Paul's Universalism

[Guest]

Paidion- you seem to believe that definition 1 is what Paul is talking about; is it possible he is not?

I haven't said anything about what I believe. I have directed you to a chapter from a book by Tom Talbott, a former philosophy professor.

However, I will say that you can't extract a meaning from a Greek word by looking up its English translation in an English dictionary.

The Greek word "apokatalassō" is a compound word comprised of "apo" (from) and "katalassō", the latter also being a compound word comprised of "kata" (toward) and "alassō" (to change, exchange). Thus when one is reconciled to someone, he changes from (or "exchanges"his previous disposition toward that person for a new disposition toward him, or perhaps a former one, if he had turned against the person in question. Lexicons give the meaning as "to bring back a former state of harmony".

The word is used to to other passages, Eph 1:26, which speaks of the reconciliation in Christ between Jews and Gentiles, and Col 1:22 which states that God reconciled us through Christ's death so that we might be presented to Him holy and blameless without reproach.

It seems obvious from verses 16-17 that Paul has in mind all of creation that exists, visible and invisible: air, water vapor, rocks, trees, insects, animals, people, etc., etc. Are we to believe that every insect or bacterium that ever existed will be "resurrected"? By what manner of exegesis do you determine that Paul has in mind every person who has ever lived, and them alone?

Again, you'll have to take up that question with Tom Talbott. All I did was direct you to his chapter for discussion. I'm not going to defend him.

However, speaking as one who has an elementary understanding of Greek, I would say that it doesn't seem obvious at all. Relating "all things" to air, water vapour, rocks, trees, etc. would be a quite faulty exegesis.

First of all there is no word "things" in the text. It's simply "all". But because the word for "all" is "panta" (neuter in gender), "things" has been supplied by the translators. Indeed in the NT, the neuter form "panta" does usually refer to things rather than people. However consider the first words of the "Great Commission":

Go then and make disciples of all the Gentiles [or possibly "all the nations"]... Matthew 28:19

Guess what word is used for "all"? None other than "panta", neuter gender. Now one could understand this, if the word for "Gentiles" were neuter, since adjectives in Greek normally agree in gender with the noun they modify. However, in the case the word ethnā" (Gentiles or nations) is feminine. So why was the neuter adjective "panta" used? You make disciples of people, not things. So why couldn't "panta" in Colossians 1:17 also refer to "all people" rather than "all things"?

[Guest]

Paidion,

Interestingly, the refutation of your position is contained in your reply.

You wrote:

The Greek word "apokatalassō" is a compound word comprised of "apo" (from) and "katalassō", the latter also being a compound word comprised of "kata" (toward) and "alassō" (to change, exchange)............. Lexicons give the meaning as "to bring back a former state of harmony".

And you also wrote:

First of all there is no word "things" in the text. It's simply "all". But because the word for "all" is "panta" (neuter in gender), "things" has been supplied by the translators. Indeed in the NT, the neuter form "panta" does usually refer to things rather than people.

Given the context, would it seem most probable that Paul had in mind the restoration of "all things" to the state that existed before the fall, or the state of things after Messiah returns:

Isaiah 11:4-9

4. But with righteousness He shall judge the poor,
And decide with equity for the meek of the earth;
He shall strike the earth with the rod of His mouth,
And with the breath of His lips He shall slay the wicked.
5. Righteousness shall be the belt of His loins,
And faithfulness the belt of His waist.
6. “ The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little child shall lead them.
7. The cow and the bear shall graze;
Their young ones shall lie down together;
And the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8. The nursing child shall play by the cobra’s hole,
And the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper’s den.
9. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,
For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD
As the waters cover the sea.

And you wrote:

So why couldn't "panta" in Colossians 1:17 also refer to "all people" rather than "all things"?

It would seem to be no more than a mere possibility given that in the context Paul's first mention of "all things" is in reference to the totality of all creation:

16. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

If Paul meant to change his meaning of "all things" to only "all persons", why would he not simply say so? To do otherwise would be poor writing and I think Paul was more capable than that.

[Guest]

17. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence


Why would "all things" exclude the souls of "all men"? Particularly since Paul is addressing fellow humans who would be far more interested in humans then in the restoration of animals and rocks.

[Guest]

According to Hebrews 2.9 Christ tasted death "for every man" which is what is needed for the restoration of "all things" yet Paul did'nt say he tasted death for all things but for every man.

[Guest]

Whether Paul meant "all things" or "all people" seems to me a moot point; unless, one believes that "all things" includes only a sample of all things rather than the whole of His creation. All things would include all people.

The verses that indicate that we must "remain faithful until death" are not referring to our ultimate destination post resurrection, for Christ has secured that through the sacrifice of Himself, but instead, faithful living is required for those whose desire is to remain under the sheltering wing of the Lord during our lifetime. Else we are like the dog "returning to his vomit."

Todd

[Guest]

Steve7150 wrote:

Why would "all things" exclude the souls of "all men"? Particularly since Paul is addressing fellow humans who would be far more interested in humans then in the restoration of animals and rocks.

Paul is the one who said all things, visible and invisible, I did not make it up. The context provides reason to believe Paul is referring to the restoration of the order of all creation as I mentioned in a previous post. The burden of proof rests on the universalist to prove otherwise from the context. This you can not do.

And Steve wrote:

According to Hebrews 2.9 Christ tasted death "for every man" which is what is needed for the restoration of "all things" yet Paul did'nt say he tasted death for all things but for every man.

Sunday we went to the church picnic. The deacons announced beforehand they would barbeque hamburgers and hotdogs for everyone. Neither my wife nor I ate either one. There were some left over. Would you argue that since we didn't eat any the deacons didn't cook any for us? Or since they cooked them for us we must inevitably eat them?

[Guest]

Paul is the one who said all things, visible and invisible, I did not make it up. The context provides reason to believe Paul is referring to the restoration of the order of all creation as I mentioned in a previous post. The burden of proof rests on the universalist to prove otherwise from the context. This you can not do.

I don't see why it would be necessary for the "universalist" to prove otherwise. Even if "all" means "all things", all people would still be included. I have no doubt that creation itself will be set free and restored.

I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed into us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for sonship, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved... Romans 8:18-24

Having said this, and agreeing that the creation itself, including all nature, will be set free and restored, I still think the "all" in Colossians 1:20 refers exclusively to all people. The context indicates such. Looking at a passage prior to verse 20, and to which Homer referrered in an earlier post:

vs 16
... for in him all were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

Are not the "all" who were created in heaven and on earth, visible people, invisible angels, and any other rational beings, cherubim and seraphim, etc.? Paul gives examples in this very verse. Do his examples include rocks and trees and amoebae? No. His examples are thrones, dominions, principalities and powers. By "thrones" do we suppose that Paul meant the actual chairs on which kings sit? Did God create such "thrones"? No. God created the people who occupy the thrones. When you look up the Greek word for "throne" in a Lexicon, you find it's reference is frequently to people ---so also with "dominions". "Prinicipalites and powers" may refer to demons, some of the "invisible ones" whom God created, and who rebelled against Him. They, too, will be reconciled.

Now looking at what follows verse 20, namely verses 21-23, Paul shows that this reconciliation has already begun:

And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.

Notice that Paul mentions only people who have been reconciled. He doesn't say a word about any trees, rocks, or amoebae, or any other part of the natural creation as having been reconciled already.

[Guest]

Paidion,

You wrote:

Having said this, and agreeing that the creation itself, including all nature, will be set free and restored, I still think the "all" in Colossians 1:20 refers exclusively to all people.

And then you wrote:

Are not the "all" who were created in heaven and on earth, visible people, invisible angels, and any other rational beings, cherubim and seraphim, etc.? Paul gives examples in this very verse.

Which leaves me a bit puzzled. I assume you believe angels are included in your idea of the reconciliation Paul speaks of. If this is so, there seems to be a problem with your idea of individual reconciliation. Consider the meaning of the Greek word translated "reconcile":

Reconcile, Apokatallasso:

1. to reconcile completely
2. to reconcile back again
3. bring back a former state of harmony

The word necessarily implies a state of estrangement, disharmony, or the like. Regarding those of us who have been reconciled, Paul says as much in the scripture you cited:

And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.

So those reconciled were once enemies of God, as Paul says elsewhere:

Romans 5:10 (New King James Version):

10. For if when 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.

Obviously, it is God's enemies who are reconciled to Him. If, as you insist,
Paul is speaking of a particular reconciliation of all individuals (all rational beings), in what sense are those who died as infants in need of reconciliation, unless you believe in the doctrine of original sin? They can not be part of your "all". And if they are not, then "all" does not mean all individuals. And a more difficult question comes to mind. What of the great many "good" angels? When were they ever God's enemies? How can they be said to need reconciliation? Again "all" would appear to not mean all individuals.

I believe Paul speaks of a general reconciliation in the sense of bringing all things into a harmonious state. Those who are reconciled to God in this life will have a part in that restored state. And as seen above in Paul's statement, our participation is conditional.

[Guest]

I believe Paul speaks of a general reconciliation in the sense of bringing all things into a harmonious state. Those who are reconciled to God in this life will have a part in that restored state. And as seen above in Paul's statement, our participation is conditional.



The bible does'nt actually unconditionally state "in this life" ever Homer. In fact when Jesus says to the Pharisees "you will not be forgiven in this age or the age to come" IMO he alludes to the possibility that others will have this possibility in the age to come or why would he even reference the age to come with forgiveness?
The only thing we know is that we will be judged and the issue is whether this judgment may include punishment only or ultimate restoration through the lake of fire.
If the verses after Rev 20 are mostly chronological then as far as i see , restoration is clearly implied. If they are not chronological the possibility still exists although less clear.
We all interpret this issue from how we understand God's character IMO.

[Guest]

Obviously, it is God's enemies who are reconciled to Him. If, as you insist, Paul is speaking of a particular reconciliation of all individuals (all rational beings), in what sense are those who died as infants in need of reconciliation, unless you believe in the doctrine of original sin? They can not be part of your "all". And if they are not, then "all" does not mean all individuals. And a more difficult question comes to mind. What of the great many "good" angels? When were they ever God's enemies? How can they be said to need reconciliation? Again "all" would appear to not mean all individuals.

I think Tom Talbott, in the chapter to which I gave a link, adequately answers this objection. That answer is quoted below:

A popular strategy among conservatives at this point is to do
an exhaustive (and, I should think, exhausting) word study: Look
at every use of the word “all” in the New Testament, and try to find
instances where it either does not literally mean all or where there is
an understood (but unstated) limit to its scope. Fortunately, we
need not actually carry out such a study in order to predict its likely
results.

When a storefront sign declares, “Going out of business. Everything must be sold!” we understand that “everything” does not include the cash registers and sales personnel;and similarly, when Jesus tells his disciples that “you will be hated by all because of my name” (Luke 21:17), we understand that “all” does not include John’s hating Peter or, sillier still, Peter’s hating Peter. So the desired examples are not difficult to find.

According to Loraine Boettner, “In some fifty places throughout the New Testament the words ‘all’ and ‘every’ are used in a limited sense”; and though some of Boettner’s examples seem to me confused, we can let that
pass. After citing his examples, Boettner concludes, without further
argument, that “the doctrine of universal redemption cannot be
based on the words ‘all’ or ‘every’ or the phrase ‘all men.’“
But how does any of this bear on the correct interpretation of
our text, namely Romans 5:18? There are several difficulties here.

Suppose that a future racist society should come to regard our country’s Declaration of Independence as a sacred document, and suppose further that some scholars in this society, being determined to explain away the statement that “all men are created equal,” should scour other letters and
documents of the time in order to find instances in which “all” does
not literally mean all. We might suppose that they find “some fifty
places,” perhaps in some narratives of the Revolutionary War, where “the words ‘all’ and ‘every’ are used in a limited sense.”Would this have any bearing on the meaning of “all men” in the statement, “all men are created equal,” as it appears in the Declaration of Independence? It is hard to see why it should.

So, of course when I "insist that Paul is speaking of a particular reconciliation of all individuals", I do not mean to include individuals who do not need reconciliation.