If endless conscious torments were true, is God a monster?

[2tim_215]

Revelation 6:10-11(KJV) And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.
Its's been estimated that over 50M Christians have been martyred over the millennia for their faith. We see in the Book of Revelation the Saints in heaven crying out for revenge. How would anyone involved in this thread feel if people like Hitler, rapists, child molesters and serial killers were allowed into heaven? I doubt some of those people would even want to go to heaven even if they were allowed in (which I doubt), I personally don't wish eternal damnation on anyone, but I'm going to have to go along with God is that's what He decides to do (doesn't matter anyway if I disagreed). Anyone here disagree that the ones being mentioned in Rev 6 are saints who have already died/been martyred and are currently in heaven?
\'70 million Christians\' martyred for their faith since Jesus walked the earth

 

[Oldmantook]

My example referred to the elect in this age. My point is that people can be “elected”, “predestined”, even “reconciled” by the work of Christ in time some 2000 years ago – and yet be “un-saved” until such time as they exercise saving faith.

I, for instance was all of those first 3 things, based on what God says about me, and yet not saved until many years into my life.

The point is that there is no logical reason why such a condition as “reconciled” could not be in force for eternity just as it was for me for those relatively few years.

My point was yes one can be predestined but not yet reconciled as he/she is still in an unsaved state prior to becoming regenerated in the Spirit upon salvation. However to apply that very same process to those in the lake of fire is simply impossible because unlike the elect, who are still unsaved but who will indeed become saved one day (because they are elect), those in the LOF will never be saved according to the notion of eternal torment. And therefore they will never be reconciled according to eternal torment. Therefore to claim on one hand that God has reconciled all to himself but somehow also claim that God has also reconciled those in the LOF to himself is not justified in my opinion since they suffer eternally. Those in the LOF have no peace, have no reconciliation and remain separated from God forever. If that is your notion of reconciliation, you're entitled to it but it certainly comes nowhere close to my idea of what it means to be reconciled to God.

Whatever you say about what reconciliation includes - God says different that He has already “reconciled” the world to Himself and now it’s us to implore the world to “be ye reconciled to God”.

I didn’t write the book obviously and I don’t get to apply some Webster definition to “reconciliation and build a doctrine based on that.

I have to try to systematically understand the doctrine based on what God says about reconciliation not what I think it must mean.

Now – if you were to substitute the word “justified” to the above analysis – I would likely agree with it. But “reconciliation” and “justification” are apparently not the same things from God’s perspective.

Yes it matters not what you or I think. It's what the scriptures say for themselves. I submit that they say what I understand them to mean. You believe differently which is certainly your prerogative. So let's take a quick look shall we?
Holman Bible Dictionary
Reconcilation
(ree cahn cih lee ay' shuhn) The establishment of friendly relations between parties who are at variance with each other, making peace after an engagement in war, or readmission to the presence and favor of a person after rebellion against the person. In 1525 William Tyndale, in his translation of the New Testament from the Greek text, attempted to discover an English word that would express the true meaning of the Greek katallage as well as the Latin reconciliation. Unable to find the word, he coined one. The word he coined was atonement (at-one-ment), and he used it in Romans 5:11 . The King James Version committee followed Tyndale and used atonement. More recent versions and translations have returned to “reconciliation,” largely because the word atonement has been encumbered with various theories of atonement.
------------------
So based on this brief definition of reconciliation, how is it possible in your opinion for those in the LOF
to have "friendly relations with Jesus" while enduring the payment of never-ending torment? How is it possible to be at "peace" with Jesus in the midst of eternal suffering? How is it possible to have one's sins atoned for which is the definition of reconciliation and yet suffer eternally for one's rebellion and sins - despite supposedly being readmitted to God's favor. I submit that your notion of what reconciliation means is quite contradictory and does not fit with the scriptural narrative.

I agree and that is why I try hard not to make these disagreements personal if I can help it. (I’m not always successful. But it seems that in this case I, and we, have been successful thus far.)

Yes we try to be respectful despite our strong differences in this area and others. Nothing personal as we agree to disagree.

 

[ClementofA]

One would be well advised to read their own links.

I did. Did you?

Do you have anything substantial to say?

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

 

[Marvin Knox]

My point was yes one can be predestined but not yet reconciled as he/she is still in an unsaved state prior to becoming regenerated in the Spirit upon salvation.

God is the one who says that He "already has" reconciled the entire world to Himself. That includes the elect and the non-elect alike.

Apparently the Holy Spirit does not equate reconciliation with justification - even though it may seem logical for us to do so.

Again - I didn't write what the book says. I'm just the messenger.

However to apply that very same process to those in the lake of fire is simply impossible because unlike the elect, who are still unsaved but who will indeed become saved one day (because they are elect), those in the LOF will never be saved according to the notion of eternal torment.

I did not apply the "very same process" as election to those who will be in the lake of fire. I merely said that it is possible that someone can be seen in God's eyes as one thing and not necessarily in another thing. As it is possible for someone to be chosen by God and yet be an enemy of God for some 90 years or so - it is apparently possible for someone to be "reconciled to God" (whatever that word means to God) and yet be an enemy of God eternally.

Therefore to claim on one hand that God has reconciled all to himself but somehow also claim that God has also reconciled those in the LOF to himself is not justified in my opinion since they suffer eternally.

Again - I'm not the one who says that God has reconciled the entire world to Himself. God is the one who says that.

You or I might say things differently than God has chosen to word things. Then again perhaps we wouldn't if we saw things from God's perspective.

If that is your notion of reconciliation, you're entitled to it but it certainly comes nowhere close to my idea of what it means to be reconciled to God.

It is not my notion of reconciliation. It is simply what God says about it. God has already reconciled the entire world to Himself not counting their sins against them. He has now given us the ministry of reconciliation whereby we implore the world to be reconciled to God.

Apparently the two states represent God's view concerning what He is willing to do for the world is and what must take place for actual justification.

I submit that your notion of what reconciliation means is quite contradictory and does not fit with the scriptural narrative.

To the contrary - I am stating it exactly as God states it.

He has reconciled the world to Himself through the work of Christ at Calvary and the individuals who make up the world must reconcile themselves to God through a personal trust in Christ's work at Calvary in order to be justified.

Again (and again) I didn't write what it says nor do I fully understand the concept as written.

But, since it is written as stated, I can see at least in a cloudy way how one can be reconciled to Christ through being part of His bearing of the sins of the world as a Lamb and yet only in that way and not in a full justification through faith sense with the resultant state of being seated on the throne in Heaven with Christ as a Lion.

It would make it easier if He hadn't said things the way He has. But then we might end up with believing in universal salvation if He had said it the way you would like for Him to have said.

Apparently you chose to still believe in universal salvation.

Apparently, IMO, you are thinking that it must be so primarily because you refuse to acknowledge the way that God views reconciliation(among other reasons perhaps such as your personal concept of the "fairness" of God and the like).

Who can full appreciated what went on, what is going on, and what will go on in eternity within the being of God related to these things.

But we should do our best while we see these things darkly to incorporate all of what God communicates to us concerning these things into our theology.

I'm doing my best to balance it all as best I can.

I don't claim to understand this or any other doctrine really clearly.

But I will never build a doctrine based on what I wish the Word had said and what I think it would or would not be fair for God to do.

 

[2tim_215]

The Bible says (Ecclesiastes 12:7) that when we die, our spirit goes back to God. Now why is this significant to this thread? If you believe that man is a triune being (as is God for those of us who believe in the Trinity) as we've been created in God's image/likeness which is a body, soul and spirit. Our body being our flesh, our soul being our mind/ character/personality and our spirit (which was dormant until we become "born again" and thus awakened at some point in our lives). The scriptures tell us it is our "spirit man" which takes over control, and which allows us to communicate with God.
Ecclesiastes 12:7(KJV) Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
1 Corinthians 2:9-16(KJV) But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Now, for those of us who have been born again, we can think back to the time before we got saved and our "spirit man" was revived (which had become dormant back in the garden). There are two things that I believe God gives to all men: life and a conscience. Our conscience is the channel through which the holy Spirit speaks to us regardless of whether we're saved or not, even if we're not a believer (and there was a time where all of us were in that condition). Before I knew God, at a very young age, I knew what was right and wrong (hence the reason that Paul says that a non-Jew who was an unsaved Gentile, even without the law may keep it and thus are a "law unto themselves", (Romans 2). And how are they are able to keep the law when they do not even know of it? It's through their conscience (suneidesis). The word conscience means "co-perception", "moral consciousness" and it's through our conscience (before we even know God or His word) that our conscience reveals truth to us.
Romans 2:11-16(KJV) For there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
The hearers of the law during that time were the Jews, but you did not have to be a Jew to keep it. Just follow ones conscience which apparently some Gentiles did. God is no respecter of persons. He's more interested in how a person behaves, than of what denomination or religion they're a part of.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
mean - G3342 μεταξύ metaxu met-ax-oo'
From G3326 and a form of G4862; betwixt (of place or person); (of time) as adjective intervening, or (by implication) adjoining:—between, mean while, next.
accusing - G2723 κατηγορέω katēgoreō kat-ay-gor-eh'-o
From G2725; to be a plaintiff, that is, to charge with some offence:—accuse, object.
excusing -G626 ἀπολογέομαι apologeomai ap-ol-og-eh'-om-ahee
Middle voice from a compound of G575 and G3056; to give an account (legal plea) of oneself, that is, exculpate (self):—answer (for self), make defence, excuse (self), speak for self.
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

So what's the point here? The point is that based on Ecclesiastes 12:7 (and I'm sure there are other scriptures to support this thought) no matter what, our spirits are going to return to God (who's in heaven), the question is whether the rest of us will go along with it. You see, it's our soul which will get cast into hell/gehenna/lake of fire, whatever it is but our spirit will return to God who gave it. There's no reason for us to have a spirit, since regardless of where we go (be it not heaven) we will no longer need it (most likely we don't want God anyway) and probably the biggest loss that those who don't make it will suffer is eternal separation from Him. Something to think about: No spirit, no more conscience and no more connection with God, and to be in that condition for the rest of eternity, a terrible thought. But I guess if you believe that God's a Monster, that may be ok for some of you who would prefer that. After all, a good God would not want to torment you in heaven with Him for all of eternity if you didn't want to be there would He? God wants us to be happy. Reminds me a little of Milton's Paradise Lost where Lucifer says "I'd rather reign in hell than to serve in heaven (although I doubt he'll be reigning there).

 

[Oldmantook]

God is the one who says that He "already has" reconciled the entire world to Himself. That includes the elect and the non-elect alike.

Apparently the Holy Spirit does not equate reconciliation with justification - even though it may seem logical for us to do so.

Again - I didn't write what the book says. I'm just the messenger.

You may apprise yourself as the messenger but yet overlook the possibility that the message as you interpret it - may in fact be erroneous. My basic reply to your response was to provide a basic definition of reconciliation as a common starting point and provided you with Holman's definition of reconciliation which basically refers to the atonement and all it entails which removes all enmity between God and man. Based on that definition and the points that I highlighted, it is impossible for those in the LOF to be considered as reconciled because they suffer God's enmity in the LOF forever.
You neglected to address my counterpoint and instead just repeated what you believe.

 

[Marvin Knox]

My basic reply to your response was to provide a basic definition of reconciliation as a common starting point and provided you with Holman's definition of reconciliation

Exactly!

Rather than acknowledge what the scriptures say about ALL things being reconciled to God - you refer to a work other than the scriptures in an effort to prove your point.

I would remind you of one of the most basic things we are taught in seminary. I.e. - let scripture interpret scripture wherever possible.

You neglected to address my counterpoint and instead just repeated what you believe.

I did address your counterpoint.
I told you that it is invalid simply because God sees things differently and says thing differently than you and Holman do.

The "message" that I bring is simply quotations from the Word of God on the matter of reconciliation.

You simply refuse to acknowledge what God has said on the matter. Why - I don't know.

"For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven." Col. 1:19-20

"that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God." 2 Corinthians 5:19-20

What you have been presenting makes perfect logical sense to me.

Undoubtedly, if I didn't have the Word of God to refer to, I would cite the same definitions as you and likely come up with the same opinions as you, at least on some doctrines.

But, seeing that I am committed to believe what God has said in His Word and incorporate all that He has said into my systematic theology, I do not have the luxury which you apparently feel you have to not only ignore certain scriptures but to build a doctrine based on treating the Word as if those scriptures did not exist.

I am only human like you and there are many doctrines in the Word of God which I would teach differently according to what I would like them to be. But I simply can't do that.

I have not been completely dogmatic about my own understanding of how these things can be reconciled systematically. What I have done is present a way in which they can perhaps be viewed that includes all that the scriptures say related to it and ignore none of what they say related to it.

 

[ClementofA]

God is the one who says that He "already has" reconciled the entire world to Himself.

According to Greek scholar Marvin Vincent re the word (Strongs # 2644) used at 2 Cor.5:19 etc:

"It is used of both mutual and one-sided enmity. In the former case, the context must show on which side is the active enmity."

Romans 5:10 - For if while we were... - Verse-by-Verse Commentary

OTOH the different Greek word used in Col.1:20-22 is Strongs # 604 & means "to reconcile completely": Strong's Greek: 604. ἀποκαταλλάσσω (apokatallassó) -- to reconcile completely

The CLV translates the first word by "conciliate" & the second word "reconcile".

 

[Marvin Knox]

According to Greek scholar Marvin Vincent re the word (Strongs # 2644) used at 2 Cor.5:19 etc:
"It is used of both mutual and one-sided enmity. In the former case, the context must show on which side is the active enmity."
Romans 5:10 - For if while we were... - Verse-by-Verse Commentary
OTOH the different Greek word used in Col.1:20-22 is Strongs # 604 & means "to reconcile completely": Strong's Greek: 604. ἀποκαταλλάσσω (apokatallassó) -- to reconcile completely
The CLV translates the first word by "conciliate" & the second word "reconcile".

Exactly.

And these reconciliations took place before we were justified by faith and thereby saved. I.e. - we were reconciled to God by the crucifixion of Christ apart from being saved by faith according to the scriptures.

Therefore there is no reason to believe that the same is not true for those in the lake of fire. They can be and are reconciled (whatever that means in God's thinking) even while they remain enemies of God - just as was our own state before exercising saving, justifying faith.

Of course - that fact, in no way, tells us whether the people in the LOF get saved eventually.

That is the thing you must prove and IMO have thus far failed to prove. The overwhelming weight of scripture teaches eternal damnation for the devil and his angels and for those who fail to exercise saving faith in this present life.

God seems to have reconciled everything in this fallen world to Himself in the sense that He will not count their sins against them if they will receive the Savior and thus (as He puts it) "be reconciled to God" - which is the message we preach.

As is true for "election" vis a vis justification - we are not saved by what God calls His reconciliation of the world to Himself. We can only be saved by our choice to believe and thus be in actuality justified before God.

These are difficult things to understand and (as with the doctrine of election) somewhat controversial.

But, be that as it may, there is nothing in any of this which speaks to universal salvation one way or the other. To arrive at a correct view of that doctrine we must look elsewhere.

And, by the way, all the appeals to your view of what is and is not and would be and would not be fair and just for God to do has nothing to do with whether He has or has not or will or will not do any particular thing.

We are charged with believing all that He has told us on any given subject whether we like or understand it or not.

 

[ClementofA]

Exactly.

And these reconciliations took place before we were justified by faith and thereby saved. I.e. - we were reconciled to God by the crucifixion of Christ apart from being saved by faith according to the scriptures.

Therefore there is no reason to believe that the same is not true for those in the lake of fire. They can be and are reconciled (whatever that means in God's thinking) even while they remain enemies of God - just as was our own state before exercising saving, justifying faith.

Of course - that fact, in no way, tells us whether the people in the LOF get saved eventually.

That is the thing you must prove and IMO have thus far failed to prove. The overwhelming weight of scripture teaches eternal damnation for the devil and his angels and for those who fail to exercise saving faith in this present life.

God seems to have reconciled everything in this fallen world to Himself in the sense that He will not count their sins against them if they will receive the Savior and thus (as He puts it) "be reconciled to God" - which is the message we preach.

As is true for "election" vis a vis justification - we are not saved by what God calls His reconciliation of the world to Himself. We can only be saved by our choice to believe and thus be in actuality justified before God.

These are difficult things to understand and (as with the doctrine of election) somewhat controversial.

But, be that as it may, there is nothing in any of this which speaks to universal salvation one way or the other. To arrive at a correct view of that doctrine we must look elsewhere.

And, by the way, all the appeals to your view of what is and is not and would be and would not be fair and just for God to do has nothing to do with whether He has or has not or will or will not do any particular thing.

We are charged with believing all that He has told us on any given subject whether we like or understand it or not.

The conciliation in 2 Cor.5:19, in harmony with Greek scholar Vincent's remarks, can be understood as a merely one-way conciliation, i.e. God was conciliated to man, as IMO the context clearly implies.

OTOH the reconciliation in Col.1:20-22, a different Greek word, means "to reconcile completely", i.e. both sides are conciliated to one another. That is salvation.

God is the one who says that He "already has" reconciled the entire world to Himself.

According to Greek scholar Marvin Vincent re the word (Strongs # 2644) used at 2 Cor.5:19 etc:

"It is used of both mutual and one-sided enmity. In the former case, the context must show on which side is the active enmity."

Romans 5:10 - For if while we were... - Verse-by-Verse Commentary

OTOH the different Greek word used in Col.1:20-22 is Strongs # 604 & means "to reconcile completely": Strong's Greek: 604. ἀποκαταλλάσσω (apokatallassó) -- to reconcile completely

The CLV translates the first word by "conciliate" & the second word "reconcile".

 

[Der Alte]

The conciliation in 2 Cor.5:19, in harmony with Greek scholar Vincent's remarks, can be understood as a merely one-way conciliation, i.e. God was conciliated to man, as IMO the context clearly implies.
OTOH the reconciliation in Col.1:20-22, a different Greek word, means "to reconcile completely", i.e. both sides are conciliated to one another. That is salvation.
According to Greek scholar Marvin Vincent re the word (Strongs # 2644) used at 2 Cor.5:19 etc:
"It is used of both mutual and one-sided enmity. In the former case, the context must show on which side is the active enmity."
Romans 5:10 - For if while we were... - Verse-by-Verse Commentary
OTOH the different Greek word used in Col.1:20-22 is Strongs # 604 & means "to reconcile completely": Strong's Greek: 604. ἀποκαταλλάσσω (apokatallassó) -- to reconcile completely
The CLV translates the first word by "conciliate" & the second word "reconcile".

Mister Vincent appears to have interjected his own theology into the word. I just love my new electronic BDAG.

ἀποκαταλλάσσω1 aor. ἀποκατήλλαξα; 2 aor. pass. ἀποκατηλλάγην (s. καταλλάσσω; found only in Christian writers; s. Nägeli 52) reconcile (Anecd. Gr. p. 428, 15=φιλοποιῆσαι) ἀ. τὰ πάντα εἰς αὐτόν reconcile everything in his own person, i.e. the universe is to form a unity, which has its goal in Christ Col 1:20 (cp. MDibelius, Hdb. ad loc.; s. also CBreytenbach, Versöhnung ’89, esp. 190f); some prefer to transl. reconcile everything to himself (i.e. God). ἀ. τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους τῷ θεῷ Eph 2:16. Abs. ἀποκατήλλαξεν Col 1:22 (v.l. ἀποκατηλλάγητε and ἀποκαταλλαγέντες).—EDNT. DELG s.v. ἄλλος. TW.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 112). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.​

 

[ClementofA]

Mister Vincent appears to have interjected his own theology into the word.

What gives you that idea?

See TDNT which has much more on the word than BDAG.

 

[Marvin Knox]

The conciliation in 2 Cor.5:19, in harmony with Greek scholar Vincent's remarks, can be understood as a merely one-way conciliation, i.e. God was conciliated to man, as IMO the context clearly implies.
OTOH the reconciliation in Col.1:20-22, a different Greek word, means "to reconcile completely", i.e. both sides are conciliated to one another. That is salvation.
According to Greek scholar Marvin Vincent re the word (Strongs # 2644) used at 2 Cor.5:19 etc:
"It is used of both mutual and one-sided enmity. In the former case, the context must show on which side is the active enmity."
Romans 5:10 - For if while we were... - Verse-by-Verse Commentary
OTOH the different Greek word used in Col.1:20-22 is Strongs # 604 & means "to reconcile completely": Strong's Greek: 604. ἀποκαταλλάσσω (apokatallassó) -- to reconcile completely
The CLV translates the first word by "conciliate" & the second word "reconcile".

Heavy stuff. Very impressive.

Do you have a point as to exactly how this applies to the conversation Oldmantook and I were having?

Can you make your point in layman's terms for us?

Thanks!

 

[ClementofA]

Heavy stuff. Very impressive.

Do you have a point as to exactly how this applies to the conversation Oldmantook and I were having?

Can you make your point in layman's terms for us?

Thanks!

I cited verses in 2 Cor 5 & Col 1. You said:

And these reconciliations took place before we were justified by faith and thereby saved. I.e. - we were reconciled to God by the crucifixion of Christ apart from being saved by faith according to the scriptures.

Therefore there is no reason to believe that the same is not true for those in the lake of fire. They can be and are reconciled (whatever that means in God's thinking) even while they remain enemies of God - just as was our own state before exercising saving, justifying faith.

Then i opined that 2 Cor.5:19 refers to a one way conciliation (or reconciliation, if you prefer). To explain further, that reconciliation is God through Christ's sacrifice making peace with man. Not man making peace with God. So God is reconciled to man. Man is not reconciled to God. Not until he receives the reconciliation by faith. This is clear from the scriptures, such as:

2 Cor.5:19a namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them,

So that is only one sided reconciliation since man still has to be reconciled to God:

2 Cor.5:19b and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

If man were already reconciled to God, there would be no point in preaching "be reconciled to God". If man were already reconciled to God, then all would already be saved. Such is not the case.

OTOH the reconciliation in Col.1:20-22, a different Greek word, means "to reconcile completely", i.e. both sides are conciliated to one another. That is salvation. Therefore if those in the lake of fire ever experience such a reconciliation as spoken of in Col.1:20, they will no longer be enemies of God, but be saved.

Col.1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19 For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, 22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach— 23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister. (NASB)

 

[Hillsage]

I cited verses in 2 Cor 5 & Col 1. You said:



Then i opined that 2 Cor.5:19 refers to a one way conciliation (or reconciliation, if you prefer). To explain further, that reconciliation is God through Christ's sacrifice making peace with man. Not man making peace with God. So God is reconciled to man. Man is not reconciled to God. Not until he receives the reconciliation by faith. This is clear from the scriptures, such as:

2 Cor.5:19a namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them,

So that is only one sided reconciliation since man still has to be reconciled to God:

2 Cor.5:19b and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

If man were already reconciled to God, there would be no point in preaching "be reconciled to God". If man were already reconciled to God, then all would already be saved. Such is not the case.

OTOH the reconciliation in Col.1:20-22, a different Greek word, means "to reconcile completely", i.e. both sides are conciliated to one another. That is salvation. Therefore if those in the lake of fire ever experience such a reconciliation as spoken of in Col.1:20, they will no longer be enemies of God, but be saved.

Col.1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19 For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, 22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach— 23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister. (NASB)

Glad to see that the pen of truth still has a writer to reveal what what 'scripture annointed', has to say. If only 'annointed eyes' to see, would now be given to those seeking the truth.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I cited verses in 2 Cor 5 & Col 1. You said:
Then i opined that 2 Cor.5:19 refers to a one way conciliation (or reconciliation, if you prefer). To explain further, that reconciliation is God through Christ's sacrifice making peace with man. Not man making peace with God. So God is reconciled to man. Man is not reconciled to God. Not until he receives the reconciliation by faith. This is clear from the scriptures, such as:
2 Cor.5:19a namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them,
So that is only one sided reconciliation since man still has to be reconciled to God:
2 Cor.5:19b and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
If man were already reconciled to God, there would be no point in preaching "be reconciled to God". If man were already reconciled to God, then all would already be saved. Such is not the case.
OTOH the reconciliation in Col.1:20-22, a different Greek word, means "to reconcile completely", i.e. both sides are conciliated to one another. That is salvation. Therefore if those in the lake of fire ever experience such a reconciliation as spoken of in Col.1:20, they will no longer be enemies of God, but be saved.
Col.1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19 For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.
21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, 22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach— 23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister. (NASB)

Thank you.

In looking back at your original post I can see that it was fairly clear there as well.

But my point with Oldmantook had to do with the fact that these things (whether one sided or complete) were done by God in the sacrifice.

Therefore, for anyone to find here way to the LOF in any way means that any "reconciliation" we consider there did not include salvation in the justification sense.

Since one can find himself in the LOF "reconciled" and yet unjustified for any period of time - there is not reason (at least found in any of these verses) that he could not remain there forever.

I.e. there is nothing in these vs. (including Col. which speaks to universal salvation.

In addition - we all agree that, in the end, every knee will bow to Christ to the glory of God the Father. But that does not mean the owner of every knee is saved whether it belong to fallen man or fallen angel.

 

[Der Alte]

Begin quote

Mister Vincent appears to have interjected his own theology into the word. I just love my new electronic BDAG.

ἀποκαταλλάσσω1 aor. ἀποκατήλλαξα; 2 aor. pass. ἀποκατηλλάγην (s. καταλλάσσω; found only in Christian writers; s. Nägeli 52) reconcile (Anecd. Gr. p. 428, 15=φιλοποιῆσαι) ἀ. τὰ πάντα εἰς αὐτόν reconcile everything in his own person, i.e. the universe is to form a unity, which has its goal in Christ Col 1:20 (cp. MDibelius, Hdb. ad loc.; s. also CBreytenbach, Versöhnung ’89, esp. 190f); some prefer to transl. reconcile everything to himself (i.e. God). ἀ. τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους τῷ θεῷ Eph 2:16. Abs. ἀποκατήλλαξεν Col 1:22 (v.l. ἀποκατηλλάγητε and ἀποκαταλλαγέντες).—EDNT. DELG s.v. ἄλλος. TW.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 112). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.​

End quote

Do you have a point to make, or just like quoting stuff & acting like it supports your view when it doesn't, or even opposes it?
See TDNT which has much more on the word than BDAG.

I don't see any quotes from TDNT. Did Vincent cite any references as BDAG did, see blue highlights above?

 

[ClementofA]

Mister Vincent appears to have interjected his own theology into the word.

What gives you that idea?

See TDNT which has much more on the word than BDAG. As do several other lexicons.

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

 

[Oldmantook]

Exactly!

Rather than acknowledge what the scriptures say about ALL things being reconciled to God - you refer to a work other than the scriptures in an effort to prove your point.

I would remind you of one of the most basic things we are taught in seminary. I.e. - let scripture interpret scripture wherever possible.

I did address your counterpoint.
I told you that it is invalid simply because God sees things differently and says thing differently than you and Holman do.

The "message" that I bring is simply quotations from the Word of God on the matter of reconciliation.

You simply refuse to acknowledge what God has said on the matter. Why - I don't know.

"For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven." Col. 1:19-20

"that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God." 2 Corinthians 5:19-20

What you have been presenting makes perfect logical sense to me.

Undoubtedly, if I didn't have the Word of God to refer to, I would cite the same definitions as you and likely come up with the same opinions as you, at least on some doctrines.

But, seeing that I am committed to believe what God has said in His Word and incorporate all that He has said into my systematic theology, I do not have the luxury which you apparently feel you have to not only ignore certain scriptures but to build a doctrine based on treating the Word as if those scriptures did not exist.

I am only human like you and there are many doctrines in the Word of God which I would teach differently according to what I would like them to be. But I simply can't do that.

I have not been completely dogmatic about my own understanding of how these things can be reconciled systematically. What I have done is present a way in which they can perhaps be viewed that includes all that the scriptures say related to it and ignore none of what they say related to it.

The problem with your claim is that you choose to narrow the scope of the argument in order to fit with your view rather than accommodate the text in order to form your view. I have no problem with what you've stated as I agree that all are reconciled to God - which is in fact the basic premise of universal reconciliation. I chose Holman as a common starting point to define reconciliation but you apparently reject it as it contradicts your personal definition of reconciliation as you choose to only focus on the difference between reconciliation and justification. You fail to address how one can be reconciled to God and yet remain in enmity with God forever in the LOF. I find that to be a glaring weakness in you view/interpretation. In order to hold to your doctrine, you need to account for and explain away any contradictions including this one but you have neglected to do so. Despite your omission, I will use the framework of your own argument and demonstrate that it is not scriptural.

Your position is that all are reconciled - which I agree with. Your position is that all are not justified - which I do not agree with. My position is that all are reconciled and at some point in the future, all will be justified as well.
"So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men" (Rom 5:18).
Paul is juxtaposing condemnation to all men as the result of one transgression and comparing that with the atonement of Christ which brings justification to ALL MEN. You believe the former clause, but you do not believe that latter clause because it inconveniently does not fit with your doctrine. All means all - not some - as your prefer to believe. Justification of life to all men means exactly what it says which contradicts your held position and informs my position.

 

[ClementofA]

But my point with Oldmantook had to do with the fact that these things (whether one sided or complete) were done by God in the sacrifice.

This does not address the points made in my post that that is not the case.

In addition - we all agree that, in the end, every knee will bow to Christ to the glory of God the Father. But that does not mean the owner of every knee is saved whether it belong to fallen man or fallen angel.

What leads you to that opinion?