing forever, and with being
immortal.
Ok, so that was 350 BC. Let's skip forward to the first century AD, and see if the word is still being used in the same way:
[quote]But
in eternity nothing is passed, nothing is about to be, but it exists only.
EN AIWNI DE OUTE PARELHLUTHEN, OUTE MELLEI, ALLA MONON hUPSESTHKEN.
Philo, De Mundo, 7, 1st century AD[/quote]
Yes it is. Note Philo's use of
aion to denote
eternal existence. Josephus also used the word to denote eternality.
You originally said:
[quote]Need I say that God's dealings with Israel have always been rooted in His loving intentions?[/quote]
I replied:
[quote]As a nation, yes. But this does not change the fact that many of those whom He punished were actually destroyed. The punishment was not for their correction, or to turn them aside to a better way of life. It was intended to remove them from the face of the earth. And you seem to have neglected the punishment mentioned there which was inflicted not by God, but by men.[/quote]
You then said:
[quote]God uses men to accomplish His purposes, and the Bible is quite clear on the fact that God has, in past times, inflicted judgement upon Israel by having other peoples conquer them, enslave them, etc. But, as Romans 9-11 clearly outlines, those individuals who undergo punitive destruction will be eventually restored. Paul speaks of the full inclusion of the Gentiles and the subsequent restoration of ALL Israel. All of Israel includes the elect as well as those vessels fitted unto destruction.[/quote]
This statement concerning 'all Israel' is qualified in several ways throughout these chapters.
Paul says clearly that
not all those who are literal Israelites are to be counted as the 'true Israel' who will be saved:
[quote]Romans 9:
]6 It is not as though the word of God had failed.
For not all those who are descended from Israel are truly Israel...[/quote]
Paul quotes from Isaiah to demonstrate
that not every Israelite will be saved:
[quote]Romans 9:
27 And Isaiah cries out on behalf of Israel, “Though the number of the children of Israel are as the sand of the sea,
only the remnant will be saved...[/quote]
Paul emphasises his 'remnant' argument by saying that although God has not cast off the entire nation of Israel,
He will save only a remnant:
[quote]Romans 11:
1 So I ask, God has not rejected his people, has he? Absolutely not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew! Do you not know what the scripture says about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?
3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars; I alone am left and they are seeking my life!”
4 But what was the divine responseto him? “
I have kept for myself seven thousand people who have not bent the knee to Baal.”
5 So in the same way at the present time
there is a remnant chosen by grace.[/quote]
Describing the possibility of the redemption of individual Israelites (being 'regrafted'), Paul describes their restoration as
conditional, not inevitable:
[quote]Romans 11:
23 And even they—
if they do not continue in their unbelief—will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.[/quote]
In conclusion, Paul states that 'all Israel' consists of
Gentiles who have been grafted in, and Jews who have been regrafted - not 'every Israelite who ever lived':
[quote]Romans 11:
25 For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: A partial hardening has happened to Israel
until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.
26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
“The Deliverer will come out of Zion; he will remove ungodliness from Jacob.
27 And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.”[/quote]
You wrote:
[quote]The same holds truth for all mankind, for God loves all of us and punishes us only because He wants the best for us.[/quote]
I replied:
[quote]This does not preclude the fact that God also metes out punishments which are intended to be final and everlasting.[/quote]
You then said:
[quote]I am at a complete loss as to how everlasting destruction could be good for the person destroyed.[/quote]
It isn't. Why would you think this is what I'm saying? I am saying that the fact that God chastens us for our correction, does not preclude the fact that He also punishes eternally those who consistently transgress and reject His offer of salvation.
I wrote:
[quote]I am not committing the argument from silence. I am exegeting the text.
Thus:
I claim that this text declares the punishment of the wicked, and the reward of the righteous - it does
I claim that this text declares the punishment of the wicked and the reward of the righteous to be eternal in duration - it does
I claim that no mention whatever is made of any cessation of the punishment of the wicked, or the reward of the righteous - it isn't
I claim that the text gives absolutely no indication whatever that there is another reward later, in which the wicked are involved - it doesn't
So you see, I'm not arguing from silence. I'm arguing straight from the text. And the text necessarily excludes the Universalist doctrine.[/quote]
You replied:
[quote]True, no mention is made in Matthew 25:46 of a restoration.[/quote]
Thank you.
[quote]This absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence, lest you be guilty of arguing from silence. You say that this verse describes the punishment and the life as eternal. This is simply not the case. It describes the life and the punishment insofar as they pertain to the age(s).[/quote]
I have seen no evidence from you that Christ intended his words to be understood as referring to 'the life and the punishment insofar as they pertain to the age(s)'. On the contrary, Christ's words here have a finality which is paralleled in Hebrews:
[quote]Hebrews 9:
27
And just as people are appointed to die once, and then to face judgment,
28 so also, after Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many, to those who eagerly await him he will appear a second time, not to bear sin but to bring salvation.[/quote]
The judgment in Hebrews 9 occurs
once, after men have died
once. Not only is there no suggestion of any subsequent life, or resurrection, or judgment of the same people who originally died and were subsequently judged, but it is absolutely excluded by the text (men die
once, and
they they are judged - as Matthew 25 says), as the parallelism with Christ makes clear. As far as both of these texts are concerned, this is the only time that these people will be judged and either rewarded or punished.
You also said:
[quote]This does not mean that our life will therefore come to an end. We know that our life in Christ is eternal because the Bible clearly tells us that it is imperishable, not because of the words aion and aionion.[/quote]
As I have demonstrated, the word
aion is used synonymously with life which is
athanatos. Refer also to my previous material on
aion and
aionion
I wrote:
[quote]But you are arguing from silence. An argument from silence is an argument predicated on the absence of evidence. Your argument is indeed predicated on the absence of evidence. You claim that the absence of a denial of the Universalist doctrine actually renders this verse incapable of being used against it.[/quote]
You replied:
[quote]No, I merely said that this verse, as it stands by itself, cannot be used as a proof-text for your position. You need to dig deeper than that.[/quote]
But it can, because it states the everlasting punishment or reward of those who are judged at the return of Christ.
[quote]Moreover, my claim that a certain verse does is consistent with UR IS NOT tantamount to an argument from silence.[/quote]
An argument from silence is an argument predicated on the absence of evidence. Your argument is indeed predicated on the absence of evidence. You claim that the absence of a denial of the Universalist doctrine actually renders this verse incapable of being used against it.
[quote]It would be an argument from silence if I said "This passage does not indicate that those resurrected unto damnation will not be restored, therefore UR is true." I trust you can discern the difference.[/quote]
An argument from silence is an argument predicated on the absence of evidence. Your argument is indeed predicated on the absence of evidence. You claim that the absence of a denial of the Universalist doctrine actually renders this verse incapable of being used against it.
You wrote:
[quote]In reference to the CLNT's rendering of 1 Corinthians 15:22-28, Fort remarks:
[quote]The translation you have provided is hyperliteral, which means that it does not render the grammar idiomatically. This provides you with the illusion of a license to interpret the grammar as you please. So you choose to interpret the grammar in such a way as suggests support for your case. This is illegitimate exegesis.[/quote]
Actually, the translation is on the mark. I challenge you to show me how exactly this rendering lends itself to a self-serving interpretation. How have I twisted the text, Fortigurn?[/quote]
You have interpreted the grammar as not referring to the idea that all in Christ will be saved (as the next verse demonstrates).
You wrote:
[quote]This guarantees that, just as In Adam everyone is dying, so In Christ will everyone be made alive. Just as by one man's disobedience we all died, so by one man's obedience shall we all be vivified. The text is plain. It is clearly parallelistic, contrasting the effects that two men had on the rest of mankind.[/quote]
I replied:
[quote]I agree that all those in Christ will be made alive. But this does not say that all will be in Christ.[/quote]
You then said:
[quote]Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.
It is clear. Adam's sin brought death and condemnation upon the rest of mankind, just as Christ's obedience will bring justification and life to all mankind. You are trying to avoid the plain meaning of the text, for the contrast is most clear.[/quote]
You haven't dealt with this:
[quote]Romans 5:
17 For if, by the transgression of the one man, death reigned through the one, how much more will
those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ![/quote]
Moreover, verse 18 doesn't say that all will receive this life:
[quote]Romans 5:
18 Consequently, just as condemnation for all people came through one transgression, so too through the one righteous act came righteousness leading to life for all people.[/quote]
You wrote:
[quote]It's not a qualification at all, but rather a simple contrast between the consequences of Adam's failure upon all men and the consequences of Christ's victory upon all men.[/quote]
I replied:
[quote]If this were the case, then saying that those who are in Christ will be rewarded would be redundant. In any case, the statement does not guarantee the consequences of Christ's victory upon all men.[/quote]
You said:
[quote]I didn't say that all who are in Christ will be rewarded.[/quote]
I know you didn't. I did, because the Bible says so.
[quote]The text clearly says that everyone who is condemned because of Adam will be justified because of Christ. This is a matter of fact, not contingency. Moreover, one would be going out on a limb in suggesting that this passage is only saying that those who are in Christ will be made alive. It is saying much more than that.[/quote]
Let's see:
[quote]Romans 5:
17 For if, by the transgression of the one man, death reigned through the one, how much more will
those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ!
18 Consequently, just as condemnation for all people came through one transgression, so too through the one righteous act came righteousness leading to life for all people.[/quote]
Show me again where it says that all will receive this life. All verse 18 says is that through Christ's righteous act came righteousness which leads to life for all.
You wrote:
[quote]I never implied that "restored all under His feet" would be an accurate rendering. Rather, "placing all under His feet" entails restoration unto obedience.[/quote]
I'm looking for 'restoration unto obedience' within the semantic range of
hupotasso. Could you find it for me please?
Especially the
restoration bit.
I wrote:
[quote]But you see Gabe, you're not actually translating the idiom, are you? Nowhere do we find the idiom 'placed under his feet' meaning 'restored unto obedience', and such a translation fails manifestly when you attempt to apply it to death, as I have shown.[/quote]
You replied:
[quote]Ah, but the context of 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 demands that this subjection entails a restoration unto obedience...[/quote]
Let's see:
[quote]1 Corinthians 15:
25 For he must reign
until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
26
The last enemy to be eliminated is death.[/quote]
What I'm seeing there Gabe is that to put an enemy under your feet is to eliminate them. I'm also seeing death put under his feet in this way. I struggle to see how you can 'restore unto obedience', death. Especially when the passage is explicit about elimination.
[quote]Moreover, the word for 'subjection' is 'hupotasso', and Paul says that Christ Himself will be subjected to the Father.[/quote]
We're discussing the expression 'put all his enemies under his feet' at the moment Gabe, not
hupotasso.
[quote]If an enemy is subjected, then obviously such a subjection consists in the abolishment of their opposition and a transformation unto obedience.[/quote]
That's not what the passage says Gabe. It speaks of the destruction and elimination of
the enemy, not their opposition. And you need to reconcile your interpretation with the elimination of death.
You wrote:
[quote]Death is the very principle of enmity and alienation between the creature and the Creator. It is by means of the abolishment of death that the dead are delivered. Just as Christ will conquer those of His creatures which oppose Him (just as He conqueres Saul), so will he conquer that very principle of darkness. Yes, Christ will conquer both His sentimental creatures and the impersonal force of death.[/quote]
I replied:
[quote]This interpretation of the idiom fails completely when applied to death. It fails because it is an illegitimate translation of the idiom. I want to see lexical, historical, and textual evidence that the phrase 'place under his feet' entails 'restoration unto obedience'.[/quote]
You didn't deal with this. You responded:
[quote]From Blueletterbible:
QUOTE
"Hupotasso:"
1) to arrange under, to subordinate
2) to subject, put in subjection
3) to subject one's self, obey
4) to submit to one's control
5) to yield to one's admonition or advice
6) to obey, be subject
++++
A Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader". In non-military use, it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden".[/quote]
That's fine Gabe, but we're discussing the expression 'put all his enemies under his feet' at the moment, not
hupotasso. Would you address the question please?
You also wrote:
[quote]But let's have the context determine its meaning. And, how does my interpretation fail miserably in the case of death?
[/quote]
Sure, here's the context, and here's why it fails:
[quote]1 Corinthians 15:
25 For he must reign
until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
26
The last enemy to be eliminated is death.[/quote]
What I'm seeing there Gabe is that to put an enemy under your feet is to eliminate them. I'm also seeing death put under his feet in this way. I struggle to see how you can 'restore unto obedience', death. Especially when the passage is explicit about elimination.
You wrote:
[quote]Put the two together and the answer is an obvious deduction. God works all things according to His will, and His will is to save all mankind.[/quote]
I replied:
[quote]This is syllogistic reasoning predicated on a false premise - that God never allows His will to be contradicted by the will of man. But He does.[/quote]
You then said:
[quote]No, that was not my premise. My premise was simply that God is working all things according to His purpose. This does not mean that God gets what He wants always and all ways, but that God will achieve His ultimate purposes. There is plenty of room for free will here. So, the syllogism has yet to be addressed.[/quote]
Your premise was that God works all things according to His will in such a way as that God
will get exactly what He wants in the end, regardless of human volition.
This comes out when your next argument is considered - which states that if God did not get exactly what He wanted in this way, then He would be a sinner.
You wrote:
[quote]1 Timothy 2:4-6 implies that everyone will accept it, for it plainly says that God's purpose is to save all mankind via the ransom of His son. I find nothing in the Bible which indicates that God will miss the mark. On the contrary, the Bible is clear that God cannot fail; He cannot sin (harmatia).[/quote]
I replied:
[quote]This is a fallacy of equivocation. There is nothing in 1 Timothy 2:4-6 which says that God will miss the mark if not all men are saved. Furthermore, you have again failed to address the fact that God allows His will to be contradicted by the will of man. Free will is not possible otherwise.[/quote]
You responded:
[quote]Firstly, I have not failed to address the fact that God's will can be temporarily contradicted, as I believe in freewill (yet I realize its logical limits).[/quote]
You only believe in the exercise of free will for a certain duration of time, after which point it is overriden by God. So you don't really believe in total free will.
[quote]Secondly, I don't see the equivocation. Where is it?[/quote]
The equivocation is between God's will, and what God considers to have fulfilled His purpose.
[quote]Thirdly, if God's eternal purpose is to save all mankind...[/quote]
This is the assumption you're making.
You said:
[quote]But there are more explicit passages which indicate that everyone will accept Christ. We are told that everyone will confess that Christ is Lord to the glory of the Father. A few points. First, would God be glorified by forcing people to cry "uncle," so to speak? Nay, God will not settle for such irreverent lip-service. A truly glorious victory would entail nothing less than the repentance of the sinner. Second, it is worthy to note that the word for 'confess' always signifies praise and thanksgiving throughout the Septuagint.[/quote]
I replied:
[quote]This fails for two reasons. Firstly, because you have previously claimed that some of these people will, in fact, obey by virtue of being made subject (which is crying uncle if ever I read it). Secondly, the 'all' her qualified in many other passages.[/quote]
You then responded:
[quote]It is not their crying "uncle!" which brings glory to God. Rather, after they are conquered by God, they will praise Him, for they would have been changed from a state of enmity to one of peace.[/quote]
I didn't say that their crying 'uncle!' brings glory to God. I actually pointed out that this brings
no glory to God. This is sstill a problem.
[quote]If you can give me a legitimate reason to suspect that only some tongues shall confess, then I'd be happy to correct myself on this point.[/quote]
Sure - Daniel 12:2.
I wrote:
[quote]This says that the creation was made subject to the bondage of corruption, and that it will be delivered from that corruption. But it does not say that the whole creation will be delivered. Not only that, but you have failed to identify why it is that if 'the whole creation' includes all the people, that Paul should differentiate Christians from 'the whole creation' in verses 22-23:
[quote]
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.[/quote]
When language such as 'they' and 'ourselves' is used ('them' and 'us'), it is manifest that two different groups are under discussion.[/quote]
You replied:
[quote]Fortigurn, Fortigurn...Paul is merely noting that even we who have the first fruits of the spirit are groaning together with the whole creation. The whole creation shall be delivered...not just parts of it..all of it.[/quote]
You didn't address what I wrote. What I demonstrated is that even when Paul uses the phrase 'the whole creation', he isn't referring to everyone. In fact, he differentiates here between one group ('the whole creation'), and Christians ('we ourselves'). Simple.
[quote]As for Romans 11:36 "For of him, and through him, and to him, [are] all things: to whom [be] glory for ever."
It is quite plain, is it not? All of creation came from God, is upheld by God, and has its destiny in God.[/quote]
Gabe, this says nothing whatever about everything being restored. Nor does it even say 'Everything has its destiny in God', whatever that's supposed to mean.
You wrote:
[quote]All that was created through Christ is to be reconciled to God through Him. He will not fail, for the Word shall fullfill all that He was sent to accomplish. This passage says that all of the Creation will eventually be reconciled, and that believers have a special salvation in which we are presently reconciled. The whole passage reads matter of factly, and not contingently. Christ created all things. All things will be reconciled by Him.[/quote]
I replied:
[quote]This does not say that all things will be reconciled to him. You're equivocating. It's as simple as that.[/quote]
You then said:
[quote]Now, I am well aware of the fallacy of equivocation, but help me out! Where did I commit such? Nonetheless, my points regarding Colossians 1:15-23 still need to be addressed.[/quote]
You are equivocating God's will, with what He ultimately achieves.
Edited by Fortigurn, 21 October 2004 - 07:28 AM.
1
