Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Prophecy -- HYPE or HOPE? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SOROS who wrote (3782)	10/3/2006 8:47:30 PM
From: alan w	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5569

Thanks soros. I've read all those explanations before. But thanks for the effort! As far as separation and judgment go, yes it will happen, but it certainly isn't permanent. Isaiah 26:9 says when God's judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants will learn righteousness. The dead will be separated from God while they are dead. But the powers are still active. It is not said that they will all come under willing submission to Christ. Paul knows only the fate of judgment for rebellious mankind which refuses to accept the reconciliation. It is not clear whether there is reconciliation available for the hostile powers. 1 Corinthians 15 does tell us that Christ will subject all dominion, authority and power. He subjected Paul in an instant, and we're told he'll subject everything else in the universe. Stubborn men's wills are nothing to Christ in His glory. ie Saul of Tarsus Thanks! alan w PS: Sorry for the outburst, but I've been working my rear off here, and your post to Sidney frosted my cookies.

To: SOROS who wrote (3782)	10/3/2006 9:33:52 PM
From: alan w	Respond to of 5569

I'll quickly go over some of these. These are standard opposition to reconciliationists. What really bothers me is that christians fight it so hard. I think it all goes back to the "it's not fair" argument. In 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 we are told that, as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive. But Paul’s point is not to affirm that all die in Adam and all will certainly come to life in Christ, but rather that just as the death of each and all is due to Adam so the resurrection of each and all is due to Christ. He means simply that in every case where people receive life it is through their union with Christ. This particular comment might have some force if the verse said "as in Adam all are dying, even so all in Christ will be vivified" Its says the same all that died in Adam will be vivified in Christ. In Adam all, In Christ all, not all in Christ. Romans 5 All this is relevant to the understanding of Romand 5 where similar statements are made. Boring treats this passage in the same way as 1 Corinthians 15:20-22, and he argues that to 'receive' grace and righteousness (Rom. 5:17) is a case of 'passive' reception rather than of 'active' taking; he claims that lambano normally has this sense. This seems to misrepresent the evidence. There are places where Paul talks of receiving by faith (Gal. 3:2, 14) and where the verb appears to refer to the decision of the recipient (Phil. 2:7). Certainly Rom. 5:11 is in the context of justification by faith, and the rest of the passage must surely be understood within its context in Romans and not treated as an isolated statement on its own. Furthermore, we must ask what is the force of 'all' in this passage. I suggest that 'all' in Romans 5 really has primarily in view 'both Jews and Gentiles and not just Jews': that is the point that Paul is concerned to make. He is of course referring to all mankind and not just saying 'some Jews and some Gentiles', but the thrust of the section is that Christ’s action, like Adam's affects both Jews and Gentiles. The one/many contrast is used of both Adam and Christ to show that both affect the whole human race and not just the Jews. So Paul's aim is not necessarily to assert that all will be saved but that the work of Christ is for all, and that he alone is the Saviour in virtue of the one saving event of his death. Starting with the end, all is clarified here by contrasting all those condemned in Adam. There's no question that all mankind were condemned in Adam. Now why would we change the scope of that all in the second half of the verse? All condemned, all justified. Yes, some now by grace through faith. But the obedience of One justifies all, not just the elect. You can't earn your way to heaven. Jesus paid for all, not some. But each in his own order. God chose some to believe during life. He's hardened some hearts and softened others. But all stubborn wills will be subjected toward the end of the ages. Philippians 2:10-11 In Philippians 2:10-11 we are told that Christ will be exalted so that every knee will bow to him, and every tongue will confess that he is Lord. Boring argues that this text is not to be understood in the framework of the saved and the lost; it is not concerned with salvation but with universal acknowledgment of Christ as Lord - and here Boring sides with E. Best who states that 'for a man to stand on another's neck and compel him to confess he has been vanquished is not a victory compatible with the God of the cross.' Thus the text is in a way open to a universalistic understanding, but Boring would argue that it really belongs within the the encompassing image of God-the-king and its one-group eschatology'. In assessing this argument we need to raise the question whether statements made within one encompassing image can overrule statements made in another. Boring rightly refuses to allow this move, arguing that the logical inferences of each image are never drawn; thus Paul does not push himself into explicit inconsistency. But it would be truer to say that in one set of images the question of salvation and loss is not directly in view. The question of the scope of salvation is not being raised. Disagree fundamentally here. In the greek, it's joyful acclamation, not submission. In John's vision, the entire creation is seen worshipping the Lamb. Rev. Ch. 5 Colossians 1:20 I've been through. Sorry for the length.