Do Phil 2:10-11 and Col 1:20 really support UR?

[Revival]

Revival,

It works like this. All things in Heaven and on Earth, right now, are with absolute certainty going to be reconciled to God. Unsaved people are on Earth, right now. If they die without being reconciled with God, we must conclude one of two things:

1. God’s reconciliatory promise has failed; there was something “on Earth” that was never reconciled to Him, after all.

2. God will reconcile those people yet, fulfilling His Word.

Your theology picks the first conclusion. Mine picks the second. Simple as that.

You forgot to add this:
3. The people who have physically died without receiving this reconciliation… this reconciliation will not extend a second time past the grave in hell. ( unbelievers who have physically died)
4. If you disagree with #4 then please show me evidence of this reconciliation extension being received beyond the grave and people being recorded in the book of life and exiting the lake of fire after the final judgment. God bless.

There is no way around 3 and 4…especially if you reject 3 you must prove 4. Simple as that.

[snitzelhoff]

I didn’t see 3 and 4 in the text. Can you point them out?

[Revival]

I didn’t see 3 and 4 in the text. Can you point them out?

ooops, just corrected it.

[Caroleem]

Revival…

We are still God’s creation and also Adam’s. We have a duel nature. We are not ALL evil, if we were, we all would have been dead a long time ago, meaning, we would kill at the drop of a hat. There would be no love whatsoever and we know that even non believers still can love one another. They love their spouses, kids, family, friends. If we were ALL evil, that would not even be remotely possible. We would be like Satan, pure evil. We all still have God’s image in us. It’s just that His image has been tainted by sin. This is why we can not love perfectly like God can. We can "love"each other but it is not perfect love because of our fallen sinful nature that we acquired from Adam. This does not mean we are 100% pure unadulterated evil tho either. We all still bare some likeness to God because we are still His creation. We have missed the mark. When we accept Christ, he wipes away our sins and places His Holy Spirit in us so we can become truly more like Him. We are basically in His presence then, and there isn’t anyone who wouldn’t become like Him when in His presence. But since we are still in this body and have been tainted by sin, we also will have that evil side to us. When we see Him face to face, then we will for sure become like Him, and our evil sinful nature will exist no more. It can’t in the presence if the Lord. We will know nothing but pure love and joy.

[snitzelhoff]

Revival,

ooops, just corrected it.

It wasn’t that I didn’t follow you. I did. I’m saying that I don’t see your points 3 and 4 anywhere in Scripture. What I DO see is a promise that all things in Heaven and on Earth–including mankind–will be reconciled, on top of numerous other promises of a similar nature (that do not leave anyone out of ultimate salvation) scattered throughout Scripture. When we see the beginning, and we see the end, we can assume that the process in the middle has taken place; we don’t need to see the process actually happen. God has shown us the end, but you’re insisting that unless we ALSO see the process itself, what He’s told us about the end must be false. It’s another fallacious conclusion built on faulty premises.

[Revival]

Revival,

ooops, just corrected it.

It wasn’t that I didn’t follow you. I did. I’m saying that I don’t see your points 3 and 4 anywhere in Scripture. What I DO see is a promise that all things in Heaven and on Earth–including mankind–will be reconciled, on top of numerous other promises of a similar nature (that do not leave anyone out of ultimate salvation) scattered throughout Scripture. When we see the beginning, and we see the end, we can assume that the process in the middle has taken place; we don’t need to see the process actually happen. God has shown us the end, but you’re insisting that unless we ALSO see the process itself, what He’s told us about the end must be false. It’s another fallacious conclusion built on faulty premises.

Okie dokie, you know the drill… you have some explaining to do:

3. The people who have physically died without receiving this reconciliation… this reconciliation will not extend a second time past the grave in hell. ( unbelievers who have physically died)
4. If you disagree with #4 then please show me evidence of this reconciliation extension being received beyond the grave and people being recorded in the book of life and exiting the lake of fire after the final judgment. God bless.

There is no way around 3 and 4…especially if you reject 3 you must prove 4. Simple as that.

[snitzelhoff]

Revival,

My stepfather used to love to watch NASCAR races. He’d watch the first few laps, doze off, and wake up in time to see the last few laps. I never ONCE heard him say, “Well, I didn’t see all those laps in the middle, and unless you can show them to me, this race didn’t turn out this way.” Of course they happened; that’s how we got to the end. In Scripture, we have the beginning of the story and the ending of the story. You’re saying that unless you can see the process between here and the end, laid out step-by-step, you will refuse to believe in the ending that Scripture says will happen. That’s your prerogative, but I won’t play that game. When God says He’ll do it, I believe it on faith that His Word is true. I don’t demand to see how, step-by-step.

I’ll take God’s promises over your fallacious logic, just like I’ll take God’s declarations that even fallen man is still His creation over your insistence that it isn’t true. I just trust Him more to know what He’s talking about.

[Revival]

Revival,

My stepfather used to love to watch NASCAR races. He’d watch the first few laps, doze off, and wake up in time to see the last few laps. I never ONCE heard him say, “Well, I didn’t see all those laps in the middle, and unless you can show them to me, this race didn’t turn out this way.” Of course they happened; that’s how we got to the end. In Scripture, we have the beginning of the story and the ending of the story. You’re saying that unless you can see the process between here and the end, laid out step-by-step, you will refuse to believe in the ending that Scripture says will happen. That’s your prerogative, but I won’t play that game. When God says He’ll do it, I believe it on faith that His Word is true. I don’t demand to see how, step-by-step.

I’ll take God’s promises over your fallacious logic, just like I’ll take God’s declarations that even fallen man is still His creation over your insistence that it isn’t true. I just trust Him more to know what He’s talking about.

Godspeed, snitzel.

[Bob_Wilson]

Aaron,

After detailing on Phil. 2 that you offered no recognizable Biblical arguments, I asked you specifically how you can interpret Col. 1:20 in contradiction to its’ IMMEDIATE CONTEXT in vs. 16. Your ONLY response is that you don’t appreciate J. I. Packer So what**?** Neither do I! I was only hoping that if even most evangelicals who oppose universalism as you do agree that the the “all” in 1:20 is plainly universal, it would prompt you to engage my question about the BIBLICAL text, NOT to learn your feelings about Mr. Packer. If you just keep repeating that you are right, but appear reluctant to engage questions of the Biblical substance, why wouldn’t many be led to sense that in your approach the Bible doesn’t matter.

[Revival]

Aaron,

After detailing on Phil. 2 that you offered no recognizable Biblical arguments, I asked you specifically how you can interpret Col. 1:20 in contradiction to its’ IMMEDIATE CONTEXT in vs. 16. Your ONLY response is that you don’t appreciate J. I. Packer So what**?** Neither do I! I was only hoping that if even most evangelicals who oppose universalism as you do agree that the the “all” in 1:20 is plainly universal, it would prompt you to engage my question about the BIBLICAL text, NOT to learn your feelings about Mr. Packer. If you just keep repeating that you are right, but appear reluctant to engage questions of the Biblical substance, why wouldn’t many be led to sense that in your approach the Bible doesn’t matter.

Bob
I also told you to read the post above for more details but I will address this from another angle. Would you agree that Eph 1:10 has similar content as Col 1:20? Yet UR does not use Eph 1:10 to support it. I believe Paul is saying the same thing in Eph 1:10 as in Col 1:20. Thoughts?

Eph 1:10
10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Col 1:20
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

[SLJ]

Why

Yet UR does not use Eph 1:10 to support it.

Why would you say that? Who doesn’t think Eph 1:10 supports UR? I’m confused! I think there are passages in nearly every book of the Bible which support UR, and the letter to the Ephesians is one of the most supportive books!

Sonia

[auggybendoggy]

Brother Aaron, this is from Bob Wilson (on Auggy’s line)

I know you have much to respond to, and most all of us respond to objectors by urging them to read other things we have written. But I seldom find this clearly responds to another’s specific question about the Biblical text, and in this very case I can not see how the notes you have referenced addressed my simple question about the Biblical text.

Instead you assert (I think incorrectly) that no one thinks Eph. 1:10 describes a universalistic outcome! In actual fact countless universalists have appealed to it. You ask what I make of it. I agree with most exegetes that it too IS describing an eventual unity of “all things.” So I would agree with you that it is indeed affirming the same thing as Col. 1:20 (though you apparently assume “all created things” really means a small group who are already saved). I do think Col. is more clear because its’ immediate context specifically defines this “all” as all those God “created,” and its’ promise is not just the unity of all (which could happen under ‘annihilation,’ if the wicked are then gone), but that all those created are “reconciled” into peace by the blood of the cross. But you rightly suggest scholars recognize a reflection of the Col. text in the Eph. text. So I too feel comfortable in assuming that Eph. is affirming the same glorious universal reconciliation as Colossians.

[Revival]

Why

Yet UR does not use Eph 1:10 to support it.

Why would you say that? Who doesn’t think Eph 1:10 supports UR? I’m confused! I think there are passages in nearly every book of the Bible which support UR, and the letter to the Ephesians is one of the most supportive books!

Sonia

Not when you leave those passages in context. The book of Ephesians (as is Colossians) Paul is addressing believers about believers. Eph 1:10 is describing the end of Rev and gathering together in one all things** IN CHRIST** (all believers), both which are in heaven and which are on earth, in him. You can’t be IN CHRIST unless you are born again. How many unbelievers are being gathered in heaven, Sonia? How many unbelievers are being gathered on the earth? Answer: None…If they are unbelievers that means they have not received the reconciliation and are not believers. And what about the unbelievers who died that are in hell and under the earth? They too have not received the reconciliation offered by God through Jesus. Context is everything when interpreting these scriptures.

[Revival]

Brother Aaron, this is from Bob Wilson (on Auggy’s line)

I know you have much to respond to, and most all of us respond to objectors by urging them to read other things we have written. But I seldom find this clearly responds to another’s specific question about the Biblical text, and in this very case I can not see how the notes you have referenced addressed my simple question about the Biblical text.

Instead you assert (I think incorrectly) that no one thinks Eph. 1:10 describes a universalistic outcome! In actual fact countless universalists have appealed to it. You ask what I make of it. I agree with most exegetes that it too IS describing an eventual unity of “all things.” So I would agree with you that it is indeed affirming the same thing as Col. 1:20 (though you apparently assume “all created things” really means a small group who are already saved). I do think Col. is more clear because its’ immediate context specifically defines this “all” as all those God “created,” and its’ promise is not just the unity of all (which could happen under ‘annihilation,’ if the wicked are then gone), but that all those created are “reconciled” into peace by the blood of the cross. But you rightly suggest scholars recognize a reflection of the Col. text in the Eph. text. So I too feel comfortable in assuming that Eph. is affirming the same glorious universal reconciliation as Colossians.

Bob

The book of Ephesians (as is Colossians) Paul is addressing believers about believers. Eph 1:10 is describing the end of Rev and gathering together in one all things IN CHRIST (all believers), both which are in heaven and which are on earth, in him. You can’t be IN CHRIST unless you are born again. How many unbelievers are being gathered in heaven, Bob? How many unbelievers are being gathered on the earth? Answer: None…If they are unbelievers that means they have not received the reconciliation and are not believers. And what about the unbelievers who died that are in hell and under the earth? They too have not received the reconciliation offered by God through Jesus. Context is key here.

Also when this gathering of believers happens at the end of this age, for you to hold on to your theory of all unbelievers being included (who are currently in hell and will be thrown in the LOF) you must show evidence of this reconciliation being extended past this age into the next where all unbelievers receive this reconciliation and exit the lake of fire after the final judgment recorded in Rev 20:11-15. Which will come at a high hermeneutical and exegetical price because you will find Zero evidence of this happening. God bless.

[SLJ]

Never mind, Aaron! I thought you were saying that WE don’t use Ephesians to support our case for UR. I already know you don’t think it does.

Sonia

[JeffA]

So…

Both you (Sonia) and Bob get the same cut-and-paste reply in consecutive posts. In the UK our politicians do much the same in parliament ‘I refer the honorable gentleman to the reply I gave some minutes ago…’

[Revival]

:lol: Never mind, Aaron! I thought you were saying that WE don’t use Ephesians to support our case for UR. I already know you don’t think it does.

Sonia

Hold on Sonia…it gets better…Also when this gathering of believers happens at the end of this age, for you to hold on to your theory of all unbelievers being included (who are currently in hell and will be thrown in the LOF) you must show evidence of this reconciliation being extended past this age into the next where all unbelievers receive this reconciliation and exit the lake of fire after the final judgment recorded in Rev 20:11-15. Which will come at a high hermeneutical and exegetical price because you will find Zero evidence of this happening. God bless.

[Revival]

So…

Both you (Sonia) and Bob get the same cut-and-paste reply in consecutive posts. In the UK our politicians do much the same in parliament ‘I refer the honorable gentleman to the reply I gave some minutes ago…’

two birds with one stone.

[Revival]

:lol: Never mind, Aaron! I thought you were saying that WE don’t use Ephesians to support our case for UR. I already know you don’t think it does.

Sonia

I don’t see how it is hermeneutical possible to use Eph 1:10 to support your case for UR after reading my response unless you totally ignore the context and manufacture your own meaning to it. The same goes for Col 1:20.

[SLJ]

:lol: Never mind, Aaron! I thought you were saying that WE

don’t use Ephesians to support our case for UR. I already know you don’t think it does.

Sonia

I don’t see how it is hermeneutical possible to use Eph 1:10 to support your case for UR after reading my response unless you totally ignore the context and manufacture your own meaning to it. The same goes for Col 1:20.

And, Aaron, if you just can’t see it, there’s nothing I can do about that. Sorry. You have shown yourself determined to disagree with anything we say in favor of UR unless we come up with a passage directly stating that people are exiting the lake of fire. It doesn’t matter to you if we see them entering the New Jerusalem …

From my perspective you are doing injustice to the plain reading of the passage, and beyond stating that, I see no reason to attempt to explain my position to you.

Sonia