If God is Going to Save All, Why . . .

[Tony N]

If God is going to save all, why does He say He will in 1 Timothy 2:4-6?

How's that for a brain teaser?

[legoman]

Do you mean why bother telling us about it?

So at least his remnant, the few chosen, the elect, can learn of it.  Its there for all to see, hidden in plain sight.  Its the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the honor of Kings to search out a matter.

Anyway, it was the way He chose to tell us His plan.  Not all at once, but piece by piece we will learn of it.

[eaglesway]

I am pretty sure that Eph 1:10 means the "some-ing up of a few things" rather than the "summing up of all things".
What does "all things" mean anyway? You don't really believe it means "everything" do you? Hey, just because it says He is "before all things" and "created all things", that doesn t necessarily mean that when it says to "reconcile of all things" to himself means "ALL" things, like as in everything does it?

Col 1:19-20  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.
 
Besides, what is a "thing" anyway, let's talk about that.

[Tony N]

I am pretty sure that Eph 1:10 means the "some-ing up of a few things" rather than the "summing up of all things".
What does "all things" mean anyway? You don't really believe it means "everything" do you? Hey, just because it says He is "before all things" and "created all things", that doesn t necessarily mean that when it says to "reconcile of all things" to himself means "ALL" things, like as in everything does it?

Col 1:19-20  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.
 
Besides, what is a "thing" anyway, let's talk about that.

The word "things" in not in the Greek text of Col.1:19-20.

First it is "the all." Then there are elipsis for "all" where Paul simply says "the *. . .* in the heavens and the *. . .* on the earth." Paul thought the Greek reader would be able to see the elipsis "all" and put it in. "things in heaven and things on earth" is a bad rendering.

[Tim B]

If God is going to save all, why does He say He will in 1 Timothy 2:4-6?

How's that for a brain teaser?

I'm guessing this is a joke. xD

Or did you mean to say "if He isn't"?

[eaglesway]

 I tend to avoid giving Greek lessons everytime I communicate with regular folks about UR. My point is that you can demonstrate UR through Ephesians 1 and Colossians 1 in any English translation. But the greek lesson is VERY MUCH appreciated

[Taffy]

Hi Ew

Rom 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, [are] all things: to whom [be] glory for ever. Amen.

 1Cr 8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him. 


1Cr 13:7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

Check out posts By a senior member  at Tent Named  Fine Linen, he goes into some detail expounding this-

Enjoy

[eaglesway]

How do I find that Post?

[Taffy]

How do I find that Post?

heres the link..Many of FLs post inc the above ..you need to search...

http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=44;sa=showPosts

[Tony N]

Hi Ew

Rom 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, [are] all things: to whom [be] glory for ever. Amen.

 1Cr 8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him. 


1Cr 13:7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

"things" is not in the Greek:

Rom 11:36 seeing that out of Him and through Him and for Him is all: to Him be the glory for the eons! Amen!

1Co 8:6 nevertheless for us there is one God, the Father, out of Whom all is, and we for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom all is, and we through Him."

1Co 13:7 is forgoing all, is believing all, is expecting all, is enduring all."
Above verses from Concordant Literal New Testament

[Tony N]

If God is going to save all, why does He say He will in 1 Timothy 2:4-6?

How's that for a brain teaser?

I'm guessing this is a joke. xD

Or did you mean to say "if He isn't"?

No, it is a brain teaser. Some might call it a joke.

It is like saying: "Just because God says He will save all mankind does not mean He won't."

[Taffy]

Hi Ew

Rom 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, [are] all things: to whom [be] glory for ever. Amen.

 1Cr 8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him. 


1Cr 13:7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

"things" is not in the Greek:

Rom 11:36 seeing that out of Him and through Him and for Him is all: to Him be the glory for the eons! Amen!

1Co 8:6 nevertheless for us there is one God, the Father, out of Whom all is, and we for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom all is, and we through Him."

1Co 13:7 is forgoing all, is believing all, is expecting all, is enduring all."
Above verses from Concordant Literal New Testament

yes Tony, you mentioned 

Things [ For of him, and through him, and to him]

Ex= The Source   

Di= The Agent   

Eiv= The Goal 
pertain to HIM who IS all  
  

[eaglesway]

The all- all things -everything
     A question regarding Ephesians 1 and Colossians one
     It seems to me that the teaching of UR cannot depend primarily on intricate and dogmatic positions about translation. Correct translation is an important issue, but when responding to people who wonder how God could let the gospel be so obscured by incorrect translation I simply tell them that UR can be easily demonstrated from any English translation. Concerning, "the all" as opposed to "all things", (or, "everything" if you need a one word rendering) the simple logic is this……. "the all" is the composite whole of creation. "things" is not there, but substitute "everything" and you have a suitable English word, because "the all", visible and invisible, earthly and heavenly, is composed of "everything"
The composite whole is "everything"(or "all things") in it and all parts that it is made up of. Even as all the atoms and molecules in the man are the man and the man is all the atoms and molecules, as well as the spirit and soul, parts of the whole that are visible and invisible, on earth and in heaven. In our language there are differences from Greek language so looking at the contextual usage is important, for instance
       Mat 17:11  And He answered and said, "Elijah is coming and will restore "all things"
    Clearly Elijah does not restore all things, i.e. "the all". What does he restore?
"the hearts of the children to the fathers and the hearts of the fathers to the children and the crooked paths straight and the high places low and a way prepared for the Lord". So "the all" referred to here is a subset within the totality of everything,  a limited whole within the composite whole of creation.
       It seems to me it is more important to demonstrate from Colossians 1 that the "all things"( pas; the all, all, everything) to be reconciled is the same "all things"(pas-everything) that was created through Him, over which He is preeminent, of which is "every"(pas, same word) creature, etc. You can show in simple English that it is the complete whole of creation that is being compared in the use of "all things". Then demonstrating that it is impossible for this same "all things" or "everything"  to be "summed up" or "gathered together" into one in Christ, or, for 'God to be over all, in all, and through all' with any of it's parts/things/aspects burning in "hell" "forever".  If "some things" burn forever then "all things" can't be "gathered together as one in Christ" and reconciled.
     Then my position depends not on linguistics the average believer or seeker is not familiar with. It is there in simple English (and likewise in many other places). Then the translation door is opened as confirmation of simple contextual proofs, and the message is not left open for the proofs and debates of scholars over the languages of antiquity. I want to beware lest ofing seem too smug in having to "go to the Greek" at every point and make issues where none exist, both with people i agree with and even those i disagree with. Concerning this one issue tho,I  have over time attempted to examine every usage of "pas" - "all things" "everything" "all"(as well as "every" {like in "every" creature in Col 1:15 and "every man"(Rev 22:18), "everyone" that hears(Mk 4:4, "every" word that proceeds(Mk 7:7)}. "The all"(pas) refers to the totality of the subject set(men, words, creatures, etc) in each of those instances and many more. It occurs as a subset within the whole of creation very frequently. If there is some specific difference in the usage of "pas" in Colossians 1 and Ephesians 1 that is separate from the common usage in all those other places I have looked at…. I would like to be shown that, which is the question in my long winded statement. 

[Tony N]

God is not going to reconcile *everything* to Himself for *everything* is not at enmity to Him.

Likewise, God is not going to head up *everything* in the Christ like rocks, and uranium and asbestos but creatures for whom His death accomplished something.

In the Greek texts the Concordant Version uses for Matthew 17:11 it is just "Elijah will be restoring all." The definite article is absent from in front of "all."

[eaglesway]

Thanks Tony
     Interesting view....altho visible and invisible seems to include transformed matter as well. I see the ideological position, but maybe I need more education on the translational one, since as I read the context, all that He created, including earth, trees, stars an all things visible (that He created)are summed up and reconciled(transformed), set free from futility. I don't see how the various parts of creation, whatever they are, can be easily dismissed as not "things" to be summed up in common English as "everything". As far as asbestos, well, man came up with that poison, I doubt it will continue.
     Are you saying only beings will be transformed and their will be no matter in the final outworking? I'm not totally opposed to that view, but I'm not convinced, for why else the resurrection of the body?

[Nathan]

Hmmm . . .if you look at this from a literalist point of view . . .how would you explain whether or not oil is not affected?  Everything around us has benefited from death of something else in one form or another.  If God reconciles everything back to himself to the point that death is not longer existing, then would that not also mean the aftermath of death?  Doesn't oil come from, partially or otherwise, dead dinosaurs from millions and billions of years ago?  Is that not remants of death?  So, would that not then be affected as well?  Maybe it's coal I'm thinking of . . .be either way, how much dead flesh has blended back into the earth from which it came?  All of that would be affected as well would it not?

[Tim B]

If God is going to save all, why does He say He will in 1 Timothy 2:4-6?

How's that for a brain teaser?

I'm guessing this is a joke. xD

Or did you mean to say "if He isn't"?

No, it is a brain teaser. Some might call it a joke.

It is like saying: "Just because God says He will save all mankind does not mean He won't."

<_< ... >_>

A brain teaser for the non-URists? lol

[eaglesway]

    I would think that even a literalist would realize that in the restitution only that which is transformed from death into life, and transformed from futility into glorious liberty would apply, the rest (refuse and garbage of the chaotic kosmos) is consumed by fire, whether you see that figuratively or literally- surely we see though a glass darkly. I am not a literalist myself, for as I see it, if we know not yet what we shall be we cannot make confident absolute assertions about the nature of the resurrection from either viewpoint, unless we become like those Paul spoke of, who "make confident assertions about things they know nothing of."
        However, Jesus(resurrected and glorified) ate a piece of fish to make a point about His resurrection in Luke 24 and he ate with Peter, and also the disciples on the road to Emmaus, so I believe there are figurative and literal aspects involved. I was once touched by an angel that appeared to me, and I felt it as a physical touch. Figuratively, as Taffy said in another thread, the scriptures have layers, I kind of like that view.
   

[Tony N]

Maybe the point Paul is trying to make is this: Surely the One who created absolutely everything in the heavens and earth is able to reconcile all who are at enmity to Him?

Tony

Thanks Tony
     Interesting view....altho visible and invisible seems to include transformed matter as well. I see the ideological position, but maybe I need more education on the translational one, since as I read the context, all that He created, including earth, trees, stars an all things visible (that He created)are summed up and reconciled(transformed), set free from futility. I don't see how the various parts of creation, whatever they are, can be easily dismissed as not "things" to be summed up in common English as "everything". As far as asbestos, well, man came up with that poison, I doubt it will continue.
     Are you saying only beings will be transformed and their will be no matter in the final outworking? I'm not totally opposed to that view, but I'm not convinced, for why else the resurrection of the body?

[Molly]

Doesn't oil come from, partially or otherwise, dead dinosaurs from millions and billions of years ago?  Is that not remants of death? 

That's an old oligarch theory that has been challenged by many.  See, a limited supply of oil suits their purposes politically and economically, whereas science has actually been moving in the direction of a renewable and limitless supply of oil.  And, in any event, the problem isn't the lack of oil, it's the lack of refineries, which are easy to build, especially when you are throwing hundreds of billions of dollars around.

Nevertheless, two minutes of thinking about it [a thought experiment] would tell you--dead dinosaurs didn't create oil!  We are using 26 billion barrels of it a year!  That's a lot of dinosaurs!

Carry on!


It is known that hydrocarbons migrate within the Earth's crust as witnessed by production at Eugene Island in the Gulf of Mexico 80 miles south of Louisiana. In 1973 when discovered, it produced 15,000 bpd but dwindled to 4,000 bpd by 1989. Inexplicably it resumed output to 13,000 bpd but has confounded geologists because current production is of a significantly different (newer) geologic age than yesteryear. Abiogenic proponents say it is being refilled from beneath the formation and that as oil migrates upward; it is attacked by bacteria that alter its appearance. It is known that such bacteria (hyperthermophiles) live at great depths, recorded in Alaska at 4.2 km and in Sweden at 5.2 km (2.6 and 3.2 miles) below the surface.

There has been a long history of this argument. Mendeleyev, who discovered the Periodic table, said in 1870 the same thing offered in 1962 by Sir Robert Robinson of Britain's Royal Society that "petroleum is a primordial hydrocarbon to which biological products have been added." That's quite similar to what Dr. Gold is touting and is of enormous importance due to geopolitics and economic impacts of the highly inelastic supply and demand system existing in the world. If abiotic petroleum formation is true, how much reserve really exists on Earth, and more importantly, is human consumption depleting supply faster than replenishment?



----Federal Triangle: Petroleum—A Renewable Resource?
by Barry Ashby
August 10, 2004

[Nathan]

Not being a scientist myself, I wasn't trying to prove oil comes from dinosaurs . . .you could be totally right.  But the statement that I was responding to was originally implying that only living things will be transformed and not physical objects.  All I was trying to point out was, nothing is certain.  We can put out our opinions, but that's really all they are.  They're not facts, just opinions.  I personally think all things are reconciled (or conciled if that fits better for you) back to the father, that would include even the things "we think" are just objects.  Just my opinion though.

For even the earth groans for the manifestation of the sons of God.  All creation was affected by the fall, then for me, it only stands to reason that all creation will be/is affected by the reconciliation.

[Tony N]

I personally think all things are reconciled (or conciled if that fits better for you) back to the father, that would include even the things "we think" are just objects.  Just my opinion though.

For even the earth groans for the manifestation of the sons of God.  All creation was affected by the fall, then for me, it only stands to reason that all creation will be/is affected by the reconciliation.

Hi Nathan,
When two people (for instance, married couple) can't get along and separate, they are at enmity to each other. Once they drop their enmity and get back together there is reconciliation.
The vast majority of the world is still at enmity to God. Therefore it stands to reason that God and the world are not reconciled yet. However in Colossians Col 1:21 it states that the believer is reconciled now: "And you, being once estranged and enemies in comprehension, by wicked acts, yet now He reconciles."

Conciliation is a one-sided peace. God presently has conciliated the world to Himself and is not reckoning their offenses to them and entreats the world to be conciliated to Him. If the world was already reconciled to God then no entreaty would be necessary. Capish?

2 Corinthians 5:19-20 CLV  (19)  how that God was in Christ, conciliating the world to Himself,
not reckoning their offenses to them, and placing in us the word of the conciliation."
 (20)  For Christ, then, are we ambassadors, as of God entreating through us.
We are beseeching for Christ's sake, "Be conciliated to God!"

Tony

[Molly]

Yes, that surprised me when I saw it--that reconciliation is a two way street.   To take your separated married couple analogy a little further--it's like one wants to get back together again and the other doesn't.  Unless they both do, the reconciliation doesn't happen.

[Seth]

The all- all things -everything
     A question regarding Ephesians 1 and Colossians one
     It seems to me that the teaching of UR cannot depend primarily on intricate and dogmatic positions about translation. Correct translation is an important issue, but when responding to people who wonder how God could let the gospel be so obscured by incorrect translation I simply tell them that UR can be easily demonstrated from any English translation. Concerning, "the all" as opposed to "all things", (or, "everything" if you need a one word rendering) the simple logic is this……. "the all" is the composite whole of creation. "things" is not there, but substitute "everything" and you have a suitable English word, because "the all", visible and invisible, earthly and heavenly, is composed of "everything"
The composite whole is "everything"(or "all things") in it and all parts that it is made up of. Even as all the atoms and molecules in the man are the man and the man is all the atoms and molecules, as well as the spirit and soul, parts of the whole that are visible and invisible, on earth and in heaven. In our language there are differences from Greek language so looking at the contextual usage is important, for instance
       Mat 17:11  And He answered and said, "Elijah is coming and will restore "all things"
    Clearly Elijah does not restore all things, i.e. "the all". What does he restore?
"the hearts of the children to the fathers and the hearts of the fathers to the children and the crooked paths straight and the high places low and a way prepared for the Lord". So "the all" referred to here is a subset within the totality of everything,  a limited whole within the composite whole of creation.
       It seems to me it is more important to demonstrate from Colossians 1 that the "all things"( pas; the all, all, everything) to be reconciled is the same "all things"(pas-everything) that was created through Him, over which He is preeminent, of which is "every"(pas, same word) creature, etc. You can show in simple English that it is the complete whole of creation that is being compared in the use of "all things". Then demonstrating that it is impossible for this same "all things" or "everything"  to be "summed up" or "gathered together" into one in Christ, or, for 'God to be over all, in all, and through all' with any of it's parts/things/aspects burning in "hell" "forever".  If "some things" burn forever then "all things" can't be "gathered together as one in Christ" and reconciled.
     Then my position depends not on linguistics the average believer or seeker is not familiar with. It is there in simple English (and likewise in many other places). Then the translation door is opened as confirmation of simple contextual proofs, and the message is not left open for the proofs and debates of scholars over the languages of antiquity. I want to beware lest ofing seem too smug in having to "go to the Greek" at every point and make issues where none exist, both with people i agree with and even those i disagree with. Concerning this one issue tho,I  have over time attempted to examine every usage of "pas" - "all things" "everything" "all"(as well as "every" {like in "every" creature in Col 1:15 and "every man"(Rev 22:18), "everyone" that hears(Mk 4:4, "every" word that proceeds(Mk 7:7)}. "The all"(pas) refers to the totality of the subject set(men, words, creatures, etc) in each of those instances and many more. It occurs as a subset within the whole of creation very frequently. If there is some specific difference in the usage of "pas" in Colossians 1 and Ephesians 1 that is separate from the common usage in all those other places I have looked at…. I would like to be shown that, which is the question in my long winded statement. 

I guess everyone is different. I guess it really comes down to "being all things to all people." Talking about translation issues did much to resolve confusion at least for me. Other people might be unresponsive to that. Personally I believe that UR can be proved  through 1 Cor 15. But I wouldn't have accepted that without knowing how other scriptures reconciled with that. The Greek translation issues that I found on sites like Tentmaker and Bible-Truths.com helped me come to a deeper resolve that all the scriptures did agree on the issue of total salvation. But that's me, that is what I needed to see and the Lord knew that and made provision for it.

So I think it's good to know how UR can be proved in English too and that the Lord will guide as to who needs to see what and when to supplement that.

[WhiteWings]

Doesn't oil come from, partially or otherwise, dead dinosaurs from millions and billions of years ago?  Is that not remants of death? 

That's an old oligarch theory that has been challenged by many.  See, a limited supply of oil suits their purposes politically and economically, whereas science has actually been moving in the direction of a renewable and limitless supply of oil.  And, in any event, the problem isn't the lack of oil, it's the lack of refineries, which are easy to build, especially when you are throwing hundreds of billions of dollars around.

Plants for coal (and diamonds)
Oil come from diatoms: http://www.priweb.org/ed/pgws/systems/energy_capture/capture.html

But you are right Molly the oil theory is challanged.
Meteor impact for example. Speaking of meteors: Sodom and it's 4 siter cities where build on/near tar pits. The fire and brimstone could have been exploding tar pits or debris from a meteor.