The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Does "all" in John 12:32 refer to drawing all God's wrath?

Theology Biblical Theology
#149

I take it you do not have scripture that plainly states that God needed to reconcile Himself to the world?

Well, I will respond to your post–and then I will refrain from any further ‘discussion’ with you. (Unless a drastic change occurs in your ability to interact with people and the Scriptures.)

Seems to me you **didn’t **like Ran’s thoughts … :wink:

As the letter is from Paul and Timothy, I’d say Paul was specifically refering to the two of them and the believers in the Corinthian church, and I would think he would have also been including all believers in the thought as well.

This specific verse teaches absolutely nothing about faith.

You could sort of say that, but it’s not the focus of this verse. The definition of the ministry of reconciliation comes in the following verses. This verse merely states that God has done it and has given the ministry of it to those in Christ.

You can’t gather much from this verse, if you strip it from it’s context.

The first part is a carryover of the previously expressed thought, which is that everyone who is in Christ is a new creature–‘all things have become new’–and the first part of vs 18 affirms that God is the one who is responsible for the ‘newness.’

The NIV puts it so: All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ

It is God who has done the reconciling of “us” to himself and the making new of the one who is in Christ.

The second half of the verse says: “and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation”

This simply states that God has given us the “ministry” or “service” of reconciliation. This is the work we are given to do, and this work is explained further in the following verses.

Sonia

#150

This is a clear violation of board rules:

"3) No disrespectful, vulgar or inflammatory comments about any person or any institution*

*For example, we may debate about the validity or invalidity of any point of doctrine in Arminianism, Calvinism, Catholicism, Unitarianism, Judaism, and Islam. But in this board we must avoid disrespectful or negative comments about Arminianists, Calvinists, Catholics, Unitarians, Jews, Muslims and the schools of Arminianism, Calvinism, Catholicism, Unitarianism, Judaism, and Islam."

We’ve been addressing everybody that has violated this rule. We can no longer tolerate this without temporary bans for violation.

This board isn’t the place to pronounce biblical condemnations of other people, regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the condemnation.

We understand that others have violated the policy against you, and we’ve addressed that with the respective individuals.

Please review the board rules:

[Forum Rules and Policies)

#151

Jim.
Are you kidding me? Ran is pushing a false gospel contrary to the bible and your not allowed to refute it? Does not the bible say you are accursed if you preach a gospel contrary to what Paul preached? How is it disrespectful rebuking someone from the bible? Give me a break Jim. What a joke. This is not my personal opinion…its what God has said in His word.

#152

Sonia & Auggy.

  1. I believe in the biblical doctrine being justified by faith. Do you believe this?
  2. If we are justified by faith…we are reconciled by faith. If not, why not?
#153

I believe that Christ is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe. 1 Tim 4

You mean THAT faith? Hell, you don’t even believe it! It’s seems like you have to ignore and dis-believe much of the Gospel to be justified. Is that how it works?

Honesty, I burst out laughing when I read your reply… boy o boy. What’s next? Rebuking Paul for preaching a false Gospel? Rebuking the Holy Spirit for inspiring Paul to write that? God lied? How far do you want to go with it to justify YOUR faith while condemning another’s?

#154

Ran.

No, the bible never says to to put your faith in Jesus as the Savior of all men. The bible does say believe in Jesus alone and you will have everlasting life.

#155

I never said anything remotely close to saying that you may not refute Ran’s doctrines or any other doctrine of any other member. You may certainly refute the doctrines. But when you cross that line and rebuke/condemn a member, than you may m not do that in the forum.

And I said that regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the rebuke/condemnation, you may not do that in this forum. For example, I strongly disagree with many of Ran’s teachings. However, you need to obey the rules of this forum if you want to continue to participate in this forum. This isn’t a preaching forum. And this isn’t a forum for pronouncing biblical condemnations. It’s more like an academic setting. I tolerate many things here that I wouldn’t tolerate in my church.

People may choose to visit an environment where nobody gets rebuked from the Bible. This is one of those places.

When I evangelize, I don’t rebuke people from the Bible. I reserve biblical rebukes for fellow Christians, especially those in church leadership

There are other forums where people can pronounce biblical condemnations to one another. This isn’t one of them.

I’m not kidding you in the least.

#156

Jim.

If Apostle Paul were alive he would rebuke you for rebuking me. What does GOD say in 2 Timothy 4:2 Mr Goetz?

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, REBUKE, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

Ran, to my knowledge considers himself to be a believer… So rebuking Ran’s unbiblical gospel from the bible is what we are told to do,as believers, Mr Goetz.

#157

It is not ‘unbiblical’ to put one’s faith on Christ, the savior of all men. To rebuke that faith means to toss it down and spit on it (rebuking is not refuting).

To refute it, one would have to prove that Christ did not redeem (and save) all men from death. That can’t be done. No one has ever dis-proven THAT salvation. ALL the dead are raised in Christ.

So the argument turns to ‘THAT salvation is not salvation’ - as though sin and death were not Siamese twins so intertwined that the destruction of one is the destruction of the other. The resurrection IS salvation.

So this remains absolutely true: “Christ is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe.” 1 Tim 4

The EVENTS themselves (beginning with the Cross and culminating in the universal confession of Christ) speak much louder than any scripture (taken out the context of those events) and used to disprove that Christ is the Savior of all men.

The Gospel itself speaks in terms of accomplishments and events, not some nebulous, long-winded mush. Beginning with: “Christ took away your sins. He saved you. He will raise you and fix you.” To expect a person to believe the truth - one FIRST must tell them the truth. And the enemy is always in the wings…“Did God really take away their sins?”

Most people can’t present a Gospel that is much more than an opinion or theory: “This might be true IF…”

#158

Ran.

No, the bible never says to to put your faith in Jesus as the Savior of all men. The bible does say believe in Jesus alone and you will have everlasting life.

#159

I have a question. I have heard that Pantos cannot refer to anything but humans, but the word is used in Jude 1:25 to refer to all ages, and in Matthew 26:1 to refer to all of Christ’s sayings. It is an admittedly uncommon usage, but it IS POSSIBLE that Aaron37 is correct here, yes? Moreover, Christ DID take on all the wrath of God with His death, yes? So therefore Aaron37 COULD be right.

#160

G’day James… along a similar vein have a look at my last paragraph below (you may need to expand the post)

#161

Okay, but my question had specifically to with the grammar of Koine Greek.

#162

The Greek of Jn 12:32 reads pantas <πάντας> = all… the parsing of which is: accusative case / plural / masculine, with the bulk use of pantas <πάντας> in the NT relative to people, BUT as the exceptions do show its use is not exclusive to man alone, as per… Mt 26:1 all words; Eph 3:9 all things; Jude 1:25 all ages.

#163

If that were what John meant, Aaron, why wouldn’t he have said so clearly? Why would, “I will draw all to me,” have such an obscure meaning?

#164

Yep Jesus did what he said, and it was done way long ago. Our position with God has been redeemed through the Christ.

#165

What does that say about the character of God, if He poured out His wrath upon His innocent Son?

What would you say about a human Father, who had a wicked son, but instead of punishing him, he punished his good, innocent son, and that satisfied his anger toward his guilty son?

#166

Jesus, like Israel’s former martyrs, understood the wrath of disobedience that stood over and against his nation. Jesus’ laying down of his own life ON BEHALF OF Israel was that of the sacrificial lamb (all atonement motifs) that not only covered a multitude of sins but fact completely took away all liability, guilt and condemnation that had hitherto stood firm against the covenant people.

4Macc 17:22 These, then, who have been consecrated for the sake of God, are honored, not only with this honor, but also by the fact that because of them our enemies did not rule over our nation, the tyrant was punished, and the homeland purified—they having become, as it were, a ransom for the sin of our nation. And through the blood of those devout ones and their death as an atoning sacrifice, divine Providence preserved Israel that previously had been mistreated.

As per the Gospel and Epistles… Jesus died for the sins of Israel and this redemption allowed for Gentile participation into the people of God. These firstfruit saints were they who sanctified the whole, i.e., participating in the outworking of Christ’s reconciliation of all. This then is not so much substitutionary atonement but more… the righteous suffering alongside the unrighteous (Isa 53:12), because of the unrighteous; and so in the end via punishment (chastisement Isa 53:5) came the deliverance of Israel, all Israel.

1Tim 2:5-6 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,…

So in this vein consider the following…

1Macc 6:44 So he gave his life to save his people and to win for himself an everlasting name.

2Macc 7:33, 37-38 And if our living Lord is angry for a little while, to rebuke and discipline us, he will again be reconciled with his own servants. … I, like my brothers, give up body and life for the laws of our ancestors, appealing to God to show mercy soon to our nation and by trials and plagues to make you confess that he alone is God, and through me and my brothers to bring to an end the wrath of the Almighty that has justly fallen on our whole nation.”

4Macc 1:11 All people, even their torturers, marveled at their courage and endurance, and they became the cause of the downfall of tyranny over their nation. By their endurance they conquered the tyrant, and thus their native land was purified through them.

4Macc 18:3-4 Therefore those who gave over their bodies in suffering for the sake of religion were not only admired by mortals, but also were deemed worthy to share in a divine inheritance. Because of them the nation gained peace, and by reviving observance of the law in the homeland they ravaged the enemy.

#167

The “more” is good, but I think it’s a serious error to consider Christ’s death as being substitutionary at all.

#168

Well… in terms of “Israel” (and certainly those texts above bear this out) THAT’S exactly what their atonement praxis was all about — a lamb for a household… Jn 11:51-52; 2Cor 5:14b-15a etc.