Here’s the got Questions take:
1 Like
Though I agree that God will work with every individual until he submits, even if that takes thousands of years, the passage in Philippians does not teach that every knee shall bow.
9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
This passage teaches that God exalted His Son and bestowed on Him the highest name in order that every knee should bow (or in order that every knee would bow if you are more familiar with the grammar in using “would” instead of “should”).
But there is no prediction in this text, that every knee will bow, although it is true.
Re the question of “shall”, “should”, “will”, “would”, Greek subjunctives, etc.
I am no Greek or Hebrew scholar so can only give an unlearned opinion on what was the intention of Paul in writing the two texts in Romans and Philippians.
It would seem to me that Paul is quoting from Isaiah 45:23. The NKJV translates that verse as follows:
“I have sworn by Myself;
The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness,
And shall not return,
That to Me every knee shall bow,
Every tongue shall take an oath.”
I may be wrong, but I don’t think that Paul’s original manuscripts of his letters to the Romans and the Philippians probably remain extant. I don’t know if Isaiah’s is either. Nor do I know how many times his writings were transcribed by a procession of copyists, subjecting them to potential error.
I am quite content to believe that Paul intended his readers to understand his words the same way as Isaiah intended his words to be understood several centuries earlier.
3 Likes
This relevant discussion, quoted below, disagrees with your view.
"The Greek root word that is translated as ‘bow’ in Philippians 2:10 is ‘kampto.’ The word is an aorist active subjunctive verb. Here is the verse.
’For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.’ (NASB) Philippians 2:9-11
The English phrase ‘will confess’ is also an aorist middle subjunctive. The aorist refers to an event that occurs at some point in time. The Greek subjunctive typically expresses uncertainty about the action. But in this case, the Greek passage starts with ‘hina.’ When ‘hina’ is combined with a subjunctive verb, we have a purpose clause (‘in order that’) and the purpose is realized.
The meaning of the passage is governed by ‘hina’ and the subjunctive. God’s purpose is that every knee will bow to Jesus and every tongue will confess Him as Lord. And the purpose will be realized. There is not a maybe here."
Thus, in this view, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess, as translated in the NASB version of the Bible. Premise 2 appears to be correct as stated.
Regarding the first question–I proposed the syllogism below because it seems a reasonable extension from the verses cited.
Premise 1: Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. (Romans 10:13)
Premise 2: Everyone will call on the name of the Lord. (Philippians 2:10-11)
Conclusion: Everyone will be saved.
And this syllogism proposes that confession–through confessing that Jesus is Lord, which calls on the name of the Lord–is sufficient for salvation.
Regarding the second question–I think works are somehow involved, as shown by the parable of the sheep and goats, a parable in which nothing but works is cited by Jesus as separating sheep and goats. The claim that these works addressed in the parable are necessary signs of calling on the name of the Lord, and thus could very well be signs of faith, seems reasonable to me, however.
Regarding the third question–I suggest that the simple answer is the best for now: salvation is being saved.
I have to say, Dave that the pantelist view is like refreshing water to my raging thirst. Some of us have spent our lives trying to make peace with a monster, trying to live right, trying to be sure our faith is real, trying to find out why it’s called “good news.”
1 Like
I’m very glad that you find some peace of mind in the good news!!
But Andre - the good news has been there all along! It doesn’t take a far-fetched eschatology (imho), just mere Christianity, to show that God has never been like some dour Christians have portrayed it.
Yes, but that “far-fetched eschatology” certainly has a lot of explanatory power, which answers a plethora of verses and subsequent theology that has caused so much mental torment over the millennia. For a more comprehensive explanation of this, see http://www.erictb.info/pantelism.html
1 Like
Hey if you’re happy with it, that’s great!
I would also add that this entire debate has a monkey-wrench thrown into it: babies and young children who die. Those who are adamant that humans must exercise their wills and turn in repentance and faith must explain why those who die in infancy seem to be allowed to bypass the need to exercise their “free will.” Unless you think that there are babies a span long crawling on the floor of hell.
I don’t know; I don’t have an answer for everything, but there are good answers likely out there. Or I could just point out the thief on the cross, who had nothing yet was promised paradise.
It’s like what I’ve repeated previously to you qaz… the pantelist perspective views Paul’s “not enter the kingdom” as meaning NOT entering into the reign of God aka ‘kingdom’ in Christ IN THIS LIFE, which equates to not experiencing eternal life — and as such has zip, zero or zilch to do with post-mortem realities, but rather the service of God.
1 Like
I’m going to post the link again that I posted above. I think the article was so good that others may benefit from it.
http://www.erictb.info/pantelism.html
Short version:
Is God a “monster” simply because He makes some requirements of us? I don’t think so.
Is a human father a monster if he makes some requirements of his children before he will allow them to watch TV?
Lu 24:47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
Ac 5:31 "He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Ac 11:18 When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.”
Ac 26:20 but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance.
2Co 7:10 For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
Hebrews 6:4-8
For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.
With such words by Luke, Peter, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews, are we yet bold enough to assert that repentance is unnecessary?
Many of us have been threatened with eternal torment for not living up to the demand of repentance. If that’s not monstrous I don’t know what is. To compare this to a father’s requirements for the privilege of watching television is beyond disingenuous.
Here’s an interesting article for this thread, from an Anglican theologian.
edited on 17.03.2020
So… if it’s God who has requirements for attaining eternal life, He’s a “monster.” But if one compares this with a human father who has requirements for his children, one is being disingenuous.
Richard Beck has a short essay on what I consider to be the crux of the issue of reconciliation: “The issue, in my opinion, boils down to this: Is forgiveness actual or potential?” Here is the essay:
Universal Reconciliation and the New Perspective on Paul
Posted on 5.23.2012
In discussing the doctrine of universal reconciliation in Christ one of the objections you often hear is that this doctrine rejects the cross of Jesus, rejects the atoning work of Jesus’s death. This is a huge misunderstanding.
The issue, in my opinion, boils down to this: Is forgiveness actual or potential?
Ponder the relationship between God and those who, at this moment, stand in a place of rebellion toward God. Are these people, in light of Jesus’s death for them, already forgiven? Or is God currently withholding forgiveness, waiting for the person to respond and repent? In the former forgiveness is actual --the death of Jesus created a new state of affairs, a new reality, a reality where the wall of enmity between God and humanity has been eradicated. In the latter view forgiveness is potential --you’re not yet forgiven. The death of Christ, in this view, merely opens up the possibility for forgiveness. But as things stand right now you are not forgiven.
This contrast–Is forgiveness actual or potential?–goes to the heart of the debates of what is called the “New Perspective” on Paul. Some of this debate swirls around how we render Paul’s use of the phrase Pistis Christou .
What we all agree on is that pistis means “faith” in Greek and that christou means “Christ.” So far so good. But in the Greek there is some genitive ambiguity concerning how the two nouns–faith and Christ–are to relate to each other. Martin Luther, and those who followed him, translated Pistis Christou as “faith in Christ.” But a growing number of scholars (e.g., Richard Hays, N.T. Wright) have argued that the proper translation of Pistis Christou should be “faith of Christ.”
Theologically, the translational differences go to the issue of the actual versus potential nature of forgiveness. In Martin Luther’s rendering–faith in Jesus–forgiveness is potential. Forgiveness is contingent upon the act of faith. You need to believe and then, once you’ve done that, you are forgiven. By contrast, the New Perspective rendering–faith of Jesus–focuses upon the faithfulness of Jesus in creating a new reality. Because of the work of Christ on the cross the wall of hostility and accusation between God and humanity was finally and decisively broken down. Forgiveness becomes our new reality. A new world has been created. Everyone has already been forgiven in Christ. The call is to recognize this reality and live into it. To trust (have “faith in”) what the faithfulness of Jesus has accomplished for us “while we were yet sinners.”
All this to say that the doctrine of universal reconciliation is richly informed by the New Perspective in seeing forgiveness as a currently existing reality.
Because of the atoning death of Jesus on the cross forgiveness is actual. Because of the cross a new reality has been created between God and humanity. Faith is recognizing that reality and rejoicing in it.
@davo - is this along the lines of your thinking as well?
2 Likes
Bravo for Richard Beck 
He says in a nutshell better than what I’ve been labouring to say; and especially this…
I have faith IN the faith OF Christ, and thus ALL he accomplished… forgiveness is a fait accompli.
1 Like