Joe said this to me:
***Hi Bob (cc Chris)
You asked re. Col 1:20: “Why does this count against salvific reconciliation?”
Reason 1:
Because it has already happened (Col 1:20 is past tense). Therefore, if reconciliation is salvific then all things must now be saved to God. But clearly unbelievers and evil spirits are not now saved to God. The Bible says they’re not. Therefore the universal reconciliation must describe something different. It cannot be salvific.
MacDonald tries to get around this enormously astronomical problem with his reading by almost sneaking around it. He does this by discussing “realised eschatology” (p. 50-52) and bringing up 1:20 in that context and just in passing.
But he totally misunderstands that by admitting that he puts Col 1:20 in this class alongside those things that he calls ‘realised eschatology’, he has therefore confessed to an interpretation, by consequence of consistency, that must maintain that in fact right now everything in heaven and on earth has a right standing before God (salvific peace from justification). And so he (unknowingly?) stands himself on the horrible ground of believing in an interpretation that has God right now crediting Satan with the perfection of Christ!!! This is contrary to Scripture, to say the very least.
Reason 2: (Why reconciliation in Col 1:20 is not salvific cont.)
Because the evidence contradicts the notion that this reconciliation is universally salvific. As reconciliation does not need to be salvific, therefore universal salvific reconciliation is an assumption. Though there is evidence that it is salvific for some, there is also evidence that it is not salvific for others. Within Colossians there is no evidence that it is salvific for the “rulers and authorities” or “unbelievers”, but what there is in Colossians regarding them is evidence that the reconciliation of “rulers and authorities” is very unsalvific: rather than them being saved, he triumphs over them. In addition, external to Colossians, Paul certainly gives evidence, as do other NT authors, that the evil “spiritual powers in the heavenly realm” will not be saved. And in addition again, there is consistently a complete absence of any external direct positive evidence that evil spirits will be saved, here or anywhere in the Bible.
Chris, also I should add the following paragraph to the above:
“The peace effected by the death of Christ may be freely accepted or it may be imposed willy-nilly. This reconciliation of the universe includes what would otherwise be distinguished as pacification. The principalities and powers whose conquest is described in Col. 2:15 are certainly not depicted as gladly surrendering to divine grace but as being compelled to submit to a power which they are unable to resist. Everything in the universe has been subjected to Christ even as everything was created for him. By his reconciling work “the host of the high ones on high” (Isa 24:21) and sinful human beings on earth have been decisively subdued to the will of God and ultimately they can but subserve his purpose, whether they please or not. It is the Father’s good pleasure that all “in heaven and on earth and under the earth” shall unite to bow the knee at Jesus’ name and to acknowledge him as Lord (Phil. 2:10-11).”
(F. F. Bruce commentary on Colossians (Eerdmans))
Joe***
I’m thinking about replying with this, but I haven’t made up my mind:
Since others here have addressed your point about Paul’s reconciliation (being NOT about salvation since it was past tense) I’m going to refrain from comment, because I think my argument still stands quite strong since I am only saying what the scripture is really clearly saying. I do want to point out that I think you have been making a mistake that Jehovah’s Witnesses often make, and that is saying that a verse says “such and such” a thing because the obvious thing that is does say doesn’t fit your theology.
I debated a JW years ago and we were discussing John 20:28, where Thomas says, “My Lord and my God!” to Jesus. The JW’s often argued that although Jesus was called theos (god) in John 1:1, he was never called “ho theos” (the god)with the definite article, which they say is reserved only for Jehovah. In John 20:28 you know that Jesus was called literally “the lord of me and the god of me”, he was called “ho theos” by Thomas. The JW told me that even though it seemed like Jesus was being called God, Thomas was actually looking to heaven when he said, “my god”, therefore he addressed Jesus as lord and the father as god. Of course there is no evidence that he did this, especially since the text said that Thomas explicitly said it to Jesus.
My point is that the obvious was being overlooked because it didn’t fit his theology. He then appealed to other verses in the bible, like John 17:3 where the father is called the “only true god”. He told me that Jesus obviously could not have been “god” since other scriptures clearly show him not to be. This is what you are doing with this passage, Joe. I believe that if the passage were defending the historical, mainline position that you would say that the wording (reconciliation, blood, peace, cross, faith) was crystal clear and was clearly talking about salvation, because it is. This is not my opinion, it is what the text is saying in its own words. I’m not accusing you of being dishonest, I just have learned that we wear theological glasses when we read the bible, which cause us to miss things that run contrary to what we think is true. Everybody does and I’m no different. My only advantage here is that I come from a tradition of 40+ years of being a conservative evangelical, but after months of study I’m seeing the scriptures through 2 sets of glasses - conservative evangelical/conservative universalist, instead of just one. Since I haven’t fully resolved my position on this, I can look at both sets of glasses from the outside for the first time.
As much as we would like to believe that we let the scriptures speak for themselves, we are all guilty of interpreting them because they happen to be composed of words that require it. As much as we think that we are the ones that are being true to the text, our theological glasses affect our opinions about it.
Chris
What do you folks think, is it too aggressive or does it seem too be arrogant to post?