If the world is reconciled to God

[ClementofA]

Typical heterodox out-of-context proof texting a verse from Romans jam it together with a verse from Corinthians and someone can "prove" almost anything. One cannot use a verse from one book to prove something in another book unless you can show that both communities had both books.

No doubt you do the same type of thing, e.g. quotes from non Christian Jewish sources trying to prove what the words in the Bible mean.

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 Cor.2:13)

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Tim.3:16)

Romans 15:4
For everything that was written in the past was written for our instruction, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures, we might have hope.

So IOW my comments prove universalism true if either the church in Rome or Corinth had the epistle of the other church, eh? How would you know they didn't, or that Paul taught the same in both churches, even though it isn't written that he did? What we see in the following 3 passages from the same inspired author, the Apostle Paul, is his comments on the one & the same subject, reconciliation:

2 Cor. 5:19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
Rom.11:15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
Rom 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

Romans 5:10 says that those who have been reconciled "shall be saved by His life".

Therefore it could be argued that if the world has been reconciled to God (cf. 2 Cor.5:19; Rom.11:15; 5:9-11), then likewise the world also "shall be saved by His life".

2 Cor. 5:19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Rom.11:15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

Christian universalism--Ultimate Reconcilation: The True "Good News" Gospel of the Bible

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

If the world is reconciled to God & He is not holding their sins against them, explain why the following verses do not support eventual universal salvation. Do not bring up alleged anti-universalist "proof texts" from other contexts of the Scriptures (e.g. Jn.3:16), but base your argument on the following texts, such as the meaning of "reconciliation":

Rom 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
Rom 5:11 And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

2Co 5:18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,
2Co 5:19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

2Co 5:20 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.
2Co 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Pastor Piper explains:

"One of the reasons some think Colossians 1:20 says something different from these three texts is that it's assumed Paul means “all things” in the universe now will someday be reconciled to God. I don’t think he means that.

I think he means that the blood of Christ has secured the victory of God over the universe in such a way that the day is coming when “all things” that are in the new heavens and the new earth will be entirely reconciled to God with no rebel remnants.

Before that day comes, all those who refuse to be reconciled by his blood will be cast into “outer darkness” (Matthew 8:12), so that it is not reckoned to be a part of the new heavens and the new earth.

The rebels in hell will simply not be part of the “all things” which fill the new heavens and the new earth. They are “outside” of the new reality, in the “darkness.”

Heinrich Meyer explains Colossians 1:20 in the same way. He puts it like this:

Through the Parousia the reconciliation of the whole which has been effected in Christ will reach its consummation, when the unbelieving portion of mankind will be separated and consigned to Gehenna, the whole creation in virtue of the Palingenesia [new creation] (Matthew 19:28) will be transformed into its original perfection, and the new heaven and the new earth will be constituted as the dwelling of “righteousness” (2 Peter 3:13) and the “glory” of the children of God (Romans 8:21); while the demoniac portion of the angelic world will be removed from the sphere of the new world, and cast into hell. Accordingly, in the whole creation there will no longer be anything alienated from God and object of his hostility, but ta panta [all things] will be in harmony and reconciled with him. (H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistles to Philippians and Colossians and to Philemon [Winona Lake, Indiana: Alpha Publications, 1980 (1883)], 241–42, biblical citations updated.)
​

One more pointer in this direction.

Perhaps there is a very good reason why Paul omits the term “under the earth” when he says that Christ will “reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven.” He does not say: “whether on earth or in heaven or under the earth,” as he does in Philippians 2:10. Indeed there is a good reason for not saying this.

The reason would seem to be that there will be an “outer darkness” — an “under the earth” — that does indeed have unreconciled beings in it. But this does not take away from “all things” being reconciled in heaven and on the earth in the age to come.

In God’s new universe (the new heaven and the new earth) there will be no whiff of rebellion. All of that is in another dimension. “Outside” in “darkness.” Real. But not part of the new reality. In the new reality all things are reconciled to Christ by his blood."

SOURCE

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Ok, thanks for that take on it. A Reformed/Calvinist view, i presume. Can you elaborate on why that should be the interpretation of "world" in this particular context?

Does the word “world” (Greek: kosmos) mean “the entire human race”?

“If thou do these things show thyself to the world” (John 7:4).

“I speak to the world those things which I have heard of Him” (John 8:26).

“Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? Behold the world is gone after Him” (John 12:19).

“If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you” (John 15:18).

“I have chosen you out of the world; therefore the world hateth you” (John 15:19).

“Ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice; and ye shall be sorrowful but your sorrow shall be turned into joy” (John 16:20).

“I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple whither the Jews always resort” (John 18:20).

“I thank God […] that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world” (Rom. 1:8).

“We are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels and to men” (I Cor. 4:9).

“Which [the gospel] is come unto you as it is in all the world …” (Col. 1:6).

“They are of the world, therefore speak they of the world and the world heareth them”

( I John 4:5).

“And we know that we are of God and the whole world lieth in wickedness”

(I John 5:19).

Did Jesus become sin & die only for the sins of a few:

To quote Christ the Lord: "for many are called but few are chosen." Matthew 22:14

For a deeper understanding on the word "reconciliation", I will quote a selection from Puritan Stephen Charnock:

"1. First, What reconciliation is.

(1.) Reconciliation implies that there was a former friendship. There were once good terms between God and man, there was a time wherein they lovingly met and conversed together. Man loved God and was beloved by him, till he left his first love and broke out into rebellion against him. God pronounced all his creatures 'good,' and man at the last 'very good,' with an emphasis. A God of infinite goodness could not hate his creature, which was an extract of his own image. Man had the law of God engraved upon his heart, and therefore could not in that state hate God, while he was guided by that law of righteousness and exact goodness in himself. Thus was man God's favourite above all creatures of the lower world, styled his son, Luke iii. 38; but how quickly did he prove a parricide, and a quarrel was commenced between God and him! Now, reconciliation is piecing up of a broken amity, and a reglutination of those affections which were disjoined. And the miracle of this reconciliation made by God in Christ excels the former friendship; that might be broken off, as we find by woeful experience it was. This as to some acts and fruits may be interrupted, not abolished; as the beams of the sun may be clouded, but the influence of the sun cannot be eclipsed. Then God and man were not so closely united but they might be parted; now God and the believer are so affectionately knit that they cannot be separated.

(2.) Reconciliation implies an enmity and hatred, or at least a disgust on one or both sides. Adam was created in a state of God's favour, but not long after his creation he apostatised to corruption; by his creation a child of God's love, by his corruption a child of God's wrath. While he stood, he was the possessor of paradise and heir of heaven; when he fell, God seals a lease of ejectment, and man becomes an heir of hell; he turns rebel, and joins with Satan, God's greatest enemy. God took the forfeiture of his possession, turns him out of house and home, and hinders his re-entrance by a flaming sword turning every way to keep his fingers off from the tree of life, Gen. iii. 24, or hope of felicity upon the former score. Man invaded God's right of sovereignty, and God, of a sovereign Father, becomes a punishing judge. Man falls into sin, and wrath falls upon man; sin separated between God and him, and unsheathed the flaming sword. Thus are heaven and earth at variance. The hatred is mutual: God hates men, not as his creatures, but sinners; man hates God, not as God, but as sovereign and judge. Man turned off God from being his Lord, and God turned off man from being his favourite; man vents his serpentine poison against God, God pours out his wrathful anger on man. On man's part this enmity is by sin; on the part of God (1.) from the righteousness of his nature, since he cannot behold iniquity without indignation, Hab. i. 13. As he cannot but love goodness, so he cannot but hate iniquity, Ps. v. 5, 6. He hates and abhors all the workers of iniquity. He hates the sins of his saints, though not their persons; he hates the persons of wicked men, not primarily, but for their sin. (2.) From the righteousness of his law made against sin, whereby he cannot but according to his veracity punish it. His curses must be executed, his law vindicated, and his justice satisfied; truth and fidelity to his law, his nature, his justice engages him. Since there is nothing of the life of God in us naturally, there can be nothing of the love of God to us; for what affection can the Deity have to brutishness, and infinite purity to loathsomeness? Now, there having been such an enmity, man is properly said to be reconciled. Good angels cannot properly be said to be reconciled, because there was no difference between God and them. It is a question, because believers are said to be reconciled, and reconciliation implying a former hatred, Whether God hated believers before their conversion? In answer to this,

[1.] To say God hated them fully before, and loves them now, would argue a mutability in God, which the apostle excludes: James i. 17, he is 'the Father of lights,' who is so far from having any real change, that he has not 'a shadow' of it. If he did not love his elect before Christ died for them, and loves them afterwards, then there is a change in his will; for to love them is nothing else but to will eternal life to them, and for God to hate any is not to will eternal life to be their inheritance. If God did so hate his elect before Christ's death as to will that they should not inherit eternal life at all, and after Christ's death did will that they should, his will would then be inconsistent and changeable. If God chose them from eternity, he loved them from eternity; if he chose them in Christ as their Head, Eph. i. 4, he loved them in Christ as their Head, he could not choose them to eternal life in those methods without loving them. As he loved Christ the Head before he died for those that were to be his members, so he loved those that were to be his members before they were actually engrafted in him. As he loved Christ as Mediator before he was actually sacrificed, so he loved his chosen ones before they were actually reconciled. When Christ came to reconcile, he came to do God's will; and when any soul is actually reconciled, it is not a change in God's will, but the performance of God's eternal will.

[2.] There is a change in the creature, but that does not imply a change in God. It is not a new will in God, but a new state in the creature. The creation adds no new relation or accident, but a change and effect in the creature. And as the schools generally determine, it is one thing mutare voluntatem, another thing velle mutationem; as a master commands a servant this work one day, another work another day, the master changes not his will, but wills a change in his work, or as some illustrate it, as a physician prescribes his patient one sort of physic one day, another kind of physic the next, the physician does not change his will, but will a change. As a man has a mind to adopt a poor child to be his son, affection is the ground of this resolution; but he lets him for a while run about in rags, and seems to take no notice of his misery, yet at length takes him, and clothes him, and adopts him. There is a change in the state of this child, but not in the affection, the original of it. There was a change in the prodigal when he returned, but not in the father when he embraced him: "My son which was lost is found,' it was a new finding of the son, but not a new affection in the father."

SOURCE

 

[ClementofA]

If God is not holding the sins of - anyone - against them (see 2 Cor.5:19 below), how can He ever send anyone to endless oblivion or torments?

2 Cor. 5:19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

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

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

If God is not holding the sins of - anyone - against them (see 2 Cor.5:19 below), how can He ever send anyone to endless oblivion or torments?

2 Cor. 5:19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

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

The word used is "world" (not anyone or everyone) which cannot mean every human being living during the time of Jesus or Paul, much more every human being that has ever lived. Take your interpretation of "world" and try applying it to the Scriptures I posted above. In the same way, "all" has a context, which is often missed.

 

[ClementofA]

The word used is "world" (not anyone or everyone) which cannot mean every human being living during the time of Jesus or Paul, much more every human being that has ever lived. Take your interpretation of "world" and try applying it to the Scriptures I posted above. In the same way, "all" has a context, which is often missed.

I understand. The word is "world", not "anyone". Perhaps i should have added a note that i am especially looking for a non Reformed/Calvinist response. Which is why i used the word "anyone" instead of "world". But i appreciate your reply & all your posts on this subject. Two heads are better than one, & the more the merrier, as they add to my knowledge & comprehension of the Scriptures & various interpretations of them. I found the remarks by John Piper re Col.1:20 especially interesting.

Though i am curious as to why you opine that the word "world" cannot refer to all human beings [who had sinned] of all time? I guess it's because that's the teaching of the Scriptures according to Calvinism and or TULIP. But can you show that from the context of 2 Corinthians 5:19?

Would you agree that regarding the "world" of 2 Cor.5:19 that God has reconciled them, is not holding their sins against them & cannot send any of them to endless punishment, but will save them? If so, why?

If God is not holding the sins of - anyone - against them (see 2 Cor.5:19 below), how can He ever send anyone to endless oblivion or torments?

2 Cor. 5:19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

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

Poll: Can I be a Calvinist and a Universalist?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Would you agree that regarding the "world" of 2 Cor.5:19 that God has reconciled them, is not holding their sins against them & cannot send any of them to endless punishment, but will save them? If so, why?

If God is not holding the sins of - anyone - against them (see 2 Cor.5:19 below), how can He ever send anyone to endless oblivion or torments?

2 Cor. 5:19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Though uncertain, I have considered the idea that 2 Cor 5:19 may refer particularly to the dead Saints of the Old Testament awaiting the Messiah to come. However perhaps it also refers to New Testament believers (likewise chosen before the foundation of the world) "while we were yet sinners"? Maybe it's late and my mind is fuzzy. *shrug*

 

[ClementofA]

I'd like to know how you explain the many, many scriptures that disprove what you are proposing.

Feel free to create a new thread in this forum & i'll respond to any passage you post. Or you may post it in one of the many threads already existing re afterlife final destiny, e.g.:

Have you been decieved by your Bible translation?

 

[ClementofA]

<staff Edit>
Is not unbelief a sin? Does 2 Cor.5:19 say God is not holding men's sins against them? Then how or why is it that God would punish anyone for unbelief or any other sin?

Does 2 Cor.5:19 say God has reconciled the world to Himself? If so, then is there not peace between the two? And the only problem remains is that men haven't realized this (reconciliation/mutual peace) yet, which realization would set them free from their sins?

 

[ClementofA]

To answer the OP simply, because Jesus didn't teach "all" = "all inclusive"... eventually or through some corrective measures.
Since he didn't, then it is wrongful use of scripture by universalists to use objective reconciliation which Jesus accomplished when he died on the cross to usurp the subjective which God looks for in the heart after a person lives once then judged.

Are you implying that the reconciliation of the following verse is merely an "objective reconciliation" & not a real reconciliation that Christ accomplished on the cross when He shed His blood & died for the world:

2Co 5:19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Is the statement God is "not counting their trespasses against them" just "objective", or is it a real fact as far as God is concerned?

Does reconciliation mean that both sides are no longer at enmity, but at peace?

 

[ClementofA]

1. Scripture teaches all those who are reconciled shall be saved in His life (Rom.5:10)

and

2. Scripture also teaches the world is reconciled, (Rom.5:10; 11:15; 2 Cor.5:19)

therefore

3. It follows that the world shall be saved in His life.

True or false?

------------------------------


Rom 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

Romans 5:10 says that those who have been reconciled "shall be saved by His life".

Therefore it could be argued that if the world has been reconciled to God (cf. 2 Cor.5:19; Rom.11:15; 5:9-11), then likewise the world also "shall be saved by His life".

2 Cor. 5:19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Rom.11:15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

 

[RaymondG]

"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."

This seems to imply that God is still the saviour of the unbelievers...But those that believe have something extra.....

 

[Der Alte]

No doubt you do the same type of thing, e.g. quotes from non Christian Jewish sources trying to prove what the words in the Bible mean. . .

Wrong as usual! Please show me where I quoted Jewish sources trying to prove what the words in the Bible mean?

 

[Ronald]

Clearly it is true that not everyone believes. Not now, at this moment. In this we agree.

The doctrine of Christian Universalism also agrees with that fact.

Christian Universalism, however, states that all will eventually believe & be finally saved by Love Omnipotent, i.e. God their Creator, through the Lord Jesus Christ, even though many will be first lost & suffer "hell" in the afterlife.

This thread is not to discuss the subject of universalism in general or other passages besides those mentioned in the OP, as there are many other topics that have already done so.

Rom 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

Romans 5:10 says that those who have been reconciled "shall be saved by His life".

Therefore it could be argued that if the world has been reconciled to God (cf. 2 Cor.5:19; Rom.11:15; 5:9-11), then likewise the world also "shall be saved by His life".

2 Cor. 5:19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Rom.11:15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

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

Your error is interpretation of scripture. In
2 Cor. 5:19 you need to examine other translations . go to Biblegateway.com and input that version, then below the verse you can then access all versions of that text, dozens. When you do that, you will find that several use "in Christ" or "through Christ" which means God is reconciling the world through the narrow gate , that many do not enter through.
This idea of everyone coming to Christ is not reality, it is not something that we've seen throughout history. Rather what we have seen is about a third remnant population doing so. This idea also implies man is not responsible., he doesn't have to answer the call, he could be rebellious, an atheist or of another religion and therefore without any faith. This is contrary to the basic fundamentals taught in Christianity. We are saved by grace THROUGH FAITH. Even though it is a gift, men rebel and do not repent. Repentance is required. People choose to go their own way even after given many opportunities. How many people do you think witnessed and ministered to Stephen Hawking or Darwin? You can be sure the gospel went out to them and they said, "NO THANK YOU!"
God does not change. History tells us that some are saved and others are lost and this motivates the Church to reach the world so they can enter into Christ. Why bother with spreading the gospel if all will be saved? A gift is offered, BUT one must receive it with an open heart. He stands at the door and knocks, whosoever answers, He comes in. People have their doors shut with "Do not disturb" signs on them, "Go away, I don't need or believe in you!"
And you say these people, who are adamantly against Christ will be forgiven?
Don't they have to ask for forgiveness?
The Book of Life doesn't contain everyone in the world of sin. It contains the Elect, those whom God has given to Christ, His sheep. His sheep hear His call and they come. No one else comes, no one else opens the door.

 

[bling]

If the world is reconciled to God & He is not holding their sins against them, explain why the following verses do not support eventual universal salvation. Do not bring up alleged anti-universalist "proof texts" from other contexts of the Scriptures (e.g. Jn.3:16), but base your argument on the following texts, such as the meaning of "reconciliation":



Rom 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
Rom 5:11 And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

2Co 5:18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,
2Co 5:19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

2Co 5:20 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.
2Co 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

The problem is really with our understanding of the atonement process especially man’s part in the process which books have been written on and you are looking for a “quick” answer.

Think about this in the prodigal son story as an example we both have read:

1. When did the father not hold the sins of the son against him? (only after he returned or as early as when the son virtually said: “I wish you were dead so I could have my inheritance”)?

2. When did the father do all he could (his part) in the reconciliation of the son to him (only after the son returned or was it a life time commitment of the Loving father [being a reconciler is a characteristic of the father]).

3. While the son was home prior to leaving was he in a reconciled (they were together [close with each other]) relationship with his father, so when was reconciliation first needed?

4. Was the father always forgiving his young son and it was the son not accepting the pure charity as pure charity keeping the reconciliation from happening even prior to the son leaving?

5. When you look at what the father did in reconciling, you would say: “The father did it all”, while the young son just returned home for selfish reasons (to have some kind of life) and was just “willing” to accept the father’s charity and was not thinking of reconciliation.

You might need to look into how you are interpreting scripture and check out some alternatives that might be more likely:

Rom.11:15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

This is talking about Jews Ro. 11:14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

He is talking about the Jews rejecting and thus the gospel going out into the world (Gentiles).

and

2Co 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

The “to be sin” can be translated “to be a sin offering” and that fits much better. Christ did not become a “sinner” and “sin” is not an object or person. We know Christ was a sin offering, so what else could this word mean with “sin” being a poor translation?

 

[Hank77]

2 Cor. 5:19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

God was 'in, by, through' Christ reconciling the world to Himself.

How .....Christ being God come in the flesh of mankind. God/man. He was/is the reconciliation of the two.
To be a part of that reconciliation, one must be in Christ.

Not all men have died in Christ. So unless one believes in reincarnation or some other means of making that choice after death, not all men will choose to be reconciled to God through Christ.

 

[twin.spin]

1)
Are you implying that the reconciliation of the following verse is merely an "objective reconciliation" & not a real reconciliation that Christ accomplished on the cross when He shed His blood & died for the world:

2Co 5:19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
----------------------------------------------------------------
2)
Is the statement God is "not counting their trespasses against them" just "objective", or is it a real fact as far as God is concerned?
---------------------------------------------------------------
3)
Does reconciliation mean that both sides are no longer at enmity, but at peace?

Trying to answer your several questions briefly:
1)Objective justification is real because Jesus entire life was for that purpose which ended when he shouted from the cross: "IT IS FINISHED!" ... that's what 2 Co 5:19 is speaking to.
That's the message of the cross ... which so happens that the same writer that universalists only purposefully selectively qoute for their narrative ... also writes that those who find the message of the cross foolish are not going to be reconciled at any time. 1 Co 1:18
People who are "perishing" will not be reconciled as Jesus taught.
-----------------------------
2) Taking Scripture in total it's not a either-or scenario as universalists present it. God said both is the truth, Jesus taught both is the truth .... objective and subjective.
Paul confirms both the truth, UR doesn't.
----------------------------------
3) Nope.
Paul writes "many live as enemies of the cross of Christ" (Philippians 3:18).
There is but one result for those who die in their emnity as enemies of Christ: Hebrews 10:27 \ John 3:36 \

 

[jerry kelso]

If the world is reconciled to God & He is not holding their sins against them, explain why the following verses do not support eventual universal salvation. Do not bring up alleged anti-universalist "proof texts" from other contexts of the Scriptures (e.g. Jn.3:16), but base your argument on the following texts, such as the meaning of "reconciliation":



Rom 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
Rom 5:11 And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

2Co 5:18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,
2Co 5:19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

2Co 5:20 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.
2Co 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

clementofa,

1. If reconciled meant automatically saved there would be no need for universal reconciliation as eventually everyone would be saved. They would automatically be saved forever.

2. Reconciliation is making a change or bringing about a change from two opposing positions to bring them into harmonizing together.

3. God reconciles man through the cross.
Before the cross man had no reconciliation with God.
Even people under law had the types and shadows to cover their sins. They were not saved to the uttermost and would not have been saved at all if it were not for the cross.
Hebrews 11:40 shows that God had a better thing for us was to be saved by the uttermost by the cross.

4. Reconciliation is objective 2 Corinthians 5:19 and subjective 2 Corinthians 5:20.

5. Hebrews 9:15 says, Christ died for the first transgressions of the Old Testament but he had to also take care of all past, present, and future sins as far as the penalty of sins so all men would have the chance to be completely reconciled to the uttermost of a new creature.

6. Jesus said if ye have ought against your brother offer a gift.
Reconciliation is not one sided just as relationship is not one sided.

7. We have freewill choice that has to cooperate with God’s reconciliation plan of the cross.

8. I must go for now. Jerry kelso

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Though i am curious as to why you opine that the word "world" cannot refer to all human beings [who had sinned] of all time? I guess it's because that's the teaching of the Scriptures according to Calvinism and or TULIP. But can you show that from the context of 2 Corinthians 5:19?

I suppose the more I've read and thought about Scripture the more I have come to realize the usage of non-literal language, from sayings to generalizations to parables and proverbs to psalms and symbolic prophecies. Even within literal passages there is non-literal language, but Jesus did call His words "Spirit" and Paul said the "things" of the Spirit of God are spiritually discerned, and considering the source of Scripture, it makes sense. Considering all the books written on, about, based on Scripture, it makes sense. Looking for consistency in Scripture, and from an academic or student of Scripture standpoint, we have to consider the writer of 2 Cor 5:19, the writer is Paul, and since God is the source of Scripture, we have to maintain that Paul is not contradicting himself because he clearly does not hold to universalism in reading through the greater contexts of his letters which make up the bulk of the NT. Further, the even greater context of Scripture outside of Pauline writings likewise leave no basis for universalism. So our task is to come to deeper fuller meanings, to come to a coherent and consistent interpretation because God is not the author of confusion and incoherence.

Would you agree that regarding the "world" of 2 Cor.5:19 that God has reconciled them, is not holding their sins against them & cannot send any of them to endless punishment, but will save them? If so, why?

Last night I wrote #49 just before going to bed and was not thinking clearly. Upon thinking more about it, I realized the deficiency of my response. So I would like to attempt and clear it up, provide a better response, if that is okay with you.

I believe 2 Cor 5:19 in the use of the word "world" is referring to ALL of God's people from every nation, tongue, and tribe throughout ALL of history, from the very beginning to the very end on earth as we know it. To be in Christ means we are forgiven, it means our trespasses are not counted against us, it means our relationship with God is restored. God himself became the sacrifice sufficient for ALL of the sins of His chosen vessels of mercy (to use Pauline language).

If God is not holding the sins of - anyone - against them (see 2 Cor.5:19 below), how can He ever send anyone to endless oblivion or torments?

2 Cor. 5:19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

And yet we read in the words of Christ about an "unpardonable" sin, and I do not for one second think that Paul contradicts Christ. Strangely at this moment, I am thankful He brought up the unpardonable sin, because in my mind at least, that alone demolishes the notion of universal redemption, even though there are countless passages speaking to the judgements and wrath of God, speaking to vessels fitted for destruction (to use Pauline language).

 

[Marvin Knox]

If the world is reconciled to God & He is not holding their sins against them, explain why the following verses do not support eventual universal salvation. Do not bring up alleged anti-universalist "proof texts" from other contexts of the Scriptures (e.g. Jn.3:16), but base your argument on the following texts, such as the meaning of "reconciliation":

Rom 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
Rom 5:11 And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

2Co 5:18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,
2Co 5:19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

2Co 5:20 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.
2Co 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

And exactly why must we limit our arguments to your limited pre-selected verses?

Actually I ask the question rhetorically. The answer is that other verses would obviously invalidate your basic premise concerning universal salvation and you obviously want none of that.

But, in response to those particular verses, I'll say the following.

The verses from Romans in no way even supposedly addresses the idea of universal salvation. They are addressed only to people who already believe and comment only on their particular reconciliation. That being the obvious case, I'm not sure why you included those verses.

The same is true for the first of the 2nd set of verses. Again - I'm not sure why you would include that verse.

The third set of verses say nothing about anyone who is already reconciled to God, even us for that matter. They merely tells us that we are to command the world to be reconciled to God. It is obvious therefore that there has to be even further reconciliation of some kind in order that the world be saved. These verses - like most of the other verses - say nothing about universal salvation and, again, I'm unclear why they are included by you.

Now that one verse which you reference in your first sentence and spell out later does address in some possible way universal salvation - namely:

2Co 5:19 .....God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

But here nothing is said to spell out the exact process of God reconciling the world to Himself in Christ - except to say that He doesn't hold their sins against them after they are reconciled by whatever process accomplishes that reconciliation in the end.

When He tells us here and elsewhere that our ministry is to call the world to be reconciled to God through their own actions (faith) - in so doing He is spelling out the entire process a little more thoroughly for us.

Nowhere does it say that the reconciliation was already a done deal at Calvary. In fact even for the elect of God that wasn't so.

The idea which you put forth later about a "corrective Hell" (read "purgatory" by another name) is not scriptural in any way - only conjecture on your part.

It seems to me (and to most all others in all likelihood) that the idea of a corrective Hell is negated by many other passages.

Which is IMO the reason you don't want them brought into play in this thread - so I won't print any of them out here. I'll only comment that they are available in spades if you lighten up on your rather limiting and self serving OP perimeters.

I'll add here that - IMO - there isn't a Christian in the world who would not wish universal salvation to be true. But there are very few who would assert as you do that it is true and even fewer who would assert that the scriptures as a whole support it - because they don't.

But, then again, you obviously know that. Which is why you wrote the OP in a way which stipulated the the overall scriptures not be looked at - only your selected ones.