Aaron, I appreciate your confirmation that I have finally grasped what is your understanding of Rev. 21,22. But when you just repeat, “I believe… 22:7 ONLY refers to our present situation,” it means that you offer no Biblical support to counter my Biblical evidence that argues 22:7 has the LoF context especially in mind. At best, it then seems that the ambiguity here means that this is not a useful passage with which you can counter the ‘universalist’ texts that I have presented as bearing the stronger weight for trusting in God’s reconciling victory.
Bob, I have addressed the other verses you believed supported post mortem reconciliation. Rev 22:17 no more supports UR than the others you take out of context. 
I appreciate the conversation. God bless.
Aaron, FWIW, my evaluation is that you do not respond to 90+% of the arguments I present from Scripture, including no counter arguments this time on Rev. 22:7 If just repeatedly assert, “I believe X is correct,” and leave others to retort “I believe Y is actually what it means,” you cannot reasonably keep offering that contention. AND if they have also presented a Biblical case that X is actually incorrect, and you leave it unanswered, then it would appear that you cannot reasonably expect them to consider that your approach relies upon the Bible. What am I missing here?
90%+ really, Bob? Sorry you feel that way. I addressed most of the scripture you gave me that you thought supported post-mortem salvation. No offense, but the scriptures you gave to support post- mortem salvation were very weak at best. Very surprised you tried to use 1 Cor 15:29. I’m moving on from this conversation. Thanks again. God bless.
Aaron,
It’s fine if you decide that you don’t have a response to my appeals to Scripture. But you shouldn’t think anyone else will characterize my claims as simply how I “feel.” I REPEATEDLY pointed out to you that over and over you IGNORED most of my appeals to the passages at issue, its’ Greek words, and its’ context. I repeatedly specified that you showed no evidence that such arguing from Scripture mattered to you. Just repeatedly telling people you’re really convinced that their thinking is “weak,” can never substitute for appealing to God’s Word, and responding as specifically requested to enumerated appeals from Holy Scripture. It leaves me sensing that there’s nothing left to engage.
Thanks for hanging in there awhile. God bless.
Revival
I’m going back to your original comment with which you started this thread. There you stated that the context of Philippians 2:10-11 and Col 1:20 was not about UR but about the authority of Christ.
First: The ultimate reconciliation of humanity (whether it be UR or partial) rests with God in the dynamics of eternity. It’s not about what we think or how well we argue. God can and will do whatever is in the divine will, and whatever is in keeping with the divine character. And God has all eternity with which to do it.
Second: When interpreting scripture it is important to use scriptures which are well understood to interpret those that are more obscure or in some way confusing. The widest sense of context is systematic theology (and such topics as soteriology or eschatology). Hopefully, one’s systematic theology is based on the most straight forward of scriptures, so that more questionable texts can be understood. Systematic theology reflects the widest possible context, attempting to bring all scripture into a consistent whole so that context is maintained.
Third: The Philippians passage reads "Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. I’m finding it difficult to see how “every tongue confessing(ing) that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” is not about reconciliation or about soteriology? I’m also having a difficult time seeing how every knee including “those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under earth” is not addressing universality. I mean, who are we leaving out? So if we are talking about the biblical formula associated with salvation and we are talking about the universality of that confession, how is this passage not about UR? What am I missing?
RVallimont
Nice reply, and welcome, RV!
Just so you know, Revival is not currently an active member of this forum.
Sonia
Thanks.
RVallimont
Revival, you seem to follow the confusing logic nearly all orthodox evangelicals take when I’ve discussed these types of verses:
- Step 1: read back from the verse that says all are saved OR all are reconciled OR all will worship Jesus, to find the first preceding verse that mentions faith or believers
- Step 2: point to this reference to faith or believers and then state that:
– references to the word All after this verse (if they contradict the doctrine of eternal damnation), can only apply to believers or those with faith
– references to the All after this verse (if they do NOT contradict the doctrine of eternal damnation, e.g. all have sinned or are in Adam, or all were created by God) refer to all people - Step 3: Assert nobody can begin to believe or have faith after they are dead, because Hebrews 9:27 says judgement follows death.
So firstly:
- Step 1: Choosing your magic verse that defines the context is a very subjective choice
- Step 2: Your carefully parsing of the ALLs requires you to assume the point you are trying to prove
- Step 3: Judgement does not imply Eternal Damnation.
Revival (aka Born Again, aka Aaron37) is currently on ban, and won’t be back for a year or so (at the least).
I meant to lock the thread the other day, after Sonia explained to RV that Revival couldn’t reply, so people wouldn’t try to challenge him on things he isn’t currently in a position to defend himself on, but apparently I got distracted.
That was my fault for forgetting to ensure Rev was protected here while he was gone, and I’m sorry. I’ll lock the thread until when-if-ever we decide he has changed enough to try forum membership again.